Talk:Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 1

The draft
I think that maybe this page should mention the interpretation of the amendment that reads that it basically says you can&rsquo;t have drafts, since it says there will be no involuntary servitude, and if someone is forced to serve the army and did not volunteer to, then that sounds like it is involuntary servitude. -Aerothorn (talk • contribs) 22:48, March 14, 2004 (UTC).
 * Perhaps, however, I believe that the Supreme Court has ruled before that the amendment, as drafted, was meant only to abolish slavery as it existed then, and that the draft doesn&rsquo;t count based on the legislative intent. Congress has the power to raise an army and navy, and by extension, have a draft. -Ngchen (talk • contribs) 22:20, July 22, 2004 (UTC).

I don't buy it. Slavery existed then, and the draft (Lincoln's infamous draft) existed then. The plain language of the amendment prohibited all forms of involuntary servitude. The people who wrote such as this amendment were careful with their language: if they meant to exclude a military draft or any sort of governmental power, they would have explicitly done so.

Now, this raises the question of service in the militia in defense of the nation. That is an obligation of the citizen that extends far back to the shadowed beginnings of the Common Law, and probably beyond. It is embodied in the peculiar language of the 2nd Amendment. I see this not as involuntary servitude, but simple group self-preservation. Including periodic training (the 'well-regulated' part), which no state currently does. Indeed, only a few states even have a rudimentary militia command structure in place (though it's commendable that those few do). No states have anything approximating a 'well-regulated militia'.

Very loosely paraphrasing one of Jefferson's letters, "If we can't raise enough volunteers to save this nation, then it's not worth saving."

So, in the end, Amendment XIII stands, prohibiting involuntary servitude, and making no exception for the federal government. Four-corners Rule. Black-letter Law Rule. Weasel-words aside, there it stands.

You want a draft? Get a constitutional amendment. We don't do slave armies here. — —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.233.58.77 (talk • contribs) 08:03, September 30, 2006 (UTC).
 * Well you'd have to hope a more 'enlightened' supreme court agrees with you. Nil Einne 10:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But of course, if it's in the interests of the State, then constitutional law doesn't apply. Lincoln did start up a draft (shortly followed by Davis since the Confederacy couldn't otherwise compete with the Lincoln administration's brand spankin' new highly centralized federal power), as well as instate many of the statist economic policies that blew open the door for the bureaucratization of the federal government in the 20th century.    Lincoln also did to his civilian opponents in the North what the Bush administration could only dream of getting away with today; in short Lincoln was clearly no fan of the Constitution (and an inspiration for socialists everywhere).  But as the 13th Amendment is clearly phrased to forbid all involuntary servitude that is not punishment for a crime, compelled military service seems to fit this quite clearly.  The Supreme Court simply interpreted the draft out of the amendment to keep the government's time-honored tradition of violating individual rights in a way that no private citizen would be able to get away with.


 * As for the 2nd Amendment, a militia (especially a well-regulated one) is only effective in the preservation of a Free State if it's a nongovernmental citizens' militia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.44.104.206 (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

List of ratifications
I think the list of ratifications would work much better as a table. If someone has the time to do that, it would be a great help. – Mateo SA | talk 06:56, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

How did Virginia ratify in Feb. '65, when it was still under CSA control? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.52.129.58 (talk • contribs) 02:34, October 12, 2006 (UTC).

Regarding the comments of 71.52.129.58, there is an interesting story here. Why, after fighting a war explicitly to keep slavery ( in their own words ) did Georgia and other slave states ratify this amendment? 70.17.92.51 17:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Although all the States which had walked out of Congress and seceded were occupied under martial law for many years, the Union held "elections" in each Southern State that installed pro-Union governments. These "puppet governments" were created by "elections" in which all Confederate sympathizers (especially officeholders and soldiers) were banned from standing for election. In many places, relatives (including wives) of Confederate officials and soldiers, as well as the aforementioned "sympathizers", were not allowed to vote. These pro-Union State governments were those that ratified the post-War amendments. Re-admission to the Union (euphemistically called "re-seating of their Congressional delegations) was predicated on ratifying the 14th and 15th amendments.
 * I cannot find a way to edit this Wikipedia article, so I hope that one of those who have the authority to do so will eventually correct this page.Tglacour (talk) 17:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "[R]elatives (including wives) of Confederate officials and soldiers...were not allowed to vote." Women did not acquire the right to vote in the U.S. until the adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920. Dodiad (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Titles of Nobility Amendment
Can anyone verify this section on the "Titles of Nobility Amendment?" It doesn't seem like it belongs...:
 * Titles of Nobility Amendment &mdash; Alleged by some to be the "the missing thirteenth amendment"

The 13th amendment did not abolish slavery as we have been told. It simply redefined the premise under which slavery continues even today. If the goal were to abolish slavery there would not have been an "exemption". "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..." The plantation was being transformed into the Prison Industrial Complex, under the auspices of liberation.

—The preceding unsigned comment (i.e., the question quoting the "prison slave complex" section and questioning whether it was appropriate) was added by Pshopboy (talk • contribs) 14:58, April 5, 2006 (UTC).

So what you are saying is we the people should pay for all these people in jail convicted of crimes and they should just get a nice long vacation of free meals and beds with minimal effort. I think the EXCEPTION is very important. People today already are annoyed with the idea that we both suffer the consequence of the crimes these people commit and then use our tax money to feed and house them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.1.35.250 (talk) 05:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted quote
I deleted the following section from this article: ==Quote== "I guess it was overdue, but I don't think it's a big deal."
 * --Jeff Smith (R), Mississippi State Representative, on Mississippi's 1995 ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment. The Harvard Crimson, March 17, 1995.

The link cited above (as [1]) was the only source I could find for this quote. The link does not link to the Harvard Crimson, but to the web site for another magazine, Perspective ("Harvard-Radcliffe's Liberal Monthly"), which lists the quote almost exactly as it is here; i.e., Persepective says the quote appeared in the March 17, 1995, issue of the Crimson. However, I searched the Crimson ' s database (at http://www.thecrimson.com/) and could not find the article containing the quote. Furthermore, according to the Mississippi Legislature's web site, there is a Mississippi State Representative named Jeff Smith (full name Jeffery C. Smith; his web page is here) who has served since 1992, but he is a Democrat, not a Republican as indicated in the quote. I consequently doubt the authenticity of the quote; I don't think it should be included unless another authoritative source is found. &mdash; Mateo SA | talk 03:54, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Mississippi
I don't want to appear too obtuse, but is it really the case that slavery was legal in Mississippi until 1995? Adambisset 02:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Amendments only require two-thirds three-fourths of the states to ratify them in order to go into effect. Slavery was already banned by the 13th amendment in Mississippi, so ratifiying it was more of a political gesture than anything meaningful. --HunterX 04:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Expansion on the above response: The 13th Amend. was proposed by Congress on January 31, 1865. At that point it was only a proposal and had no legal effect. The states then started ratifying it. When the number of ratifications equaled 3/4 of the states (on December 6, 1865, when the amend. was ratified by Georgia), the amendment took effect and abolished slavery throughout the U.S., including in those states that hadn't ratified it yet. The ratifications after December 6, 1865 were technically unnecessary, and didn't affect the amendment's validity one way or the other. — Mateo SA | talk 04:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks folks Adambisset 17:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Authorship
I edited the sentence crediting Abraham Lincoln with authoring the Thirteenth Amendment. While a strong supporter, he was not the author. Lincoln's secretaries, John G. Nicolay and John Hay, credit U.S. Senator from Illinois Lyman Trumbull (then chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee) as the author in a Century Magazine article from October, 1889, which may be viewed here. Trumbull himself credited the Committee as a whole, and supported the draft of the Amendment that was eventually adopted against two competing drafts, as may be seen here. — Edeans 20:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Apologies
While citing a reference for U.S. v. Ingalls the security measures here and at the server had some software conflict so there are several saves that inadvertantly deleted the bottom of ther article. It has been repaired. Malangthon 21:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Definitions and Enforcement sections
Have added additional information explaining both the provisions and the legal rationale for the various sections of the U.S.C. addressing the 13th Amendment. Malangthon 23:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Given that this article is to explain the Congress of the US, it is probably the case that how their legislation is justified and enforced will eventually need to be set off in a separate linked article. For now, this looks like it is small enough to be contained here. Malangthon 23:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

From various sources, I have read that the 1860 census showed there were between 14 and 18 slaves in New Jersey (basically those too old to be freed by the 1845 general emancipation). It isn't known how many were still alive in Dec, 1865, but any that were were also freed by the 13th amendment. 71.127.210.254 03:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The article presently states, "At the time of its ratification, slavery remained legal only in Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, and New Jersey." This is inaccurate.

