Talk:Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Jim Crow laws

Jim Crow laws? Between 1870 and 1875, the Republican Congress passed many pro-black civil rights laws. But in 1876, Democrats took control of the House, and no further race-based civil rights laws passed until 1957. In 1892, Democrats gained control of the House, the Senate and the White House, and repealed all the Republican-passed civil rights laws. That enabled the Southern Democrats to pass the Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, literacy tests, and so on, in their individual states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeborgx (talk • contribs) 23:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2014

Delete everything between the first and second slavery.

Slavery was introduced to the American colonies by Great Britain who worked in concert with African tribal chiefs who captured entire tribes in sub Sahara Africa which were transported by slavers to the new world, the greater bulk of whom were worked on sugar plantations in Brazil and the Caribbean. Before long slavery

The sentence is misleading, at best, and gives an empty citation. Dubiosist2014 (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

How is the sentence misleading? How is the citation "empty"? SMP0328. (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that the slave trade only happened because "tribal chiefs" participate? The link to "Wood 2010" is broken and doesn't lead to any reference. Dubiosist2014 (talk) 13:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)Duboisist2014

The "link to "Wood 2010"" is, presumably, a reference to a book, but unfortunately, the book does not appear in the bibliography, whilst linking it in that way leads to Wikipedias article on Wood. I have asked the editor who added the text and citation for details of the book they were referring to. - Arjayay (talk) 18:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Where does it say that slavery 'only' happened on the account of tribal chiefs? The text clearly says that Britain worked in concert (i.e.along with) tribal chiefs. Last, when I included the source in the Bibliography (Gordon S. Wood) I forgot to remove 'authormask' from the cite book template when I copied the listing from another bibliography to this one. This has been fixed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I reviewed my copy and as far as I can tell Wood doesn't discuss "tribal chiefs" anywhere in this book. Regardless, what does supposed origin of slavery have to do with the 13th Amendment? This is an extraneous argument that, if anything, properly belongs in one of the many sections on institution of slavery or on the slave trade on Wikipedia. Dubiosist2014 (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)Duboisist2014

I tend to agree that the information is extraneous to this article. It's also a run on sentence that tries to pack in too much that is complicated history. Further information links to the Slavery in the United States and/or Slavery in the colonial United States should do. Or just: "Slavery was already established in the British colonies that became the United States."Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

"Supposed" origin of slavery? You mean it wasn't the British crown who brought the first slaves to its own colonies? In any case, brief mention was given to tribal chiefs, with a couple of words, so I wouldn't go so far as to say that this bit of historical context is "extraneous". Had the narrative committed a couple of sentences or more to this idea I could see the issue. I don't have Wood's hard text and used google books and as I recall, page 509 was viewable back in March. If User Dubiosist2014 can confirm that this can't be sourced with reference to p. 509 I can provide other sources (1, 2, 3, 4, etc) as this is quite common knowledge among those familiar with slavery in the new world. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

It's still far afield from 1865, and "who . . .who" just needs breaking up but then we have to add more sentences on this. Would you consider something like the short sentence I suggest above? Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Since this is not really an important point in terms of the 13th Amendment itself I don't see why not, but if you can mention both the British and tribal chiefs in the process that would be nice, as both of these entities were equally responsible for the slave trade that brought slaves to the American continents and throughout the Caribbean. I always try to provide historical context, esp on definitive points, and though this is a summary, it still doesn't mean we can't provide this for the readers without getting into extra sentences, I'm hoping. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

It's exactly the suggestion that "both of these entities were equally responsible for the slave trade" that I contend is biased. It adds provides absolutely no historical context for the 13th Amendment, especially since the U. S. Congress banned the import of slaves in 1807.

