Talk:Bibliography of the United States Constitution

Slavery section 2

Allreet, the paragraph at the head of the slavery section needs a bit more context, one of which was the important idea that slavery was not made a federal mandate, where the individual states were allowed to prohibit slavery if they so chose, which the northern states and some middle states did. I added this idea to the paragraph, along with a footnote about provisions, etc. Feel free to edit as you feel may be necessary.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with most every word you've added. Therefore, I'm reverting the paragraph to the original text. Allreet (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Allreet — Missed this at first. Above I invited edits that were necessary. Frankly I'm a little shocked at this apparently unfriendly move. i.e.Another massive deletion with not even an explanation. Important context, nothing lengthy, cited by two reliable sources, was added to the paragraph, that previously presented the issue in something of a vacuum, with not even a clue as to how most of the states did not want slavery. The issue of slavery as you know is controversial, and needs to be presented in this context.
What are you basing your disagreement on?

• As various states refused to ratify a Constitution that prohibited slavery, various provisions were adapted to assure ratification by all the states.<Kaminski, 1995], pp. 18, 202><Klaman, 2016, pp. 7-8>

Is this not true, and relevant?

• The Three-fifths Compromise and the Fugitive Slave Clause was among the most significant of these provisions.<Kaminski, 1995, pp. 18-19><Klaman, 2016, p. 293>

A footnote. Not true, or relevant?

• Though Congress was allowed to prohibit the foreign slave trade, beginning in 1808, the issue of slavery was not to be a federal matter, with each state deciding whether it would allow the institution of slavery to exist within its confines. Emancipation gradually continued in the northern and middle states, however, slavery would thrive and expand in the southern states.<Kaminski, 1995, pp. vii-viii>

All true, general, relative and uncontroversial facts, most of which were in footnotes, that gives important context to a controversial issue, which were restored. Below you maintained that you didn't want to "...get dragged into an interminable back-and-forth", but it seems you have invited just such an ordeal, apparently for no pressing reason. Since none of the content in question is in error, nor contradicts any of the other statements, this needs to be discussed before anyone just outright deletes it all with no viable explanation. If anyone can demonstrate any errors or misleading wording, or unsourced items, beyond question, then editing or deletion of any item in question would be called for. Meanwhile, please don't revert and provoke another edit war. If you feel it's necessary we can call an RfC. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

You changed the meaning of the section's intro, thereby reverting what I had written. You didn't add context — you added content to refute what I had posted.

The subject is slavery and details about other aspects of the Constitution are irrelevant. For example, if we're going to mention the Great Compromise at this point, then we should explain how it served to preserve slavery: by giving the Southern states a political advantage.

You're also "whitewashing" the issue; that is, emancipation in the North is no consolation for the 4 million people who were enslaved at the outbreak of the Civil War, a five-fold increase that was enabled by what the Constitution said and what it didn't say. So to claim there was no "federal" mandate is a matter of semantics, and sources to that effect abound.

The truth is, you made the first "unfriendly move" by changing the thrust of what was stated, and your additions should have been discussed, as you had started to do regarding James Madison and the bogus assertion about context. Having lost that argument, you then forged ahead with different edits, still trying to make the same point. That's friendly? Allreet (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

— This indignant gruff about "changed the meaning", "thrust" and "whitewashing" is what's bogus.. Including the whole truth is not whitewashing, while trying to suppress the truth so one can present the typical modern day flat-earth view about slavery is in fact just the opposite of whitewashing. If the overall situation with slaves was that bad there would have been a major uprising, and there were millions of slaves that could have done so, while most people, north and south, didn't own slaves and weren't about to leave their homes and go marching off to help those that did, esp with Britain ever ready to supply any uprising with arms and other forms of support, as they once attempted to do. It never happened. Not even John Brown could rally support, as, like everyone else, they recognized him as a self righteous, narrow minded and unstable fanatic. And indeed, when the south attempted to succeed Britain was the Confederacy's major supplier of arms and other supplies, while the south provided Britain with the cotton they needed to keep their huge textile industry above water.
— Also, please stop with the ownership remarks about "original text". No text remains original very long, and editors are allowed to add items if they are supported by reliable sources. You seem to be more concerned with your "original text" than anything else, as you once exclaimed "what gives you the right" when I made a few simple edits. This hot and then cold approach to editing has really gone on long enough and is disruptive. Please find a stable medium..
— In any case, most of the text in question looks fine, so I'm not quite understanding your retort, at my expense.The main reason why the slave population was increasing was because they were reproducing at the same rate as the white population, not because of some provision in the Constitution. Hacker, 2020, the source you've provided says, The results highlight the importance of natural increase to the rapid growth of the U.S. slave population and indicate that approximately 10 million slaves lived in the United States.... This would have occurred with or without the Constitution. The Hacker listing has been moved from the body of text to the list of sources under Citations. I do hope this meets with your approval. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Significant changes require consensus, not unilateral "correction". That's not a matter of ownership but of the procedures that should be followed in dispute resolution.