Slavery was ended in MD by adoption of the 1864 Constitution, which went into effect on November 1 of that year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_Constitution_of_1864

Slavery was legally ended in MO by executive proclamation of the governor on January 11, 1865. http://www.sos.mo.gov/archives/resources/civilwar/2.asp

I suggest the references to slavery being legal in MO and MD when the amendment was ratified on December 6, 1865 be deleted as inaccurate. Dogsark (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted but some merit
This was deleted from the article--it should have been placed here: "This particular amendment implies the continuation of a system of slavery. The only difference is that it is characterized by governmental consent. If one reads closely, it says except as a punishment for a crime, meaning that slavery is abolished unlessit serves as condign restitution for the criminal's infraction. The sole means of restitution for a criminal is jail and/or prison, meaning that the prison system is integrally a slave system, and the United States harboring almost 2 million of these so-called slaves. Such an important implication should be noted and deserves greater salience."

It can be developed but in a different voice with references. Malangthon 04:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Revert
This was deleted

"Prior to 1988, inflicting involuntary servitude through psychologically coercive means was included in the interpretation of the 13th Amendment. In 1988 the 6th District Court of Appeals ruled that compulsion of servitude through psychological coercion is not prohibited by the 13th Amendment. [4][5] Psychological coercion had been the primary means of forcing involuntary servitude in the case of Elizabeth Ingalls upon Dora Jones.[6] In U.S. v. Kozminski this was circumscribed to mean only physical coercion.[7] However, the 6th District Court of Appeal held that there are exceptions.[8] The court decision circumscribed involuntary servitude to be limited to those situations when the master subjects the servant to . . ."

The rewrite: In 1988 the Supreme Court held that compulsion of servitude through psychological coercion, as distinguished from the use or threat of use of force, is not prohibited by the 13th Amendment. The Court limited involuntary servitude to those situations when the master subjects the servant to. ..

1. Was factually incorrect--it was not the Supreme Court by the 6th District Court 2. Negates crucial aspects of the 13th Amendment--this is a major change in interpretation, a negation, and not a additional perspective which the rewrite implies. 3. It provides a better basis in understanding

If the rewriter, Amcfreely, disagrees, let's discuss it here. Malangthon 05:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals as there is no Sixth District Court of Appeals. In any case, why include a Sixth Circuit opinion, when the Supreme Court has spoken on this point? Esorlem 21:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I found the following item to be unusual
The Amendment's archival copy had a Presidential signature, something not found on other Constitutional amendments' copies. (see here) Usually, the Speaker of the House and the president pro tempore of the Senate sign an amendment's archival copy, and sometimes the clerks or secretaries of the Congressional houses as well, but the "Abraham Lincoln" on the 13th was pretty unusual. &mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 18:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Missing 13th Amendment
Apparently there was another 13th amendment before the present one, though there is debate as to whether is was ever fully ratified. Read about it here: Tvh2k 15:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Pro-"Missing 13th"
 * Against "Missing 13th"


 * This is already referred to under the See also section: read the article Titles of Nobility Amendment. (And, no, there is no serious debate: the that "Missing 13th Amendment" was never fully ratified.) — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 15:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, you are saying that it was fully ratified. Is that correct?  Here's the text of the amendment Tvh2k is speaking of: "If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."


 * —Slipgrid 01:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I am saying the Titles of Nobility Amendment (TONA) was never ratified by the required number of states. It is not, and never has been, part of the U.S. Constitution. In the 19th Century, some people mistakenly thought the amendment had been fully ratified—and it was even included in some states' official compilations of statutes—but it is well settled now that it never was. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 02:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Jury Duty is a violation of the 13th Amendment
13th Amendment states, "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."

Jury Duty violates this. First it is involuntary servitude. Second, they pay less than minimum wage and often less than the cost of transportation so it is also slavery.


 * Jury duty is generally interpreted as a civic responsibility, not involuntary servitude. The only people I have ever seen arguing that jury duty is involuntary servitude are libertarians. (Many of the same people argue that compulsory school attendance is also involuntary servitude.) Jhobson1 21:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Notable here????? Juanita Hodges 03:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, and please find me a federal court decision that states that? Sounds like Original Research to me, considering the right to trial by jury is also constitutionally guaranteed. &rArr;    SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  14:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of stuff on the Internet. This one http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6546 claims "This article appeared in the Baltimore Examiner on July 24, 2006." --Juanita Hodges 15:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc." — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 16:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this case it noteworthy for the article. I don't want to add it in myself as the article looks written very tightly and I fear I may mess up the article somehow. Juanita Hodges 16:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Nothing in the US Constitution says citizens owe the government anything. Trentc (talk) 07:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Since there hasn't been much talk, I figure I'd mention in the case Swatjester mentioned that the government forced a person to do roadwork as a tax, but it gave him the option to pay money to get out of it, and to my knowledge you can't pay any amount of money to get out of jury duty or hire someone to take your place (or am I wrong?). Also the court case mentioned military service and when drafted, they at least pay you a living wage whereas jury duty pays less than minimum wage and sometimes so little that transportation costs more than what they pay. I'm not going to add it in there, but if it convinces someone here then I have a point, else I don't. Juanita Hodges 23:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The most interesting thing about the 13th is that it apparently goes against the 5th amendment. I'm no fan of slavery, but the final section of the 5th amendment states that the government can't interfere with private property without providing "just compensation." The Southern slave owners certainly weren't offered "just compensation." The most common argument would, of course, be that slavery itself was un-Constitutional, but it is also un-Constitutional (against Article 1, Sections 9 and 10) to put a law in places ex post facto and use it as a case against someone. At the time they were owning slaves, it was legal, therefore slave owners could have demanded their Constitutional right to just compensation be upheld. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ascheff (talk • contribs) 23:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well that may be because the Thirteenth Amendment is an amendment - that is, it supersedes whatever existed before it. See Thomas E. Baker, Towards a "More Perfect Union": Some Thoughts on Amending the Constitution, Widener Journal of Public Law (2000), Vol. 10, No. 1, explaining that there can be no such thing as an "unconstitutional" amendment, because the amendment constitutes the agreement of a constitutionally mandated number of states to change what is constitutional and unconstitutional. Cheers! bd2412  T 01:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It wasn't clear whether the Thirteenth Amendment superseded the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, or was a gigantic and unique form of eminent domain. The dispute was resolved by Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment (no compensation). --SMP0328. (talk) 00:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * But just adding this Amendment did not cancel the 5th Amendment. I would say those slave owners have a valid claim for 5th Amendment violation. Since the 13th Amendment says no debt, fine...return the property. Trentc (talk) 07:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

New Jersey
Why does it say New Jersey was one of the last states to still have slavery when it had abolished it by 1846? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.6.53.84 (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * At the start of the Civil War, New Jersey had 18 slaves. New Jersey abolished slavery in 1846, but allowed then-current slaveholders keep the slaves they had at the time of the abolition. --SMP0328. (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"Except as punishment for crime"
So what if, for example, a government convicted large numbers of people for crimes and decided that the appropriate punishment was slavery? Could this be discussed in the article? This "except" clause seems a rather glaring thing! Ingolfson (talk) 07:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

People in jail are forced to do work. And it is perfectly fine with me. They deserve to do the work for both making me pay taxes to feed and house them, and for having to suffer the consequences of their crimes. Most prisoners help to make your license plates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.1.35.250 (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

That applies only when at the time of the crime, a law has already been passed that says someone convicted of that crime can be sentenced to labor. It's not what the government or the court decides after the crime that makes it permissible for that to be the sentence. It's what the legislature decides before the crime. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Second paragraph
The second paragraph is meant to imply the neo-Secesh LIE first promulgated in the film Gods and Generals: that the North supported slavery while the South was more progressive. From a deep racist POV, the article raises the issue of state laws that hadn't been amended and that were invalidated by the amended Constitution as soon as the 13th Amendment was passed.

This is neo secessionist propaganda spread by agents of the Southern auto-didact and pornographer Jimmy Wales, agents who have no subject matter knowledge and who use Gestapo tactics on people who correct their errors.

Edward G. Nilges —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.46.94 (talk) 08:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Dude, seriously? I am absolutely no fan of Confederate mythmaking, but the second paragraph is true. Slavery had been banned by the Emancipation Proclamation in most of the seceded south well before the 13th amendment passed, as the article states. The only remaining areas where slavery was legal was in a few border states (i.e. southern states that did not join the Confederacy.) --Jfruh (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Wasn't the Emancipation Proclamation supposed to be merely a wartime measure; meaning when the Civil War ended, it ended? In that case, the Thirteenth Amendment would have been needed to abolish slavery even in the States which were covered by the Emancipation Proclamation. SMP0328. (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * From the EP article: "abolitionists were concerned that the Emancipation Proclamation would be construed solely as a war act and no longer apply once fighting ended." It appears that the situation was ambiguous; the key, I suppose, would be to see if ex-Confederate states attempted to re-erect slavery as a legal status, which I don't see any indication of such happening.  (It's fairly clear the individual specific slaves could not be re-enslaved, as the EP says "...and shall be forever free of their servitude, and not again held as slaves.")