I recommend the text be changed to following:

"Slavery existed in all of the original thirteen Britain North American colonies before the revolution."Dubiosist2014 (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

"Biased" for/against whom?? The 13th Amendment outlawed slavery. Noting the origins of slavery in America is historically contextual and is not "biased" -- not unless it's your intention to give the impression that slavery in America existed in a vacuum. Since this only involves adding a couple of words and yet you've apparently taken such a rigid stand against that, and given your comment about the "supposed origin of slavery", I'm inclined to keep the context in place more so than ever now. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The citation does not support the sentence. The sentence has nothing to do with the 13th Amendment. No scholarship has been offered suggesting that it does. According to Wikipedia policy, doesn't that mean it should not be here?Dubiosist2014 (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Now you're just reciting unresponsively. Once again, the sentence is about slavery and its origins which ties directly in with the 13th Amendment. We could say the photo of the whipped slave has noting to do with the 13th, yet no one can deny it ties in with slavery and the 13th Amendment and provides the reader with some historical context. You made comments about the "supposed origins of slavery", but were not clear about that, even when asked. You also said the sentence is "misleading" but weren't clear about that either. You mentioned "bias" but were also not clear about that, again, even when asked. There are plenty of sources to support the statement. If sourcing is 'really' your only issue here we can cite this with no problems and no further issues, unless you have other things mind. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph should open:

Slavery existed in all of the original thirteen Britain North American colonies before the revolution. The United States Constitution of 1787 ...

This links to the Wikipedia page on colonial slavery Dubiosist2014 (talk) 23:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Note that this message is purely procedural in nature, as I cannot implement an edit request that does not have a consensus to back it. Otherwise, this message does not represent any opinion from me whatsoever. Please carry on in your discussions. If a consensus is reached, feel free to either reopen the request or make the edits yourself when you become autoconfirmed. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I guess I'll explain why when I make the change. ThanksDuboisist2014 (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

No need. I just supplied a source that can be verified on line. Re:Historical context. this article is filled with historical context not directly related to the 13th Amendment itself, including much of the material and context in the Political and economic change in the South section. No good reason was stated to single out tribal chiefs, and the claims of "bias", "misleading statement", etc are unfounded and opinionated. Tribal chiefs were just as responsible for the importation of slaves to the new world as were the British. Both knew the fate of the captured Africans sold into slavery. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I haven't even begun to look at the rest of the page.Duboisist2014 (talk) 00:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Apparently you're new to Wikipedia as an editor. Let me just say that historical context, even in summary presentations, if factual, give greater scope to the article subject and often bring with it a greater depth of understanding. Many articles have a certain amount of contextual overlap. Just because one article says one thing it's no reason that another can't say 'some' of the same things. If two and more articles touch on many of the same ideas, we should give the readers something more than a link or two to bring the articles together, imo. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this paragraph out of place?

This entire section about colonists is out of temporal order following a discussion of the Constitution, etc., but I don't have access to the cited work to see if it can be reworded to apply to the post Civil War period. Anyone have any suggestions about how situations like this are handled? (Does this start a new section? Does it belong in another part of the article?):

"Colonists were greatly divided over the morality of slavery. Over the years hundreds of individual slave owners granted freedom to thousands of slaves, their motives often based on Christian or revolutionary principles.[10] At the same time slavery was supported largely by economic considerations most notably in the southern states.[11] The sentiment behind the American Revolution and fight for freedom was largely responsible for the cause of abolition to take root and gain acceptance but it was a slow process overall.[12]"Duboisist2014 (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

For some reason you see a need to remove the context that gave rise to the abolitionist movement and eventually the 13th Amendment itself. This context is not at all "out of temporal order". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The following phrase is incorrect

"two Democrats, Reverdy Johnson of Maryland and James Nesmith of Oregon voted "aye." "

Johnson voted aye but was NOT a Democrat, he was a Unionist.

Should be corrected to:

"two Demcrats, Benjamin F. Harding and James W. Nesmith, both of Oregon, voted "aye."

Do you have a reliable source for what you say? SMP0328. (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2015

The Robertson v. Baldwin citation needs clarification!

This article contains a reference to Robertson v. Baldwin in the section "Other cases of involuntary service." It reads:

In Robertson v. Baldwin (1897), a sailor challenged federal rules mandating the capture and return of deserters. The Court ruled that "the amendment was not intended to introduce any novel doctrine with respect to certain descriptions of service which have always been treated as exceptional."

