User talk:Khazar2/Thirteenth

Noting edits
Thanks again, Groupuscule, for the huge amount of quality material you've added here. I hope you won't be offended that I've taken your good material and pushed back in the other direction with selected cuts. My concern is simply that the article may be getting a bit overdetailed with discussion of the influences for an alternative and unheeded proposal by Charles Sumner, letters exchanged by commentators on the amendment, etc.; I want this to stay at a level of summary where information is quickly accessible to the general reader (for an article like this, probably 99% of our audience). SMP, perhaps you could take a look at these, too, to see if I'm being overly ruthless?


 * Reduced space given to Sumner's rejected proposal (its origins/influences, the committee's reactions, his legislative maneuverings, etc.)
 * Reducing amount of quotation from contemporary commentators -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Reducing the individual sentences for Democratic defectors to the 13A cause; it seems enough to note broadly that this was happening. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Reducing individual details of bribery and vote-switching to a summary of these events. Also removed a slightly trivial detail added by me about Stanton ordering a 300-gun salute after. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Removing the detail about Corwin's death; it seems a bit trivial in the scope of the article (though I did find it amusing and ironic). I also tweaked the "ratification" section a bit for length. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Merged two sections that dealt with the amendment's adoption. Now one section deals with its adoption. SMP0328. (talk) 02:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In the Slavery in the United States section I added a cite tag for the first sentence, which claims that every colony had slavery. That definitely needs sourcing. I also removed a reference to Lincoln being a Republican and anti-slavery. The former because it doesn't seem relevant and the latter because he wasn't an abolitionist. Lincoln did not want slavery expanded into the territories, but in 1860 he was against forcing the slaveowners to give up their slaves. He even supported the Corwin Amendment. SMP0328. (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What would you think of "slavery critic" to describe Lincoln? He did regularly publicly attack the institution and call for its gradual extinction, even if he wasn't sure it was legal/practical for the federal government abolish it outright. (He supported the Corwin Amendment in part because he was sure it would have to be the states that would eventually abolish slavery anyway.) I'm not married to any particular wording, but I think it does need to be clear why Lincoln's election was the final incident in provoking civil war. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Trimmed a bit of material about Black Codes and subsequent violence -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, SMP, I think I'm done for the night; you can have at it without fear of edit conflict if you like. I think your merge looks good and makes sense. Does the trimming I did look sensible to you? If I've been overly ruthless with the knife, please feel free to restore. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * To me, it looks like you remove trivial material. That seems fine to me. You don't appear to be ruthless, just thorough. SMP0328. (talk) 03:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, User:SMP0328., User:Groupuscule, I think this is ready to move back into article space--what say you? We may not have the absolute final word here, but I think this version is much better than what's in the article space. I'd venture to say we're ready for that GA nomination, too. With Group's latest expansions, this article is really cooking.
 * As an aside, just wanted to note again what a pleasure it is working with both of you. I feel like my usual experience in revising an article is long periods of talk page silence punctuated by blasts of anger by editors who disappear again once their pet issue/paragraph has been addressed. It's great having two real collaborators to work with instead, and I think we've gotten a great article as a result. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I say it's ready, and then I turn around and find something else. I noticed that Group's edits removed the Amy Dru Stanley quotation on the limited ways the 13A has been used; I think this is a useful overview that allows us to provide a better summary in the lead. I've restored it for now and also updated the lead. Thoughts? -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Your welcome. I suggest each of us make sure that nothing is missing from the draft that is in the article that any of us want to be in the draft when it becomes the article. After that, we can copy and paste the draft into the article space. SMP0328. (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I think my check is done and I'm prepared to sign off on the current draft. I also transferred this text, a revision made to the article-space copy not caught here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Khazar & SMP, I think you've done a terrific job with this. I do have some further comments, although none of them should necessarily delay transfer to mainspace.
 * Although I couldn't resist including the Corwin factoid at the time, it is a relatively trivial detail.
 * I am satisfied with the cuts to Sumner's amendment, although we might consider mentioning the link to Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in a footnote. I am most happy that the alternative text itself remains. Similarly it is good that the defense of patriarchy is still mentioned, as this was a significant element of the rhetoric going into the Amendment's passage.
 * Note that my research is not done... but it is fairly well periodized, and so the version we have now is fairly complete through "Ratification" and most of "Effects". (Effects is IMO not quite done; although we now represent the Black Codes as the consequence of A13, from another angle they are the aftermath of informal abolition, the war, the Proclamation ... and A13 was actually the legal basis for legislation used to override the Black Codes. So that needs to be touched up.) Important research to be added still on the topic of A13 jurisprudence after Jones; the application of A13 to women under patriarchy; and the exception for slavery/involuntary servitude. (On these last two I think there has been some concern that they are fringey—but this is not the case from the scholarship I have seen. In fact they are very fundamental.) I will post draft versions of these before committing. Also: have been seeing some good public domain images from 1865 and hope to snag one or two for use here.
 * 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.
 * The lead has been changed from