 * There's other material in the EP article that could be used to flesh out this one. For instance, the EP also did not apply to West Virginia, Tennessee, Missouri, or the part Louisiana around New Orleans and along the Gulf coast.  None of those regions are mentioned in this article, and it would be worthwhile to do some research to see if they should be included on the list.  In the meantime, I'll rewrite the second 'graph a bit with material from the EP page. --Jfruh (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (February 4, 2009) There is an inconsistency of which three states still had slavery when the 13th Amendment was ratified. In the intro, it states "At the time of its ratification, slavery remained legal only in Delaware, Kentucky and Missouri."  But under the "Proposal and ratification" section, Missouri was one of the states that ratified it on "February 6, 1865".  But Mississippi had rejected ratification by stating "Mississippi (March 16, 1995, after having rejected it on December 5, 1865)".  Should the intro be changed to "Delaware, Kentucky, and Mississippi"?**  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.101.95 (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not an inconsistency. Slavery in Mississippi had already been made illegal through the Emancipation Proclamation.  The fact that Mississippi did not ratify the 13th Amendment is a separate issue.  The state legislature of each state in the union -- whether or not slavery was legal in that state -- voted on whether or not to ratify the 13th Amendment; once it was ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures, slavery was banned nationally.  --Jfruh (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

New Jersey?
That today is Juneteenth became an occasion for me to think of this topic and look at this page, and I find it saying that just before the 13th Amendment,


 * In New Jersey, former slaves born before 1804 could still legally be held as "apprentices,"

I had long thought that the four slave-holding states that did not secede were Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware, so the inclusion of New Jersey surprised me. The article says that the only states where slavery was still legal when the 13th Amendment was adopted were Missouri, Kentucky, and Delaware. The conspicuous omission of Maryland from that list suggested that Maryland must have just abolished slavery shortly before that, either just after the war or maybe in its last weeks. Then the mention of New Jersey appeared to suggest that they had done the same except for those born before 1804, and I wondered why I had never heard that New Jersey was at that time a slave-holding. But then I remembered how grandfather clauses in laws often work: maybe it was not in the aftermath of the Civil War, but rather in 1804, that the New Jersey legislature passed a law that abolished slavery for all persons born after that date, but kept those who were already slaves in that condition, or at least as nominal "apprentices" who were in effect slaves. By 1860 there might have been very few such "apprentices" left, and that whole situation would explain why people didn't include New Jersey in lists of slave-holding states. Is that what happened? If so, an explicit statement to that effect at that point in the article would dispel such confusions as what I just described. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have removed the reference to New Jersey and other States that had slaves at the time of the Thirteenth Amendment's adoption. I removed this from the Introduction:
 * "At the time of its ratification, slavery remained legal only in Delaware, Kentucky, and Missouri. In New Jersey, former slaves born before 1804 could still legally be held as 'apprentices,' a condition essentially equivalent to slavery; former border slave state Maryland had banned slavery in the constitution it had passed the previous year. Everywhere else in the United States slaves had been freed by state action or Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation."
 * I removed this from the History section:
 * "Approximately 40,000 slaves remaining in Kentucky were freed by the Thirteenth Amendment."
 * The Introduction material was inappropriate, because it is not referred to in the body of the article (Introduction is a short summary of what's in the body). As for the History material, it is unsourced (note the cite tag). Until reliable sourcing is provided, neither set of material belongs in the article. SMP0328. (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Deleted but some merit
Funny. That's how I've been interpreting this amendment since the day I first read it in junior high school. That was what... almost two decades ago? The way I understand this, Lincoln's amendment intimates that a prisoner's sentance can be bought from/sold to interested private citizens to/from the state/U.S. government. It'd certainly cut down on the prison overcrowding issue we have today, wouldn't it? Personally, I'm all for it. There are just some cases where putting a criminal in prison serves no purpose, and possibly does a disservice all the way around. As far as I'm concerned, losing your freedoms is a fair punishment for abusing freedoms. Locking some people away for the rest of their lives is a waste of space and human life.


 * You mean like people exerting their freedom by smoking some plant or use some chemical concoction? Trentc (talk) 07:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Why would former Confederate States have ratified it?
This article says that states like Florida and South Carolina ratified the Amendment while the page on the Confederacy says both of those states joined the Confederacy. Why would states that fought for slavery ratify an Amendment abolishing slavery shortly afterwards? Web wonder (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Basically, ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment was seen as a condition of surrender. SMP0328. (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Moreover, those who had rebelled against the United States were stripped of their right to vote or serve in the state legislatures, meaning that the post-war legislatures were dominated by people who had political views very different from the defeated secessionists. bd2412  T 00:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotection review

 * 16:15, 15 September 2007 Swatjester protected Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution ‎(vandalism [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

This article has been semiprotected continuously since the above sysop action. As it's been a couple of years I'd like to see if it's still necessary. As well as welcoming opinions from regular editors, I've contacted the protecting sysop. --TS 18:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering how much Vandalism takes place on other Constitutional amendment articles, I'd like to see all such articles indefinitely semi-protected. SMP0328. (talk) 03:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That may be a viable proposal. If you identify heavy ongoing vandalism on any article, go to Requests for page protection (WP:RFPP) and make a request for semiprotection, or just ask any uninvolved admin to do it. --TS 03:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made such requests in the past, but none have granted for this length of time. This article appears to be permanently semi-protected. SMP0328. (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Tony I don't remember if you're an admin or not, but feel free to remove it if you want. I don't have any real objection to removing the semiprotect, other than that saying in general Constitution articles get hit fairly hard and I think it would likely be a short lived removal. I think the article has been in a good state of edit stability since December and hopefully it will stay that way with no protection. &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  04:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've compared it with the Fourteenth Amendment article. Although there is a little IP vandalism there there are many quite valid IP edits, especially in copy editing. For this reason I'll ask on WP:RFPP and if the admin who fields that request agrees to unprotect we can go ahead and see what happens, --TS 05:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Unprotected; let's give this a go! :) Master of Puppets  - Call me MoP! :D  05:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * On my watchlist, it says that the article was unprotected and then reprotected twelve minutes later. Is the article semi-protected or not? SMP0328. (talk) 05:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Master of Puppets accidentally removed move protection and then restored it. It can be edited by everybody but only autoconfirmed users can move it. --TS 05:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Involuntary Servitude Definition
In the article Roe v. Wade it states that the Supreme Court said:

"When women are compelled to carry and bear children, they are subjected to 'involuntary servitude' in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment….[E]ven if the woman has stipulated to have consented to the risk of pregnancy, that does not permit the state to force her to remain pregnant."

But the article doesn't include anything to suggest the amendment can be interpreted that way. Should it be in there? --71.220.178.50 (talk) 04:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite interesting. In fact, the discussion on the issue of the definition doesn't fit well with the article & was probably changed to many times to be of any use. In fact, if the writer were serious, he/she would have to refer to prison labour as "involuntary servitude" because that is exactly what Congress had in mind, as that is what began in 1866 with the Chain Gangs and prison convict leasing system. The 2009 Pulitzer Prize in Non-Fiction was awarded to Douglas Blackmon for "Slavery by Another Name" in which he documents this. He is a writer for the Wall Street Journal.

Corwin Amendment
That is a reputable source & one asks why that isn't there.

In regard to the changes made: The Corwin Amendment or Proposed 13th Amendment was voted on by both Houses of Congress & signed by President Buchanan, submitted by Lincoln to the states & ratified by three. None of this information was there. I added that information along w/ the sources.