The plain use of the words "sailor" and "deserters" make it seem as though Robertson, et al, had run away from the Navy, and that the case was about the obligations of those in the military. They had not and it was not. They were merchant seamen who fled from the merchant ship Arago in Astoria. They were arrested and held in jail until the ship was ready to sail, then forcibly put into the captain's custody. After they refused to work during the voyage, they were rearrested in San Francisco and charged under federal statutes criminalizing a seaman's refusal to work. I can't edit the article, but I would recommend wording it as:

In Robertson v. Baldwin (1897), a group of merchant seaman challenged federal statutes which criminalized a seaman's failure to complete their contractual term of service. The Court ruled that seamen's contracts had been considered unique from time immemorial, and that "the amendment was not intended to introduce any novel doctrine with respect to certain descriptions of service which have always been treated as exceptional."

Here's the text of the opinion to confirm all that shizz: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/165/275/case.html

Also, I learned how to make an edit request tonight! Go, me! 81.85.69.212 (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2016

72.44.167.179 (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Slavery as "enshrined" ?

"Slavery had been tacitly enshrined in the original Constitution through provisions such as Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, commonly known as the Three-Fifths Compromise"

To say that slavery was "enshrined" in the Constitution suggests that the Framers as a whole somehow supported slavery. While some of the Framers did own slaves, and some (by no means all) did support the practice for economic reasons, owning slaves and supporting the institution of slavery are not one and the same. The Framers believed slavery to be morally repugnant.

The three-fifths compromise was not an expression of strong support for the institution of slavery as the the word "enshrined" would indicate. A shrine by definition is a building dedicated to religious veneration, so to "en-shrine" something means to strongly support or venerate it.

The three-fifths compromise actually lessened the voting strength of the southern states in the House of Representatives by reducing their population count (by counting each black as 3/5 of a person), and thus the number of representatives to which they were entitled. So if anything the compromise should be seen as a reduction in political power granted to slave-holding states - an expression - if somewhat oblique - of opposition to the practice of slavery.

Therefore, the above quoted sentence should be rewritten to replace or remove the word enshrined with more neutral language. Tpkatsa (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Not convinced. In a writing, if something is enshrined, it is included in the writing - it is protected.[1][2] Slavery was that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Re reducing Southern States influence in the House: Well, maybe. It depends on how you define things. It's not clear if voting proportion should be raw number of people (including non-voters like slaves, women, & children), raw number of voters, or something in-between (raw number of potential voters? i.e. exclude slaves & women but keep male children). I will say that the Southern case rankles as offensive to modern sensibilities more so than other cases of counting non-voters. If, say, there's a popular dictator where there's only 1 'vote' that matters but that dictator is genuinely trying to improve the standing of all his citizens, fine, you can argue that dictator deserves weight for all their non-voting subjects. Slaves, on the other hand, had voting interests diametrically opposed to their masters, so it's perverse to reward their masters with *more* power because they're denying the vote to people who would surely vote against them (and did, during Reconstruction). Counting slaves as 0/5th would have been more 'fair' if voting rights were off the table.

You are correct that a number of the Framers had major reservations about slavery, though. I would argue that shows more in Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_9:_Limits_on_Congress which functionally prohibited the import of new slaves after 1808. The Framers thought that without further importation, slavery would die a natural death; they did not foresee that the cotton gin would make slavery a lot more profitable, and that without imports, slaves would be 'bred' much more aggressively and never released as a result. SnowFire (talk) 20:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Another thing, you may be missing is that slavery, as far as the framers understood it, was the right to own slaves (unfree persons as chattel property) and for those who did not support (which many did) they did not object, and they were willing to go along with it, if not outright support it.. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hatnote: Titles of Nobility Amendment

As of a few minutes ago, a Google search for thirteenth amendment has The "Missing" 13th Amendment, an odd Constitution story as the 10th-ranked search result.

