Talk:Slave trade in the United States

Redirect: "Domestic slave trade"

There should be a redirect to this article with the term "Domestic slave trade." This is far more common that "interregional," even when they mean the same. My two cents. 71.63.91.85 (talk) 08:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Good idea. Done. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. @Malik Shabazz:. --71.63.91.85 (talk) 07:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey Malik Shabazz and Special, wouldn't it be better to move this article to the title "Domestic slave trade"? I agree it is disconcerting to come on here. Economists may use this term, but far more has been written by historians about it, who refer to it by the above. I'll move it.Parkwells (talk) 17:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Long-term citation needed tag

There has been a tag on this article since 2009 due to the amount of uncited content. I have moved it here in the event that someone wants to work on finding sources for:

• In the early years, some colonists traded in Native Americans, but began to favor the use of imported slaves from Africa. Following the American Revolutionary War, expansion of settlement into areas west of the Appalachians, and the abolition of transatlantic slave trade in 1808, the domestic trade became increasingly important, especially as settlers flowed into the Deep South in the 19th century. Some people already established as planters took droves of slaves with them when they moved. Others bought slaves from regional markets to develop and staff plantations.
• Historians most widely use the figure of one million slaves relocated during this Middle Passage.
• The new lands in the South attracted many land hungry settlers.
• Although this differential deals only with price and does not account for transport costs and other operating costs (e.g. clothing, medical costs), the price gap displays a potential arbitrage opportunity (assuming costs were low enough).
• If skilled mechanical trades can be considered a reasonable alternative occupation for slave traders, then it appears that inter-regional slave traders are made better off, at least in monetary terms.
• But most traders likely did not possess the skills of a railroad president or chief engineer.
• Speculators created slave trading companies which operated on both ends of the market, with firms such as Franklin and Armfield, based in Alexandria, Virginia, with offices in Louisiana, enjoying immense profits.
• The flow of slaves from the upper to lower south continued to run until the outbreak of the Civil War. Slaves were sold south even during the hostilities, as plantations, businesses and households continued to operate.
• The primary issue that faces such analysis is determining the westward migration of the inter-regional slave trade from that incidental to the relocation of a slave's master.
• With slaves moving further south through the slave trade, conditions and treatment of slaves were understood to decline as they moved further south. In comparison to working in relatively small groups and perhaps alongside some farming families in the Upper South, they were forced to do field work in large gangs under close white supervision, and had less control over their time. The dense trees and underbrush of many riverfront areas in Louisiana and Mississippi were being cleared for the first time to develop plantations, adding to their struggles.

Here is the diff of the changes to see where they came from.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Here is an updated diff that also shows the shortened section headings.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 25 February 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Clear consensus to move, and rough consensus to move to the proposed title; some editors expressed some concerns about ambiguity with Slavery in the United States, and while the alternative garnered some support as an alternative the arguments did not sway other editors to prefer the alternative.

There was no discussion on what to do with the redirect; I have WP:BOLDLY redirected it to History of slavery, but there is no consensus for this action and any editor may revert this or change the target of the redirect to a more appropriate article. Encountered issues correcting the article links; will attempt again in the future.(closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 06:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

---

Domestic slave trade → Slave trade in the United States – to match the commons category and because the current article title is quite provincial; Slave trade in the United States was created in 2005 and has lived happily as a redirect to Slavery in the United States since that time but I think at this point we can afford to fork out the commercial business of slave selling, and the remaining artifacts from that business into its own article; any confusion can be addressed with Hatnotes and the current and future redirects jengod (talk) 05:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support "Domestic" is seen from the U.S. perspective, but the U.S. are not the centre of the universe (WP:GLOBAL). Rsk6400 (talk) 08:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose this move because the title is confusing with Slavery in the United States, perhaps something like, "Internal slave trade in the United States" would work, the focus of the article is not commercial slave trade in general, it is the forced migration in the 1800s. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support per WP:GLOBAL. Confusion with Slavery in the United States could arise, but a simple dab link at the top should cover that problem. Estar8806 (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support The broad topic of slavery includes international trade and domestic trade, as well as many other topics not related to buying and selling. Rjensen (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
• Additional Comment, see this article which uses the phrase "internal slave trade in the United States" for this topic and this article of similar scope, the focus is on what happened with the forced migration in the 1800s. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The current title is the most common name for this subject, and the proposed title is potentially confusing with Slavery in the United States. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support. "Domestic" in this context only makes sense to Americans, so this badly fails WP:PRECISE and WP:GLOBAL.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support Domestic slave trade in the United States. Does need to be expanded for clarity. However, I think most people would read "Slave trade in the United States" as referring to the cross-Atlantic slave trade to the United States. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I would be okay with this alternative proposal. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with domestic slave trade in the United States or domestic slave trade within the United States although I do persist in believing that any confusion between Slavery in the United States and Slave trade in the United States is very resolvable with the same means we use for dealing with many other similar-sounding/related concepts (Hatnotes, short desc, dab pages etc) jengod (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support "Slave trade in the United States" first, and ""Domestic slave trade in the United States" second. My trepidation with the latter is that a "domestic slave" is a term in itself with a narrower meaning, synonymous with "house slave". Clearly trading house slaves is not the topic here. Would also consider "Internal slave trade in the United States". Walrasiad (talk) 04:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The slave trade and colleges

https://www.apmreports.org/episode/2017/09/04/shackled-legacy Xx236 (talk) 07:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Long quote from O'Connell

The long quote from Daniel O'Connell is a primary source--I deleted it. It's all polemics from someone whose information was all secondhand. He lived in Ireland and was an activist best known for fighting for Catholic emancipation in Ireland. He also gave speeches denouncing slavery around the world especially in the British Empire in the Caribbean and India. He never saw slavery anywhere and never visited the USA. To quote his biographer: "in 1833, immediately after the passing of the British act abolishing slavery in the colonies, O’Connell admitted that he had often longed to go to America, but, ‘so long as it is tarnished by slavery, I will never pollute my foot by treading on its shores.’ " in Patrick Geoghegan, Liberator Daniel O'Connell: The Life and Death of Daniel O'Connell, 1830–1847 (2010) p 202. What we need to describe how the system worked is a reliable secondary source (like Bancroft) of which there are many as listed in Bibliography of the slave trade in the United States. Rjensen (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)