Note: Despite the vandalism attempts recently against articles on slavery, my adjustment is well documented. Please consider that before attempting a re-do or edit. Ebanony (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have cleaned up the material you added, but the substance of it is still there. BTW, the Corwin Amendment was submitted to the States by the Congress, not Lincoln. He simply referred to it in his first inaugural address. Thanks for contributions. SMP0328. (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the spelling & adjustments. My computer is not in English... Regarding the amendment, Lincoln submitted it to the states; here's a link: http://www.lib.niu.edu/2006/ih060934.html There're others available & Lincoln signed to transmittal copy. This isn't well known though. Thanks for the edits.Ebanony (talk) 04:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * When you said "original ratified 13th constitutional amendment", were you referring to the Corwin Amendment or the Titles of Nobility Amendment (neither of which received the ratifications of three-fourths of the States)? Also, what do you mean by "Lincolngate"? SMP0328. (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Also the many reputable sources of the original ratified 13th constitutional amendment are missing from this discussion. There are too many sources from various forms of government to ignore this part of "Lincolngate". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.150.171.225 (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

First to empower Congress
Should it be mentioned somewhere that this is the first amendment to empower the Federal Government while all previous amendments either constrained the Federal Government or in the case of Amendment 12 corrected a government procedure? I had this one professor who hates the 13th Amendment simply because it is the first one to read "Congress shall" rather than "Congress shall not." Emperor001 (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ratification of original 13th Amendment
Appears that ratification by the required 13 states is a matter of dispute. The article states the original 13th Amendment was not ratified by 13 states. Since this has become a matter of present day politics, might be worth including something about the controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.236.13 (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Iowa Republicans want the TONA to be adopted. They are not claiming that it has been adopted. SMP0328. (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Ratification History
This article could use more elaboration. I don't understand how the amendment could have been ratified by so many southern states in the immediate aftermath of the civil war. Greg Comlish (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The amendment basically was a term of surrender. SMP0328. (talk) 00:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But this page gives ratification dates for states that had not yet surrendered. Emperor001 (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * http://13thamendment.harpweek.com/HubPages/CommentaryPage.asp?Commentary=05Results This link gave me my answer. VA had a pro-Union government that established itself in Alexandria (I guess like how Kentucky had a Pro-Confederate government establish itself). Emperor001 (talk) 01:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Virginia
Okay, how did Virginia ratify this Amendment in February of 1865 when Richmond did not fall and General Lee did not surrender for another 2 monthes. Emperor001 (talk) 23:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Protection status
I noticed the fluctuation in this article's protection status. Am I correct in believing the article is to be semi-protected for two years? SMP0328. (talk) 00:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've just noticed the recent change, and I'm also worried about this page. Seems it gets far too many changes. Might be related to the ridiculous amount of editing, but I'm unsure. If the bloke who made the recent changes could explain what's going on, that would help other editors know what to expect. SMP raises a good question too. Ebanony (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Explanation: The "fluctuation" resulted from editing conflicts between two administrators, me and Courcelles. We both semi-protected the article at the same time, with different protection periods. That has now been sorted out.

This article is semi-protected indefinitely. Nearly every anonymous edit for the past year has had to be reverted. Such disruption doesn't help improving this article. Therefore, now only established editors can edit it.

New accounts and anonymous IP addresses cannot edit this article, but they are free to request edits by posting an editsemiprotected tag and explaining the desired edit. Any established editor can make the requested edit if it's reasonable. No administrator intervention is required.

If, after some time passes, the editors here feel that the article can be safely unprotected, post a request at WP:RFPP. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I concur completely. There was far too much interference with this article. I'm of the opinion this should be the case with all articles. Anyway, thanks for the level of protection & the message. Ebanony (talk) 07:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying the situation Amatulić. I wouldn't do this for all articles (there are many anons who are good editors), but I would do this for most of the Constitution-related articles. Vandalism with them is as rampant as it was with this article. BTW, I removed the expiration date from the hidden protection tag on account of the SP being indefinite. SMP0328. (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Please fix: approved by House on Jan. 31, 1865 (not Jan. 21)
See Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.203.22 (talk) 02:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This is correct. Please change "January 21" to "January 31" in two places in this article. Atlas1211 (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Corrections made. SMP0328. (talk) 04:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done by SMP0328. Thanks, Stickee (talk)  08:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify
So is prison labor a legally acceptable form of "slave-labor"? This text seems to indicate slavery remains a potential legal punishment for any of the offenses listed under 'ways to obtain free labor'?

I just live in the south, and whenever city employees refer to picking up prisoners for work(labor) they say they're "going to get some boys" in an accent reminiscent of an earlier period of American history.MBJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.219.99 (talk) 23:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The Thirteenth Amendment's exception for crimes is regarding "involuntary servitude", not slavery. Prison labor and "community service" are not forms of slavery, because the government does not own any prisoner and each prisoner still has rights. SMP0328. (talk) 05:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes it refers to involuntary servitude, but this is a form of slavery. Servitude means service or work & involuntary means the person has no choice. The difference between it and chattel is that a person is not sold; he or she can be leased or forced/compelled to work against his/her will - and that is slave labour by definition, and this has been condemned by human rights organisations. The prison chain gangs from 1866 and the convict leasing system were a brutal form of it; these practices continue today in certain US states, like California and Oregon, and are clear human rights violations. So this 13th Amendment prohibits the buying and selling of people, but it doesn't prohibit forced labour ie it doesn't outlaw slave labour.Ebanony (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2010 UTC


 * Let me add, this has nothing to do with community service, and it never did. US prison slave labour was a major contribution to the industrial revolution, and its continuing practice has workers not simply cleaning their own rooms, cooking meals, or something like that (which few would argue against), but literally doing work for corporations, as in manufacturing goods like jeans and other goods that those companies sell for a profit, and those prisoners do not have a choice. They get punished if they refuse to work, and they cannot form unions or have any form of worker protection. By the way, in the original 13th Amendment - the one Lincoln supported to make slavery permanent in the US uses similar language:


 * "no amendment shall be made to the Constitution, which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish, or interfere within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." - emphasis added


 * Notice they didn't use the term slavery; they always tried to avoid it. But labour and service are clear in their meanings, and this amendment was ratified by several states and would have protected slavery as a constitutional right; terminology is important here.Ebanony (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, its legal, but that does not mean it is moral or just at all. I was imprisoned in the United States on a false conviction and won my appeal and the conviction thrown out. I was innocent and maintained my innocence from day one. As far as I'm concerned, for two years, I was a slave. The shackles, the master lock padlocks holding your hands, the forced labor, the bondage, the torture due to poor nutrition, noise, sensory deprivation from austere living conditions and overcrowding... its still slavery irregardless of the excuse used by the slaver. Every slaver from the beginning of time has come up with some just reason to hold people in slavery, ostensibly 'for the good and protection of society and the slave themselves'. The law does this song and dance, where it says holding people in bondage and slavery is outlawed, except its ok for us to do it. It's the same for murder - we outlaw anyone else to kill anyone, but we the state can murder, or murder wholesale simply through a declaration of war to protect our own existence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.11.248 (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

This Should Be a Link (Highlighted in Blue)
Under the heading of "Interpretation--Involuntary servitude" where the reference to "United States vz. Kozminski" comes up this should PROBABLY be its own Wikipedia Article and I found plenty of info on it at http://supreme.justia.com/us/487/931/case.html including a thing where O'Connor was a justice involved in this matter! Thank-You!!! LES Lesbrown99 (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to create a Kozminski article, then wikilinking that case in this article would be appropriate... and blue. SMP0328. (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Invalid links
Citations 20 and 21 have invalid links. I propose the following sources: I don't have enough edits to edit this semi-protected page. Bigpinksocks (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * For 20 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000241000-.html
 * For 21 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000242000-.html
 * Nice catch. Footnote 19 was also a dead link. I put new citations in those footnotes. SMP0328. (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Virginia's Ratification
I note that Virginia's ratification is listed as February 1865. This is a curious fact since the Civil War was still raging with the Confederate government and the Virginia state government still ensconced at Richmond, long before any "readmission" of Virginia under Reconstruction. This ratification must have been by the rump Union state of Virginia based in Alexandria under Governor Pierpont. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.172.225 (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Text in article
Why isn't the 13th amendment actually written here as it should be? Isn't that kind of a no-brainer? There is plenty of discussion and interpretation written here, but I don't see the thing itself actually written here. Why don't you let me read it and interpret it for myself? I don't need some blowhard, control freak telling me what the words before me say. I can read it for myself; or I could if it was actually here. 74.195.115.175 (talk) 05:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is written in the article. SMP0328. (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 October 2012
In the section: President Lincoln and other Republicans were concerned that the Emancipation Proclamation, which in 1863 declared the freedom of slaves in ten Confederate states then in rebellion, would be seen as a temporary war measure, since it was solely based on Lincoln's war powers. The Proclamation did not free any slaves in the border states nor itself make slavery illegal.

The phrase "in rebellion" is not correct. The southern States were attempting to secede from the partnership with the northern States. It should be "in secession". A rebellion is the attempt or intention to overthrow the government. There was not only no attempt by the Confederate States of America to overthrow the United States, but rather the expectation that the two nations could co-exist and do business as two separate countries.