I originally added this yesterday after seeing references to this supposedly-ratified (but debunked) "thirteenth amendment" in the news. More discussion, including a reference to this scholarly work:

• Jol A. Silversmith (April 1999), "The "Missing Thirteenth Amendment": Constitutional Nonsense and Titles of Nobility" (PDF), Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, 8: 577, archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-02-15

is at Titles of Nobility Amendment.

Another editor reverted the edit, with an edit summary of rvt. Nobody refers to the Titles of Nobility amendment as the 13th Amendment..

I have restored my original edit.

I think the Google search result speaks for itself: If Google is ranking a page about this never-ratified proposed amendment in the top-10 for a search on "thirteenth amendment" that's strong evidence that people use that search term when looking for the never-ratified proposal. The fact that a scholarly work would be titled "Missing Thirteenth Amendment" is strong additional evidence. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@Davidwr: Thank you for bringing this up on the talk page. I'm afraid I still disagree with you, though.

Hatnotes are basically entries on disambiguation pages. Hatnotes / disambiguation entries are used, very specifically, for "people call this topic by that name." Maybe for short, maybe as an abbreviation, maybe as a synonym. But it's not merely a term "associated" with it. You can often times check via seeing if it makes sense to swap the terms in running text: "The {FAA / Federal Aviation Administration} decreed..." "It was her {fate / destiny}." "Antietam was a battle in {The Civil War / the American Civil War} "13th Amendment" is a term that is associated with the Titles of Nobility Amendment, sure, per your link. It is not a synonym or the like, though. If you saw in running text "The Thirteenth Amendment was proposed in...", it 100% means the slavery one, or perhaps the Thirteenth Amendment to a different constitution. It would never refer to a potential 13th Amendment to the US Constitution without further clarification. More generally, hatnotes are to help the reader; nobody interested in the Titles of Nobility amendment is going to search it up via "13th Amendment." Your linked article doesn't support that; it, at best, is an argument that "Missing Thirteenth Amendment" might be an alternate title (NOT 13th Amendment unadorned), and even then, that's from just a single source. Anyway, I disagree about your interpretation of the Google results; 10th hit is pretty marginal, and a criteria that allowed that kind of linking would link all sorts of random stuff. The 10th hit for "rice" is an article "Can rice actually save your wet phone?" This doesn't tell me much about the notability of rice-phone remedies on Wikipedia, IMO. SnowFire (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

As an additional clarification, I suppose people who buy into the conspiracy theory might actually refer to ToN as just the "13th amendment", but then WP:FRINGE would apply. There isn't a hatnote on JonBenet Ramsey saying "for the singer whom some people erroneously believe is her, see Katy Perry." SnowFire (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

It could just as easily be referred to as a potential 28th amendment, and likely several other numbers along the way. It wasn't ratified when it was a potential 13th or any other number. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scribd.com/doc/20825887/United-States-v-Rhodes-27-f-Cas-785-1866
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110515145925/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JSD/is_7_57/ai_77204744/pg_8/ to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JSD/is_7_57/ai_77204744/pg_8/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://columbialawreview.org/gender-discrimination-and-the-thirteenth-amendment/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/model_state_law.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061107164011/http://13thamendment.harpweek.com/hubpages/CommentaryPage.asp?Commentary=05ProposalPassage to http://13thamendment.harpweek.com/hubpages/CommentaryPage.asp?Commentary=05ProposalPassage
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://columbialawreview.org/mcculloch-and-the-thirteenth-amendment/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://columbialawreview.org/mcculloch-and-the-thirteenth-amendment/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130928013303/https://lcrm.lib.unc.edu/blog/index.php/2012/06/17/remembering-jones-v-alfred-h-mayer-co/ to https://lcrm.lib.unc.edu/blog/index.php/2012/06/17/remembering-jones-v-alfred-h-mayer-co/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

College Student Question

Hello,

Just a question and a suggestion from a college student just starting Wikipedia. I noticed the page discusses how the amendment was made, ratified, and how it affects mainly white southerners; however, I saw little information on how it affected the slaves of that time. I read how it affected their descendants, but few narratives or information on those who experienced it directly. Could that be added into this article?