"The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution outlaws slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime."
 * to

"The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution abolished slavery in the United States. It also prohibits involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime."


 * I believe the former interpretation is standard, but I will attempt to research further. The difference is significant.

Seriously though, great job. It is a pleasure to work with you. groupuscule (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And, most importantly: I am outraged to see that you have re-alphabetized "Trelease" before "Tsesis" and demand reliable secondary sources that address this issue explicitly.
 * I made the above edit, because "abolished" is usually used in describing the Thirteenth Amendment and the crime exception is considered only to apply to involuntary servitude (e.g., community service). Could the federal government or a State make someone a slave as a criminal punishment? SMP0328. (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * These are directly related issues. While I would certainly agree that "abolition" was the word of the day in regards to slavery—and might be an appropriate word to describe the Sumner amendment, regardless of de facto coercion that remained—it implies an unequivocal termination. "Except as punishment for a crime" does equivocate and can be exploited, as became immediately obvious to Northern abolitionists when they realized that Southern states had expanded their vagrancy laws to criminalize blacks who didn't act like slaves... and then punish them with 100% unpaid labor. Which brings us to the second point: "community service" is not slavery. But some forms of prison labor may "be" slavery and certainly are considered slavery by some. (See here, for example.) As this issue remains a hot topic in A13 jurisprudence, we really ought not to take liberties with the syntax. Not to jump all over you for this edit, which wasn't unreasonable, but the difference is major. groupuscule (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Based on this article, there is disagreement regarding whether the "Punishment Clause" applies to the amendment's ban on slavery. So the article should reflect this disagreement. SMP0328. (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Since it sounds like we're resolved, I'll go ahead and move this over; I don't like to have these split any longer than necessary, since editing continues on the mainspace version as well as this. If I've jumped the gun in any way, of course, feel free to revert and we can discuss remaining points further. Otherwise, we can just work them out on the regular talk page. Thanks again to all. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Long rambly edit-conflict-generative response to SMP re: Punishment Clause ... yes Khazar thanks for moving the draft & blanking here:
 * Good article, nice find. (Am pleased to note that it includes a mention of the Indiana Habitual Criminal Act challenge; am dismayed that the author writes "Because the drafters of the Northwest Ordinance had done the legislative legwork with respect to wording the prohibition, the drafters of the Thirteenth Amendment spent little time discussing alternative wordings"—without mention of the Sumner version. They do note that the original version presented by Ashley did call for the abolition of slavery while involuntary servitude would be "permitted only as punishment". Hard to know how consciously the SJC decided not to use this wording. But, definitely, they didn't.) As far as I can tell this author does not make a syntactical argument for exempting slavery from the punishment clause. AFAICT their argument is: " the punishment clause says that if the slavery or indentured servitude is punishment, then the Thirteenth Amendment’s ban on slavery is inapplicable"— but however this negative exemption does not reverse the Eighth Amendment on Cruel and unusual punishment. Worth noting that they also quote a number of judges/lawyers/scholars who quite clearly apply the punishment exemption to slavery. (Disclaimer: that's all just my first reading and this issue is obviously quite complicated. YMMV!)
 * Also I would think that if the "Punishment Clause" was intended to qualify only "involuntary servitude" and not "slavery" that the text would read


 * "'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.'"


 * instead of


 * "'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.'"


 * However, in the realm of Constitutional law, it really may be the case that nothing is obvious. Maybe there should be a "Punishment Clause" article so we don't have to squeeze everything in here. At any rate, I'm not certain that possibly controversy over syntax and the scope of the punishment exemption warrants mention in the lead of the A13 article, but I will try to pay very close attention to the issue in further research. Thanks again for bringing that article. groupuscule (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)