Pchdavis (talk) 22:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The term is part of the emancipation proclamation. Celestra (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction
The section says that there have no prosecutions since 1947 then immediately talks about a case that was prosecuted after 1947. Roadrunner (talk) 08:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed the contradiction tag. Those later cases involve interpretations of the amendment, not prosecutions for violating it. SMP0328. (talk) 04:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Ratification by Virginia
How did Virginia ratify this Amendment before the surrender at Appomattox? I don't understand. Wfoj2 (talk) 00:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Remember that the United States never recognized any of the secessions ("once a State, always a State") and so Virginia was still eligible to ratify. SMP0328. (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The organization that would become the government of West Virginia did not recognize the Richmond gov't, called itself the true gov't of Virginia, and acted as if they were still a Union state. 174.49.228.224 (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * there are three separate governments here, and the last two ratified the 13th: the (Confederate) state of Virginia (based in Richmond) did not ratify--it was still at war with the US. West Virginia (represented in Congress) did ratify. and there was another Virginia government (based in Alexandria VA) that was represented in Congress and did ratify (it was not the same as West Virginia and was called Restored Government of Virginia). Rjensen (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Not "adopted" but "ratified"
In American federal constitutional law, amendments to the US Constitution are not "adopted" - they are "ratified". The term "adopted" simply is not used and has no legal signficance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.62.103 (talk) 06:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The Congress proposes an amendment, the States ratify. If both occur regarding a proposed amendment, that amendment is adopted and becomes part of the Constitution. SMP0328. (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Crimes
So, does that mean that people can be sentenced to slavery if they committed crime(s)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.139.74.94 (talk) 01:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of a case dealing with this issue, but I don't think so. The crime exception is customarily considered only to apply to the amendment's prohibition on involuntary servitude. SMP0328. (talk) 01:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * no it means that no one can ever be placed in slavery by anyone, but a person can be put into involuntary servitude by a court (which may sentence a criminal to hard labor). Rjensen (talk) 02:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 January 2013
Please add the following information regarding U S prosecutions on violations of the Thirteenth Amendment. In 1990, the U.S. Government indicted a Ventura County flower grower, Edwin M. Ives, on slavery charges. In a plea bargain, Ives plead guilty to violating federal labor laws on May 15, 1992, and agreed to pay his farm workers $1,500,000 in monetary restitution. (L A Times, July 30, 1990; L A Times, May 16, 1992)

Daniel Draney (talk) 02:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you provide external links to the article you cite? SMP0328. (talk) 06:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Coming across this request, I didn't find the articles cited above but here are a bunch of articles on this incident, , , .--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. This is about the amendment itself isn't it? Do we really need this example?  Vacation nine 14:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Only 33 of 36 states ratified it?
Is my math off? The article says there were 36 states at the time of the amendment, but accounts for only 33 states. What's missing? Aristophanes 68  (talk)  21:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In the article's Proposal and ratification section, all of the then-36 States are mentioned. In what part of the article do you see only 33 being mentioned? SMP0328. (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. That section describes adoption of the amendment after 27 states had ratified, and goes on to list further ratification after adoption, but for some reason only some of them and not the complete list at the end of the article. It talks about Florida, New Jersey, Texas, Delaware, Kentucky, and Mississippi, which brings the number to 33. For some reason, the concurrent ratifications by Oregon, California, and Iowa are not mentioned in that section. It certainly gives the impression of ratification by only 33, and not 36 states. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Update to Map Information
The map should be updated to include the accurate information about the ratification of the amendment by the state of Mississippi. The amendment was technically ratified in 1995 by the MS legislature. However, due to clerical errors at the MS Secretary of State's Office the bill ratifying the amendment was never made official. The state officially ratified the amendment on February 7, 2013 after the current Secretary of State corrected the error and reported the ratification to the Office of the Federal Register. Supporting evidence for this is located at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/18/mississippi-13th-amendment_n_2712289.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.166.41 (talk) 05:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A State officially ratifies a proposed amendment when a resolution to that effect is passed by that State's legislature. The executive branch of the federal government has no official or required role in the amendment process. See Article Five of the United States Constitution and Hollingsworth v. Virginia. SMP0328. (talk) 01:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Going for Good Article status
Over the next month or two, I'm hoping to bring this article to Good Article status; I think it's probably close to meeting the criteria already. It'll probably be a few weeks still before I try to do any serious additions or rewriting (I have some research to do first), but I thought I'd go ahead and ask now: does anybody have any suggestions or input? -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Mississippi Ratification Not Official Until 2013
I think the section about ratification should note somewhere that the Mississippi ratification wasn't actually official until 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Screamingpope (talk • contribs) 16:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Worrying about when it was "official" or not is pointless because the amendment as a whole was already ratified in 1865. What is clear is that the state legislature's ratification indisputably happened in 1995, and said ratification was indisputably forwarded to the federal government in 2013.  That's what the article says, and that's what it's best left at.  Whether the state's ratification counted as "official" in 1995 or in 2013 is theorycraft.  (And the answer is obvious anyway: "Yes."  By one standard of 'officialness', it was in 1995, and by another standard, it was 2013.) SnowFire (talk) 16:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

A few proposals for GA status
I'm hoping to start some rewriting today in taking this to GA status. Here's a few things I'd like to work on:

1. Reorganizing a bit to put events in chronological order/avoid redundancy. I'd like to break up the History section into something like Background, Proposal, Ratification, and Effects. The current "Earlier proposed 13th amendments" section could be merged into the "background" section, and the list and chart of the "Ratification" section could be merged here.
 * ✅ -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

2. I'd like to expand the "Proposal" section a bit to explain Lincoln's thinking in proposing the amendment and describe more of the machinations of his administration in getting it through Congress.
 * ✅ -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

3. Under "Effects", I'd like to expand a bit more from researchers like Douglas Blackmon's Slavery By Another Name.

4. Under background, I'd like to add a sentence or two noting the original US Constitution's tacit acceptance of slavery (the 3/5 compromise, etc.), which often is mentioned in works on the subject.
 * ✅ -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

5. Expanding and rewriting the lead a bit to better summarize the article's contents.
 * ✅ -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