Thank you. Blfranks (talk) 04:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)Blfranks

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2017

Hello this is 123456Jake and I see some bad grammar I could fix. Thank you for your time. 123456Jake (talk) 13:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — IVORK _Discuss 14:34, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Should there be a section which discusses the prison exception? Why it was put there and why it is controversial nowadays

This seems like an obvious topic that is appropriate to this article. A third of the words in the plain-text of the amendment is about this, yet there is little discussion on this page. This exemption led to Black Codes and other means of criminalizing being black, which re-subjugated them. Recent documentaries such as Thirteen and columns about the Prison-Industrial-Complex (which is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page) make the most frequent reference to the amendment in our modern discourse. It's even in pop culture, such as the Killer Mike song "Reagan." ("Cause slavery was abolished, unless you are in prison // You think I am bullshitting, then read the 13th Amendment") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.2.29 (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I added a section; take a look. Note that this is an article on the 13th Amendment, not prison labor in general, though, so the focus should be on stuff like the drafting of the exemption, rather than TOO much about the modern effects and advocacy. SnowFire (talk) 01:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Should the reference to the thirteen original BNA colonies be changed?

Slavery existed in more British North American colonies than the rebellious thirteen colonies to the south, and the rebellious colonies were not the first thirteen to be established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhamilton1927 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:IMGSIZE

Re: [3][4]

Greetings. I'm not going to spend a lot of time in a discussion here, as I'm busy making this change at other articles. I have made it at about 2,400 articles in the past 6 weeks and this is the first time it has been disputed to my knowledge. I'll just note that SnowFire's rationale is inconsistent with the WP:IMGSIZE policy and the underlying community consensus. If no other editors at this article care about that, so be it—it will simply be one more article yet to be converted, out of many. Please ping me if I'm needed further here. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Review of cite 145

Currently the statement "(a Kentucky lawyer who changed his mind about civil rights law after witnessing organized racist violence)" is included in the line linked to cite 145 as being from Tsesis, The Thirteenth Amendment and American Freedom (2004), p. 73. how ever the copy I have does not include this statement I would request further review of this cite to confirm its accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.12.128 (talk) 05:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Adding to the "See also" section

Add the Russian Emancipation reform of 1861 to the "See also" section?Smellyshirt5 (talk) 03:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the RS often link the two. Rjensen (talk) 06:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2019

24.22.248.177 (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

US Government workers are being threatened with termination if they say no to working without pay.....if this is not involuntary servitude I do not know how else to define it. Every US government worker who has been treated this way should be able to seek punitive damages against the US Government for the violation of their Civil Rights.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. See also WP:NOTFORUM. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Party affiliation of Representatives supporting the Amendment

The 17 September change to re-translate party affiliation of votes is misleading. Both the Unconditional Union Party and Unionist party were much of the same, and were mostly an ad hoc civil war bipartisan caucus. The "Unionist parties" were used primarily as label by Southerners who did not want to affiliate with the Republicans, or wished to win over anti-secession Democrats. As such, these politicians were mostly democrats and did not really live any of their careers in this short lived nominal party that created strange bedfellows. Furthermore, this is part of a revisionist wave that muddles the complexity of the volatile politics surrounding the civil war, and is central to recent political films trying to connect the modern platform of the democratic party to that of John C. Breckinridge——in a simple world without Stephen A. Douglas, Andrew Johnson or much history thereafter.

Violent Imagery Needs A Warning Please!