Your views of slavery are far from correct; for example, it really was that bad. But I see no point arguing with you over content that hasn't been posted, for example, anything that suggests slavery really wasn't that bad. Allreet (talk) 04:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

— All that was added was some statements about states being divided over the issue of slavery, which were in accord to existing statements that touched on this, but were not clear, along with footnotes to this effect. This is your idea of "major change"?. Adding an entire separate section on slavery was a major change, which you added with no consensus, so please...
— Your notion that slaves were whipped to do work, fed slop, wore rags, kept in irons, etc is not at all in line with the way the greater majority of slaves were actually treated. No one is denying that there was abuses, but overall it was frowned upon to mistreat slaves in the manner which you seem to believe existed everywhere.
— Slavery is not a black and white issue (no pun intended) and your apparent tendency to compare slavery in America with the holocaust is the only real distortion. Slavery was morally wrong, and most of the founders struggled with the idea, as I'm sure you know. While emancipation on its face is a noble idea, simply freeing slaves, esp woman and children, with no means of support, no shelter and nothing but a pat on the back with good-luck wishes would have resulted in a fate worse than slavery for most. That was the reality that prevailed. Today, some individuals sit in their comfortable armchairs and make judgements from afar,100's of years after the fact, which at this late date only serves to drive a wedge between the races and is often done so simply to demoralize and divide a nation by those who look at the American nation, with its longest standing form of government, with envious contempt. No, this last statement was not directed at you, but at the 'friends of America' crowd' who know full well what they hope to effect with their one sided and distorted accounts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I said nothing, not a word, regarding the reality of slavery. You, however, have made very clear what your views on the subject are. It's also clear from that why you objected to what I posted. Allreet (talk) 05:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

No one said you said anything about the realities of slavery. In fact you seem to skirt the idea, esp when context is brought into the discussion. My 'views' are derived from reliable sources, many of which cover how slaves were treated by the founders, as exemplified by Jefferson, Franklin and most others. Sorry if this gets in the way of your overall horrific views of slavery. Certainly I wish that slavery wasn't part of America's early history, but then I don't have to ignore the overall picture and bleed all over the place to prove that point to others. As I said, the paragraph in question looks fine -- no need to lock horns on our differing views, unless you want to continue with this. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

You ascribed several views to me regarding the realities of slavery—for example, about how I believe slaves were treated, about "my tendency to compare slavery" with the holocaust, and just now about my "overall horrific views of slavery". I do have thoughts on all of the above, but I said nothing to warrant such specific accusations.

As for claiming your position is derived from reliable sources, such as Jefferson, Franklin, and other founders, their views are cited by scholars in contexts that refute what they believed. For example, no source says Jefferson was correct that emancipation would have been crueler than keeping blacks enslaved. His was a pro-slavery argument, a rationalization that the Emancipation Proclamation put to rest.

Regarding Hacker, you emphasized how the increase in birth rates reflected improvements in conditions for the enslaved, as if that were a good thing. The fact is, plantation owners compensated for the ban on importing slaves by becoming more efficient at breeding them, like livestock. They provided better conditions not because it was more humane but because it protected their investment. The change in practices more than tripled the number of enslaved people and with that the wealth of their masters.

Finally, the political viewpoints you expressed have no place in Wikipedia, not in a discussion and certainly not in an article. If you can't keep your approach to a subject separate from your politics, you should find another topic to write about. Allreet (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• I said your apparent tendency to compare to the holocaust, which was an idea not pulled out of thin air, and as you continue to substantiate in this reply -- no different that you referring to my views as "neanderthal", so again, please desist with the double talk..

• There are many works on Jefferson's , Franklin's views about slavery, much of it speculation and peer-driven conjecture, 100's of years after the fact, so all we can do is look at the facts, and there are many that are not consistent with the idea that they had no concerns about treatment. Also, I didn't say Jefferson said that emancipation would have been crueler than slavery, it was just a general comment about such a reality, that simply freeing slaves would have forced most slaves into a life of foraging, thievery, etc to survive. You can assume that Jefferson, et al, didn't have a clue about such a prospect.

• It was generally frowned upon to treat slaves cruelly, and they were much better treated in America than anywhere else slavery was practiced in the world, including Africa, by far. And by the way, no one can force them to "breed", as you put it. Better conditions were a good thing. Are you suggesting that slaves should have been half starved and overall treated cruely just so plantation owners would realize less profits?

• Last, we have both expressed our views on this subject, so please don't stand there and tell me my 'views', consistent with many sources, have no place on WP, and please do try to get a handle on your ownership tendencies. The talk page is for article improvement, and I haven't ignored that idea anymore than you have. Perhaps we should just stop on that note, because neither of us are going to include our views in this article – all we can do is refer to reliable sources objectively. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC).