That's my plan, anyway. I'll get to work on this over the next few days; if anybody disagrees with my changes, please feel free to revert and we can discuss further here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find a reference to substantiate that JQ Adams introduced a bill to abolish slavery in 1839--it's not mentioned in his wiki article, and I couldn't find it on a quick skim of a biography or two. I've removed this unsourced material for now as part of my general rewrite, but I'd be happy to see it reintroduced if anyone can source this. -- 15:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Constitutional context
Rjensen deleted the few sentences of the article pertaining to the history of slavery in the US Constitution prior to the Thirteenth Amendment; I'm not really clear why, so I've reverted. Many sources connect this to the topic; the Encyclopedia Britannica article on the amendment, for example, which is only three paragraphs long, devotes its entire first paragraph to this context. Given this example, I don't think it's out of place to give a few sentences to it in our own far longer article. Glad to discuss further, though--just let me know your thoughts. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * the problem is that the few sentences were misleading. The key is that the Constitution treated slaves as persons not as property. (Southerners by the 1850s had to overcome this issue regarding taking their property to Kansas). Wiki recommends against use of other general encyclopedias, especially when there is a very rich more advanced literature. Rjensen (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I assume you looked at the sources before deleting that text; as you saw, the other is Eric Foner, who won a Pulitzer and Bancroft Prize for his treatment of these issues, and this isn't how he discusses it either. Can you explain why you don't consider him a valid source either? I'm still really confused by your deletion, but I appreciate that you're now willing to engage here. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I looked at your addition and it seems to be a moot point, assuming you're content also. The version that's there now seems fine to me--thanks for adding the source.-- Khazar2 (talk) 01:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Good! :) Rjensen (talk) 06:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Ready for nomination?
I think this is just about ready for a GA nomination. Anybody have anything else they want to add or change before we put it up? Thanks all, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Since this is a multifaceted topic, I thought I'd put it up for peer review before going through GA; the more eyes on this, the better, one would think. I've added the peer review request above; in 2-3 weeks, I'll advance to GA, unless serious issues have been raised. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Quick notes
This is what happens when I promise to help with 14 ... now I'm stuck on 13 ... A few comments: salaam groupuscule (talk) 03:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Can someone with access to law reviews get this article by Du Bois? Useful for all three Reconstruction Amendments.
 * I made some changes to the paragraph on slavery in the Constitution, based on the conclusions of that Allain book. Are these are OK? Too much? (Is this topic covered in depth somewhere else?)
 * Small change at the end of the lead re: applications. Planning to review this further, but it's clear that 13A has gotten some significant airplay in the 20th century.
 * U.S. v. Rhodes... wow.
 * Thanks! I think your additions are a big improvement, including in the "slavery in the Constitution" section. I do think I prefer the lead wording restored by SMP, but that's not a big issue. I don't have access to that DuBois article, unfortunately, but for what it's worth, I'd say we probably don't need it. It's probably too old to be a valuable secondary source at this point, so it's probably better to see if his statements emerge in later histories as a useful primary source--that is, valuable not for factual summary and analysis of the 13A, but for Du Bois' views on the 13A. I may be abusing the terms primary and secondary here, but does what I'm saying make sense? -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, glad it's working out. I thought this was quite the classy edit. More things:
 * Regarding WEBDB, you might be right because he's famous; I don't think 1949 is too old, though, unless game-changing new information has come to light. (In fact, I hope to add some great material written by Jacobus tenBroek in 1951.) Either way, it's likely that any Du Bois information would be attributed to him, thereby minimizing the need to identify his status as primary or secondary. Not to be confused with Primary and secondary (relationship)—"and occasionally tertiary" for those with a lot of time on their hands. Aaanyway I'm still curious about that article, but it's not a big deal.
 * Lead revert does not trouble me greatly but I hope to look further into recent decisions. Some aspects of this issue:
 * The Thirteenth Amendment is not often used directly to 'prosecute cases' because it has largely functioned to authorize Congressional legislation. (Some cases have been prosecuted directly under the 13th Amendment but these are exceptional and noted as such—not to mention typically unsuccessful.) Additionally, even instances of prosecution under the 13A have popped up in searches. For example, this guy Forrest Smith sued the Indiana state prison system for imprisoning him under its Habitual Criminals Act, arguing that his life sentence was not "punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted". (Two judges ruled against him, but one judge dissented on rather explicit Thirteenth Amendment grounds.)
 * Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. (1968) is listed by numerous sources as a landmark decision that substantially expanded Congressional power under the Thirteenth Amendment. It explicitly overturned Hodges v. United States (1906) and depending who you ask may have implicitly overturned the Civil Rights Cases (1883). The Thirteenth Amendment was also the basis for federal enforcement in Runyon v. McCrary (1976), though you wouldn't know it from the Wikipedia page as currently formulated. All of the above based on random observation, as I'm not yet up to these cases in the books.
 * Actually looking at the Goluboff article I am getting the strong sense that the "1947" claim attributed to Goluboff does not in her argument. In fact, she argues that 13th Amendment prosecutions flourished "into the 1950s" only to be "eclipsed" by the Equal Protection Clause cited by Brown v. Board of Education (1954). She says that 13A made a comeback with Jones but with different emphasis. Her comment here is useful:
 * "Beginning with Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (1968), the Thirteenth Amendment did experience a kind of renaissance as the constitutional basis for civil rights legislation first passed in the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The Thirteenth Amendment that the Jones Court seemed to rediscover, however, bore no resemblance, and did not originate in, the racelabor practice of the Civil Rights Section in the 1940s."
 * So Goluboff actually disproves my speculation above regarding prosecutions, and we ought to discuss these "Civil Rights Section" activities in more detail. A different lineage of 13A actions entirely. Goluboff also mentions that United States v. Kozminski (1988) originally came out of a 13A prosecution. So, actually, yes, I am becoming pretty confident that the lead's last sentence is not correct as currently stated ...
 * I also wanted to suggest structural revisions to the article after passage of the Amendment. Have not fully formulated a new structure but have these thoughts:
 * The "canon" of 13A cases seems to revolve around Black Americans and the question of how the Amendment relates to their post-1865 tribulations. This canon probably does not need to be sorted into different categories based on strands of interpretation (as does the Fourteenth Amendment, which is longer) simply because the decisions usually must address many of the issues involved (primarily: definitions & enforcement). These cases could probably be periodized somehow.
 * "Other" cases could be sorted by topic. The most significant "other" area, it seems to me, is the question of whether women are subject to "involuntary servitude" under the (normal or exceptional) conditions of patriarchy. Then there are cases like Arver v. United States which may not have substantial lineages in the court system. (Not sure about this yet. By the way, does anyone else find the 13A reasoning in this case to be comically weak? Not that it's our job to judge...)
 * Was going to propose a section on "Applications by Congress" and rename "Interpretation" as "Interpretation by Courts". "Applications by Executive" may also be relevant, it seems now based on Goluboff.
 * Eventually, there must be greater coverage of the exception for people convicted of crimes—this is an issue of ever-growing importance (not to mention notability and secondary literature) with the rise of the prison industry and the prison labor industry.
 * And with that... let's plow ahead with the literature. <3 groupuscule (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your help with, and big improvements, to this one.
 * The "no offenses since 1947" is something I inherited from a previous draft and haven't run down besides glancing at the source. You're right that this seems to need at least a clarification. You're ahead of me on this, so please feel free to rewrite that both in article and lead.
 * You raise some other points here that seem interesting, but are difficult for me to judge how much weight they get in major sources on the 13A (such as the patriarchy-as-slavery argument or contemporary prison labor). My initial response is to be hesitant about some of that, but I feel like you're on a roll with the content you've added already, so I'd say feel free to add as you like, and then you, me, SMP, and anybody else watching can trim/reconfigure as necessary. As for the structure, I'm having trouble picturing exactly what you're thinking of, but I'm similarly flexible. Or you could give it in quick outline form? Either way's fine with me. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Reverted rewrite
I reverted a rewrite of the article. Before the article is rewritten a consensus should be reached here before this happens. Many editors worked on this article and their efforts should not be voided. If a rewrite is necessary, then a consensus will be reached. However, no one editor (no matter how well intentioned) should unilaterally fundamentally redo the article. SMP0328. (talk) 04:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In Groupuscule's defense, they did ask the talk page for permission to restructure in the thread above, and got response only from me, who said I thought it was ok. But I don't have any problem slowing it down to talk in detail now that we've got a more specific re-draft to debate. I have to admit that it's hard with the way Wikipedia does diffs to see what's been moved in a big edit like that. Group, could you give us a super-brief summary of the changes that draft makes? I'll try to look at them in more detail later tonight, too. My superficial impression is that I like the proposed new structure. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not claiming that Groupusclule's edit was wrong per se, only that I want to know what he did before the article is changed. As you said, it's hard to tell strictly by looking at the diff. SMP0328. (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi hi, I'm not trying to blindside anybody with the big edits. They are typical for me as I prefer to read multiple sources and select facts carefully before I make substantial edits. Furthermore I do not always have internet access, so I work offline using book & PDF sources. (As you can imagine, this often results in edit conflicts; I always make sure to incorporate other users' edits into my big new draft before committing the new version.) I have recently been clued in to User:Cacycle/wikEdDiff as a helpful way to view changes. OK. Here is a summary of the most recent change: Quick notes on citations: I'm not upset about the reversion (although I do feel it was not unpredictable, based on talk page discussions) but it would be very nice if we could restore the edit soon, as I've returned to the library and would like to edit from these books. (The librarians have been kind enough not to reshelve my stack, but this arrangement cannot last forever. ) On that note, I would be pleased to include material from other particular books, if I can find them here—i.e., 'I take requests'. Thanks for caring, groupuscule (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC) P.S. SMP0328 may find it reassuring that virtually nothing has been removed from the prior version, except the fairly vague claim about A13 never being invoked—about which see above. groupuscule (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Added sources from several books and law reviews.
 * Expanded "Proposal by Congress" section. The most significant additions are more information about Sumner's alternative wording (which abolished slavery as a consequence of human equality before the law did not include the 'punishment for a crime' exception) and more discussion of the Congressional and public debates that were occurring. Section title was changed "Amending the Constitution" but there is probably a better one out there, particularly since "Ratification" is of course a part of "Amending".
 * Moved Lincoln picture and discussion to section after 1964 election, when he began to push the amendment. More discussion of the Lincoln push in Dec 64 thru Jan 65.
 * More on Johnson push for ratification.
 * Expansion (with more coming) of section on effects, including Black Codes and extra-legal racism that worked against the emancipation mandated by A13.
 * Reorganized final sections into (roughly speaking) Congress and Courts. A little more material on both with plenty to come. Particularly interested in adding material on "peonage" system, addressed by Goluboff article (currently cited but not in the least explicated, as described above).
 * As careful observers may have noticed, I prefer not to use citation templates. First, because they are (IMO) unnecessary extra code that reduces the user's ability to craft a useful citation. Second, because they are (objectively) huge multipliers of load time, since they require lengthy server-side processing. Thus, articles with a huge number of citation templates are virtually unloadable for readers with slow connections.
 * I often include quotations in the footnote in order to justify/clarify/elaborate points within the text—especially from book sources that might not be readily accessible to readers. I'm pretty sure these are generally "fair use" length and I hope they are helpful.
 * I'm off and on today, so I apologize that I can't respond in more detail yet. My first impression, broadly, is that I like proposed expansion and revised structure. This does appear to need a good copyedit before going "live" again, however; some sentences seem scrambled, e.g., "Lincoln signed the Amendment on February.", "democrats Democrats", the broken links for the 1864 House and Senates elections, etc. I also think it may be getting overdetailed at points, though obviously that's something we can work on as we go. I don't mean to let the negative outweigh the positive in this comment--I think the bulk of this should stay in some form. Thanks again, so much, for all this research. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Good catches. For some reason the text "democrats Democrats" provokes me to smile every time I read it. Apologies for these mistakes and others no doubt to come. Do you think maybe you'll have a chance to copyedit last night's revision? The urgency is not so great, since I can work on some other things in a text document. groupuscule (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, can probably do this six or seven hours from now, if not before. I'll create a subpage here or in my user space for a temporary version and add a link here while this is being discussed. Or you can create a draft page first so that you can keep adding/revising yourself if you like; I'm fine with working on it simultaneously with you. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, thank you. Please proceed at your own pace. Have now delved into research for Black Codes (United States) that may help us to distill relevant parts of the story for A13. groupuscule (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I like Khazar2's idea of a draft version. We can all look it over and make sure it's prepared to be included in the article. Groupuscule, don't worry about you restoring this material; Khazar2 or I can always do it. I would use "Adoption" for the section regarding the Congress proposing and the States ratifying the amendment. This title has been used in similar articles. SMP0328. (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, draft version created at User:Khazar2/Thirteenth. This takes Groupuscule's additions as its starting point. Though I've stored it in my user space for now, all are welcome to edit it, and use either its talk page or this one to discuss changes. I may or may not get to the copyedit tonight--Little Miss Khazar managed to push her bedtime unexpectedly late--so feel free to have at in the meantime. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've made some small fixes to the draft intro's wording. I'll look at the rest of the draft later. SMP0328. (talk) 01:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Summary of the 13A's impact
I wanted to start a separate thread for an idea User:Groupuscule raised on my talk page, which I'll start off with their quote:
 * Relatedly: A13 really has been used quite a bit, though it gets way less airtime than A14. Stanley's article, "Waiting for the Thirteenth Amendment", is fantastic, but it's worth noting that the title refers mostly (or most literally) to waiting for 13A to emancipate enslaved wives of black Union soldiers. I'm not sure her view that A13 is underused represents a consensus of historians, particularly in recent years. I think it cuts out a lot of the picture, as will become more clear as additional research becomes article. It is true that there has been an apparent resurgence in people writing law reviews that apply the A13 to their topic of choice ... these folks deserve maybe a couple sentences, or maybe one sentence that lists other suggested applications, or something. (Actually this type of sentence itself has become de rigueur in contemporary law reviews about A13.) But there are also very substantial applications: for example, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act declares Congressional authority to punish racially motivated hate crimes under A13—whereas other types of hate crimes can only be prosecuted through Commerce Clause authority. Thus (explains the DOJ) because of A13 it is easier for the federal government to obtain a conviction for a race motivated hate crime than for a sexual orientation motivated hate crime—in the latter case, "to obtain a conviction, the government must prove that the crime was in or affected interstate or foreign commerce." That's a pretty big deal and it's just one example.
 * What you're saying makes sense to me. I guess the point I feel is worth including, that Stanley makes, is that the 13A hasn't been nearly as significant in Supreme Court rulings, striking down laws, etc. as the 14A or 15A. The Encyclopedia of the American Constitution emphasizes the narrowness of the 13A's applications to date and summarizes thus:

The Jones opinion left open the question whether the amendment "by its own terms did anything more than abolish slavery," and although memphis v. greene (1981) raised the issue, the Court did not reach it. Thus, even though a great many forms of private racial discrimination may constitute "badges and incidents of slavery" justifying congressional action to secure their elimination, if Congress has not acted, these same "badges and incidents" are insufficient to trigger the operation of the amendment's section 1. The practical significance of this difference, however, is slight. The Supreme Court has construed existing civil rights legislation broadly enough to prohibit a wide range of private acts of racial discrimination.

Even assuming that the Thirteenth Amendment's self-executing force is limited to cases of bondage to personal service, there is room for debate about the kinds of compulsion that constitute involuntary servitude. Debt bondage—the requirement that a person work in discharge of a debt—is a classic case of peonage and is plainly forbidden by the amendment. However, compulsory military service (or alternative service for conscientious objectors), hard labor for persons imprisoned for crime, and restrictions on the right to strike all have been sustained against Thirteenth Amendment attacks.
 * I don't mean to suggest either this or Stanley are the final word, but they provide usefully brief summaries, which is helpful for a sprawling topic like this; if we have a source that states that the 13A has generated a large and important body of case law, obviously we should include that quotation as a counterpoint.
 * That said, I completely agree that the applications the 13A does have, as you say, are important and should be detailed in the body and to a reasonable degree in the lead. Ultimately I think those two goals are compatible--making it clear that the 13A has been used much for some things, not much for others. Does that make sense? -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * IMO the above quotation speaks only about the Amendment's "self-executing force", which does not include legislation authorized (or claiming authorization) based on its text. Like I said I think Stanley's article is fantastic. I would be happier the including the quotation from her if we presented it along with context from pages 735 & 736, namely:
 * The specific exclusion of patriarchy from consideration: "Yet under the abolition amendment, slavery has come to represent a matter only of labor, property, and race—not sex. Notably, the badges of woman’s slavery so manifest in legitimating abolition have never figured in Thirteenth Amendment doctrine. It is as if abolitionists inside and outside the halls of Congress had never justified universal emancipation by speaking of woman’s particular bondage";
 * The sentences surrounding our current quotation, which make clear an explicit contrast with the Commerce Clause: "In turn, the paradox of the Thirteenth Amendment illuminates a peculiar strain of the American human rights tradition—that national guarantees of newfound rights have often found grounding in the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce rather than in expansive construction of the coercion and debasement barred as slavery by the amendment. Notably, beyond a handful of landmark rulings striking down debt peonage, flagrant involuntary servitude, and some instances of race-based violence and discrimination, the Thirteenth Amendment has never been a potent source of rights claims. Rather, the logic of attaching personal liberties to the traffic in things under the Commerce Clause, which Congress invoked in banning the African slave trade but never directed to the institution of slavery or even the domestic slave trade, has come to hold sway."; and
 * The statement that the Thirteenth Amendment has experienced a resurgence in use: "Today, lawyers seek to breathe new life into the Thirteenth Amendment—to extend its reach and tap its core values, to undo its impotence. The aim is to reinterpret slavery’s badges so as to advance antislavery constitutionalism and guarantees of human rights unstated at either the first or the second founding."
 * Future research should illuminate these issues further, and we should keep our eyes open for more meta-commentary (or, dare I say, even historiography) on 13A jurisprudence. groupuscule (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Are we actually disagreeing here? The points you make above all seem to underscore the same central point--that the 13A has historically been applied by the courts in very, very limited ways. I do agree that it's worth noting that some lawyers and law scholars have called for a new, broader interpretation/use of the amendment than the Court has traditionally upheld; I just don't want this to obscure the history of how the 13A has been used. So I think Stanley's quotation summarizes that history nicely. I've got no objection to adding more detailed material on ways the 13A hasn't been used or other clauses that have been used instead--these seem to me to support, rather than refute, that basic point. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem like it; agreed; agreed; agreed; excellent. :-) groupuscule (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

"Good Article" Nomination
We believe that the article has substantially improved from User:LarrySanger's elegant original version of February 2001, and hereby nominate it as a "Good Article". Respect is due to User:MateoSA and User:JayJasper for battling hundreds of vandals over multiple years, to User:Rjensen, who began working on this article in 2006, to User:Malangthon for major improvements in 2007, to User:SMP0328., editing since 2008 (or perhaps even 2007), and to User:Khazar2, who has raised the bar for this and many other articles about human rights. groupuscule (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

ratification dates to efn
I've moved the long list of dates in the "Ratification" section to an explanatory footnote per an elegant suggestion at the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution talk page. This level of detail won't be of use to most readers, but now it's still there for those readers who want it. If others disagree, of course, feel free to revert and we can discuss further what would be preferable. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The lead and other POV issues
I was surprised to see, Groupuscule, that you reverted to your preferred version of the lead without discussion here. Since you know you're the only editor who supports this interpretation, you might have at least posted some rationale as a courtesy for why you're reverting on this yet again.

So, first, I've restored the wording that the 13A legally abolished slavery, per majority of the reliable sources. Here are some examples of how other tertiary sources summarize the amendment: Our encyclopedia should follow the lead of other encyclopedias on this.
 * Encyclopedia Britannica: "Thirteenth Amendment, amendment (1865) to the Constitution of the United States that formally abolished slavery. "
 * Encyclopedia of the American Constitution: "The amendment's first section abolished slavery and involuntary servitude throughout the nation, and its second section empowered Congress to enforce abolition"
 * Gale Library of Daily Life: Slavery in America: "Ratified on December 6, 1865, the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution ended the practices of slavery and involuntary servitude in the United States. "
 * Reconstruction Era Reference Library: "A year before the war ended, Congress drafted the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution to permanently outlaw slavery. "
 * Encyclopedia of African American history: "On December 18, 1865, Congress passed the Thirteenth Amendment, a Constitutional amendment that freed slaves nationally."
 * African Americans at War: An Encyclopedia, Volume 1: "The Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution expressly put an end to slavery when it was ratified on December 6, 1865."
 * UXL Encyclopedia of American history: "The Thirteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution made slavery illegal in the country. "

I really appreciate much of what you've added to the article, Group, but I feel that this last round of edits significantly unbalances things in favor of a particular interpretation. The biggest block quotations come from an amicus brief in a minor case by four legal scholars, but this amicus brief doesn't even appear to be discussed in the news story you provide about this specific case, much less in broad discussions about the amendment itself. This seems like seriously undue weight to give these four the biggest voice in the amendment's 150-year history.