Hello. I have PTSD. I'm not asking to white wash history, or to not show the truth or the horrors of slavery and the abuses that slaves endured. However, there must be some way to put a warning that there will be an image of a mans back whipped to shreds. I completely lost it. I know the world doesn't revolve around me and my needs, and I'm honestly not trying to be selfish, but I know there are millions of other people with PTSD who would also have a very bad reaction to that image. I have seen in some forums, like reddit, where "nsfw" images like that are covered with a blurred box and a warning, and then if you click the warning, the image is revealed. I truly wish that such a system could be implemented on Wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.40.44 (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, this isn't happening. Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored. There's just one version of Wikipedia for everyone, for a number of good reasons, so the choice is either to include an image or to not include it, not have some sort of click-to-show middle option. It's nothing personal, but this approach has been found not to be feasible in past discussions (for starters, people would start wrapping half the images with such a tag). SnowFire (talk) 14:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Nitpicking notes: A warning isn't censorship. The implementation of "click here for more" isn't a segmentation of wikipedia either. More usefully: The graphic imagery does seem out of place on an article primarily about procedure and legislation and in my opinion doesn't add anything on-topic to this article. Perhaps it'd be better for it to be moved to the main article on slavery in the US? 107.0.143.2 (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Is slavery abolished?

The current version states that slavery is illegal throughout the United States, which is in tension with the text of the amendment itself, which carves out an exception for Prison Labour. If this were a legal trial, my primary argument would be the text itself, which clearly provides an exception for convicts. A weaker, but still strong, argument is that our own Penal labor in the United States article seems to link Prison Labour and Slavery. Loisel (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The article does refer to the crime exception. Penal labor is a form of involuntary servitude, but it is not slavery. Slavery involves ownership of a person. Prison inmates in the United States are not owned by the government that imprisoned them. SMP0328. (talk) 01:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

This is just repetitive. The article already covers the exception just in the previous paragraph. It doesn't need to say "except for a crime" every single sentence. SnowFire (talk) 00:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Prior proposed Thirteenth Amendments

In the list of other putative amendments, is it worth mentioning the States' Immunity from Suit amendment? It was the 13th amendment proposed by Congress, in 1794 following the 12 proposed in the Bill of Rights in 1789 (two of which had not yet been ratified by the States at that stage). 2A00:23C6:1482:A100:EC01:3246:8B37:7311 (talk) 14:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

There should be a disambiguation page

(1810 13th Amendment - Allowing Enforcement of Prohibition of Titles of Nobility) (1865 13th Amendment - Outlawing of Slavery) https://worldhistory.us/american-history/the-titles-of-nobility-act-the-original-thirteenth-amendment.php https://www.committee.org/files/TitlesofNobilitybyMarch.pdf - a notarized set of files that indicate that the 1810 13th Amendment was treated as the law of the land for 56 years, whether it actually was, or not. Moreover, these notarized government files indicate that many State governments believed the Amendment was the law of the land, for that time period. I'm not taking a side in how legitimate this conspiracy theory is. However, the 1810 13th Amendment was clearly sent to the states for ratification. Ergo, it existed with the name "The 13th Amendment" for 56 years. Prior to 1865, if you stated, "The Thirteenth Amendment already exists!" ...you might have been misguided, you might have been wrong...but it's very clear you'd be talking about the actually proposed and passed, and made-ready-for-ratification 1810 "13th Amendment." Plus, how damned hilarious would it be if, at this point in time, all the History books printed post-2021 have to be re-written to not consider George W. Bush the president, stripping him and Giuliani of their citizenship?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.146.48 (talk) 08:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The Titles of Nobility Amendment was not adopted and so was never the Thirteenth Amendment. Thus, there's no need for the disambiguation page you suggested. SMP0328. (talk) 03:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Slavery in the north

"In the slave-owning areas controlled by Union forces on January 1, 1863, state action was used to abolish slavery. The exceptions were Kentucky and Delaware, where slavery was finally ended by the Thirteenth Amendment in December 1865."

This is not true. Slavery in Missouri and new Jersey didn't end until 1865. Alexander R. Burton (talk) 03:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

State action was used in Missouri, Tennessee, West Virginia, Louisiana, Arkansas, Virginia before December 1865. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Slavery wasn't abolished in Missouri in 1863. Alexander R. Burton (talk) 00:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I get it now. Later needs added: "In the slave-owning areas controlled by Union forces on January 1, 1863, later state action was used to abolish slavery." Alexander R. Burton (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

It still implies Missouri was confederate though. It never seceded. Alexander R. Burton (talk) 00:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)