  Frankly, I believe you mean well but can't see the errors of your ways. Thus, there really isn't much point in continuing this conversation. We'll just have to see where the chips fall with future edits. Allreet (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Allreet — Well, thanks for that. Just wanted to emphasize that treatment of slaves wasn't all bad in terms of personal treatment, living conditions, food clothing and so forth. And indeed, as you noted, masters were looking out for their investments, with the understanding that slavery existed only to make huge profits in the first place, and no one is denying the abuses that sometimes occurred. In spite of the contradictions, many of the founders struggled with the idea of slavery, as it most certainly went against enlightenment thinking. Just trying to point out that there was often a humanitarian aspect that factored in underneath the idea of slavery, strange as this might seem to some in modern times. As for edits, we can only go by reliable sources, so that should keep both of us in line, not that we really need to be checked on that. Cheers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I see nothing to cheer about in your arguments. I find them despicable in substance and insulting in form.

On the first count, there's the idea you've been promoting: that the the treatment of slaves wasn't all bad. I don't think there's a source that has anything good to say about slavery that isn't racist in nature. In any case, while you may think otherwise, food, clothing, and housing are hardly compensation for an absolute denial of freedom, plus billions of hours of forced labor.

On the second count, when I mentioned breeding, I wasn't making that up, yet you mocked the idea with the retort that no one can force them to "breed". "Them" happens to have been 10 million human beings who were held in captivity and who were treated as a commodity, no different from livestock. Before making snide comments and guessing at realities, you should look up something on the subject. Allreet (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Above you acknowledge that I "mean well" and that there wasn't "much point in continuing this conversation", yet here you are, with your hot and then cold tone, and your redundant referral to the one side of slavery. We all know slaves were held in captive, and your account on matters is hardly objective and overlooks much of what historians have acknowledged, including Annette Gordon-Reed, per Thomas Jefferson, and has the emotional capacity to acknowledge both Jefferson's faults and good points. No one is denying the abuses. We were discussing treatment, not justification, as was explained for you more than once. Your notion that all slaves were forced to reproduce, as if none of them were inclined to do so on their own, seems consistent with your notion that none of the founders and others treated slaves in a humane manner in spite of slavery. Fine. As for snide remarks, the 'cheers' was a friendly and closing gesture to you, yet you attempted to turn that around and throw it in the dirt as if I was cheering something else. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Hacker's title

The number of slaves in the US as stated in the section, per the Abstract you've cited, says "nearly four million", which seems correct. Yet the title of Hacker's work says, From ‘20. and odd’ to 10 million. Another source Sowle, 1968, p. 237, ( JSTOR 40578844 ) says, "The war emancipated over three million Negroes ..." Our WP article, 1860 United States census, says "The total population included 3,953,762 slaves." Where is Hacker getting ten million? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

10 million is the total number of individuals ever held in slavery in the U.S. Hacker's calculation of this number begins with the 20 or so slaves who arrived in 1619 and ends with the millions emancipated in the 1860s. Do you understand the title now? Allreet (talk) 05:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Clear. Apparently you have access to the entire work. Does Hacker often any historical context, or does he typically ignore Slavery in Africa, the African slave traders who for centuries raided often defenseless tribes, or took prisoners of war, for the sole purpose of selling them off to the Arabs, Dutch, Cubans, Brazilians, not to mention other tribes, like the Ashanti, who used slaves, as well as to the British who were in the business of shipping slaves all over – or does he present the issue in a vacuum to appease a modern and often naive American audience? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

What I just explained is taken from the Abstract, while the link I provided is to the entire paper. No historical context is necessary. Hacker is simply estimating the number of people who were held against their will in the American colonies/states over a period of nearly 250 years. Allreet (talk) 05:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Hacker notes an important factor in regards to slave treatment in America. Re:After 1808 with the prohibition against slave imports:

• The robust natural population growth of the slave population in the United States stands in dramatic contrast to negative rates of growth experienced by slave populations in the Caribbean and South America, which continued to grow only because of continued imports of slaves via the transatlantic slave trade.
• The growth of the slave population has important implications for comparative studies of slave well-being, disease environments, treatment, work regimes, and ability to form families.
• ... natural population growth, especially among American-born slaves, who lived longer lives and bore more children than African-born slaves.

Such growth can only occur when living conditions will allow for it. Expecting women who are subjected to constant stress and other hardships will miscarry. No, this is not justification for slavery, it's just a reality that is too often ignored. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Your interpretation is an attempt to put Hacker's findings in a positive light. You have no source for this so-called reality that is too often ignored. What you're saying is utter nonsense. Allreet (talk) 07:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

What interpretation? Hacker was quoted as to the circumstances behind the rapid population increase. Hacker doesn't mention breeding, "forced" breeding, rape at all as factors in the "robust" population growth, while no one is denying sexual exploitation occurred on some plantations, (Davis, 2014, pp. 51-53, however maintains that there is very meager evidence for the systematic breeding of slaves) All that is being touched upon are living conditions which allowed for women to carry to maturity -- that is all. This is not an attempt to obscure many of the abuses that occurred, as you seem to think on my account. This doesn't mean, however, we should ignore everything else that factored into this advent. Again, none of this is going to factor into the bibliography, but you keep coming back after you claimed there "wasn't much point in continuing this discussion". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)