The sourcing for the rest of the "hate crimes" section is also extremely weak: quotations from a Justice Department memo, a snatch of Senate testimony, and a news story that doesn't even mention the 13th amendment. If these events are significant in the history of the amendment, it shouldn't be necessary to read between the lines and dig up briefs and memos and testimony ourselves; it would be in secondary and tertiary sources on the amendment. Can we find major sources on the 13th amendment that give the same weight to this? That would make this material much more in keeping with Wikipedia policy, I think.

Similarly, the "Peonage Law" section relies almost entirely on a single article. This article is a great source, but there's no reason to give it such tremendous weight. I've reduced this section to a more reasonable size accordingly. User:SMP0328. or others, what's your take? -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We didn't mean to "revert" to our "preferred version"... having now investigated Black Codes & subsequent uses of the Amendment more carefully, we meant to do a better job summarizing these findings. For example, the current formulation about Black Codes and vagrancy laws is misleading, since the Black Codes were themselves constituted by vagrancy laws that provided the means of enforcement. As far as the flat claim that the amendment "abolished slavery", this is certainly part of one very popular narrative, but just as certainly contested by reliable scholarly sources. (Such as DuBois, who flatly declares the opposite, and Blackmon, who highlights how "abolition of slavery" did not take place because of the Punishment Clause.) Thus we erred towards a more precise statement in the lead. For those following along at home, here's the recently added and reverted version:


 * "The amendment provided a major legal limitation against slavery and involuntary servitude, and compelled emancipation in Kentucky and Delaware. However, state and local Black Codes, white supremacist terrorism, systemic institutional racism, and narrow interpretations by the Supreme Court have all hindered the power of the Thirteenth Amendment to eliminate coercive labor practices in the United States. The Thirteenth Amendment is invoked less frequently than the other Reconstruction Amendments. However, while the other two amendments govern only state action, the Thirteenth Amendment can be invoked for direct intervention against involuntary servitude and the 'badges and incidents' of slavery. It has been used to prosecute debt peonage, racially motivated hate crimes, and some other forms of discrimination. The amendment also enables Congress to pass laws against sex trafficking and other modern forms of slavery."


 * We feel it improves on the current version by:
 * Providing a more concrete and precise description of how the Amendment affected slavery and involuntary servitude (direct impact in Kentucky and Delaware; indirect impacts via prosecution. (Culture shift and other impacts could, if sourced, be added.)
 * Discussing limitations to the Amendment's implementation beyond the Black Codes (there are many);
 * Emphasizing that the Amendment does not contain the same "state action" requirements that the other Reconstruction Amendments do;
 * Mentioning "badges and and incidents", the centerpiece of Thirteenth Amendment jurisprudence for more than a hundred years; and
 * Mentioning the Thirteenth Amendment power regarding racially motivated hate crimes, which seems to be the most significant practical use of the Amendment today. (On this last, more sources coming.)
 * Can we collaboratively draft of version of the paragraph that would address these issues?


 * Regarding the sections on hate crimes and peonage we understand your response. There are plenty of other sources on both issues and we can track them down. [ETA: Fork-and-summarize might also be a good option for these sections.] We agree that the first version probably gave undue weight to the "Thirteenth Amendment Scholars", though their position is quite popular (and notable) among contemporary legal studies and we thought it would be illustrative. However, issues of contemporary interpretation (from the law reviews, etc.) might be better addressed in a separate section (rather than as they manifest on commentary on U.S. v. Hatch. In general we are trying to bring out more information about how this Amendment has been used concretely to change people's lives—we hope folks agree that this type of information (if well sourced and neutrally described) is relevant and important. Salaam, groupuscule (talk) 05:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Broadly speaking, my main reservation is that I feel you're working to add substantial text in favor of a broad reading of the 13th Amendment held by a minority, while neglecting to add similarly substantial text about the narrow interpretation of the amendment, which has been dominant for 150 years. Harlan's solitary dissents seem to be emphasized over court majority opinions throughout the 19th century section, while the Jones decision is quoted at great length without any equivalent space to its dissents, as given to Harlan. At the same time, you've tried several times to remove the one statement that the 13th Amendment hasn't had much impact (Stanley's). I appreciate the depth of your research, but your additions seem selective. The heavy and selective use of primary source material to further this position is clearly over the line.
 * If you're going to quote something like an amicus brief in a minor case, we should be adding even more block quotations from majority opinions opposing broad 13A interpretations, and other legal scholars who hold the majority viewpoint; otherwise the article becomes unbalanced. The contemporary scholars who argue for an expansive interpretation are certainly not without critics; the first review of Tsesis's book I came across, for example, describes it as "an unhistorical book written in serene disregard of the nature and reality of political life. It is an ideological tract that illustrates the intellectual licentiousness of contemporary progressive legal theory." It's important to remember that 13A scholars by definition have a vested interest in grand, sweeping claims for the amendment's importance; nobody ever made a career by calling their specialty unimportant. For that reason, I want to balance their work against more general secondary and tertiary sources, all of which seem to have less florid ideas about the amendment's impact.
 * All that said, I agree that this minority viewpoint should be included--it's interesting, relevant, and has had notable exponents. But we need to make it clear that this is a minority viewpoint and has made little headway. A source like this, I think, does a good job of giving that context. Our article should do the same. I'll try to add some more about the majority interpretation of the amendment later today to start bringing this back into balance.
 * In terms of practical stuff in the lead, I agree with you on some points. Let me tinker with a new draft that combines the two and we can see what's left that we disagree on. More in a few minutes. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've rewritten the lead to incorporate most of your suggestions. I think they're very good ones for the most part, and I apologize for reverting them wholesale. The main thing I was reacting to with my revert was the removal of the wording "the Thirteenth Amendment was rarely cited in later case law", which I thought we had finally made peace on.
 * I do think we should stick with the standard narrative that the 13A abolished slavery. For the lead, the standard narrative is the appropriate one to choose, and I think we've added sufficient caveats to show that a minority of scholars and historians dissent. I also added the word "formally", which is how Encyclopedia Britannica puts it and elegantly sidesteps the question of its immediate effectiveness. Obviously I want to hold off on including the hate crimes mention until we turn up some significant sources to include it in the article body first.
 * So let me know your thoughts. Even if we're doing a bit of a tug-of-war on some parts of the article here, I think it's improving with every tug, so I'm happy to keep working on all this. Thanks for all you're adding. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's going well and don't mind that my edits get edited—that's how it works! :-) Some comments:
 * You are probably right that I've been over-emphasizing the Tsesis School of A13 scholarship... mostly just because I find it more interesting to write about. I have no interest in obscuring the reality that use & scope of the Amendment have been heavily limited by the SCOTUS, particularly from 1876–1968.
 * In the realm of "enforcement" it does make more sense to focus on what has actually taken place, though we should do more to say that Congress has not made very much use of its Section 2 powers. (We could also include some discussion of why.)
 * Like your re-write of the paragraph. "Formally abolished" works.
 * Can we make it clear in the lead (probably the last paragraph) that the major effects of the amendment have come in the form of (a) directly compelling emancipation in Kentucky & Delaware; (b) authorizing Congressional legislation and DOJ prosecutions?
 * Conversely, it seems that maybe the Amendment hasn't been used to "strike down" much at all—debt peonage is an economic not a legal arrangement. This situation (with a lot of the 'action' not really taking place in the Courts), which really does make A13 unique among Amendments, is a consequence of its broad authorization of Congressional enforcement against private action (even if Congress has not frequently exercised these powers and the scope of relevant private action is construed narrowly!).
 * P.S. Not completely true: see Bailey v. Alabama (1911). And of course DOJ action goes through the judicial system at large. "Strike down" (maybe only for groupuscule) connotes the type of big dramatic action that happened, e.g., in U.S. v. Morrison.
 * Salaam, groupuscule (talk) 01:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the slow response. I agree that it was a good addition to the article's body, but I don't think it's worth mentioning Kentucky and Delaware specifically in the lead here--other encyclopedia articles I'm looking at for comparison in the list above don't appear to mention that aspect. I'm also not comfortable relying on a master's thesis to determine emphasis, and the main source for this seems to be Forehand. As for Congresssional legislation, it's covered in the final sentence of the lead, "The amendment also enables Congress to pass laws against sex trafficking and other modern forms of slavery." I think this is sufficiently broad to cover what follows, but I'm up for possible rewording.
 * As for "strike down", what alternate language would you suggest? I see your point but have had trouble rewording. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)