Talk:Freedman

Emancipation Proclamation

The Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave. For starters, Lincoln had no authority to free slaves. That required a Constitutional amendment. Furthermore, the slaves that Lincoln declared emancipated were in areas controlled by the Confederacy. Slaves in areas controlled by the North, whether in Confederate states or Union states, were specifically exempted. Thus the only slaves to be declared emancipated were those who could not be emancipated in fact. Jive Dadson (talk) 07:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Roman Slaves

Current article says:

It was the exceptional feature of ancient Rome that almost all slaves freed by Roman owners automatically received Roman citizenship.

And yet on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manumission it says;

In Rome former slaves... did not gain all the rights of a Roman citizen.

This disparity needs to be corrected or better explained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.54.6 (talk • contribs)

Holding Office?

According to this PBS article, freed slaves gained full citizenship with the exception that they weren't permitted to hold office (their children gained full unrestricted citizenship). I seem to recall some other caveats, but I don't remember details. This still counts as "exceptional" by the standards of the time; compare Athens, where freed slaves and their children were considered resident aliens (metics) rather than citizens. --Delirium 16:39, 11 January 2007 (UT

According to the Native Cherokee Nation and the descendants of the five civilized tribes. This word discribes a people put on the Wallace Roll, Kern Clifton roll, Dawes Indian roll of early 1900's these are native indians tribal citizen some were mixed negros slaves living as citizens that were freed by the tribes and given full citizenship.

Capitalisation

Is it Freedmen, or freedmen? DiggyG 07:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Move To "Freedperson"

Please move the article to "Freedperson" and change all instances of "man" to "person", I beg you please.70.74.35.53 23:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiPedia doesn't work on personal favours. Support your request, opinion or idea - or else it won't go forward. I disagree with your request, because I think the correct word is freedman and I do not agree with your plead: Merriam Webster's dictionary agrees by yielding no results for freedperson but yielding for freedman.

Can't find a source

That uses this term except in reference to US slavery. Although other cultures had slaves who became free the word "Freedman" is tied to the US. I think we may need to rewrite this article to refelct that. futurebird 17:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I can.... too easilly. Did you even try? "Lurk moar", they'd say. This article needs to be re-written, it's too USA-centred — which doesn't reflect an encyclopedic point of view of the word.--portugal (talk) 09:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with the above comments. Apart from the absurd USA-centrism (a massive, much-discussed problem throughout Wikipedia, in any case), "freedman" is a peculiarly clumsy construct (many English-speakers in the USA seems to have a tin ear when it comes to the nuances of their own tongue) and Roman freed slaves would be better rendered in English as "free men" or "freemen". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.176.28 (talk) 12:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Confusing to stretch chronology this far

To have an article that tries to combine thinking on Greek and Roman slaves, with 19th c. US is going too far, I think. Agree with Futurebird on need for separate article.--Parkwells (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This is simply false. In all early law dictionaries, the United States relies on the Roman law to make a determination on how to understand Freedmen in 1865. Not only that, the United States makes an adjustment from Roman precedence so that formerly enslaved persons are not made to be under "Patrons" (former slave masters) like in Roman times. Sheik Way-El (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Parkwells, though this sort of stretch, along with the USA-centrism noted above, is typical of wikipedia entries. Another benefit of separating the Roman from the "American", the more natural rendition of the Latin as "free men" or "freemen" can be substituted for the peculiarly tin-eared "freedman". Billie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.176.28 (talk) 12:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Redirect is confusing

Redirect of "emancipated" to a long article on Abolitionism is confusing. There is almost no statement or definition about emancipation in the article, and the Emancipation Proclamation is only referenced once.--Parkwells (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Need source for:

In fact, Freedmen formed about 5% of the population in Rome during the Imperial Age of Rome. --95.113.24.238 (talk) 19:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggested merger with manumission article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no consensus. There appears to be some confusion about what to merge where. Feel free to create a new proposal in the future, perhaps with a more detailed rationale. --Pontificalibus (talk) 10:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Agreed. The articles are quite similar and should fit together well. Both articles (and a merged one would) need additional cites and content, though. GenQuest (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

With all the redirects and disambs that are out there, I say merge it to Freedman, again with proper citations, with notable difference. It will save future debates. In my lifetime, I've never even heard of the term "manumission." — WylieCoyote (talk) 06:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Support - These appear to be good merge candidates. Jojalozzo 21:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. Topics with some overlap but significant differences. For example, the large number of slaves in the US Civil War freed by Union action were not manumitted. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we are talking about merging Manumission into Freedman. Freedman already acknowledges both mechanisms for gaining freedom. Does that work for you? Jojalozzo 22:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. There are two forms, manumission and emancipation. Merging this article with manumission would wrongly suggest that it is the only means of achieving freedom. StickyWikis | talk — 19:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we are talking about merging Manumission into Freedman. Freedman already acknowledges both mechanisms for gaining freedom. Does that work for you? Jojalozzo 22:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure? The suggestion seems to be the other way around - merging Freedman into Manumission. StickyWikis | talk — 18:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I see the original proposer has left the project without clarifying this question. I would guess it was unspecified to allow the decision to be made here. Would you support the action if we merged Manumission into Freedman? Jojalozzo 18:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm not so sure. The reason being that if it were to be merged then so should emancipation. They are two different things, and if we are going to merge one we should also merge the other. StickyWikis | talk — 06:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Dissagree I think these are relted, but not the same thing.

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.

Proposed merge of Manumission into Freedman

I have reframed the discussion started last November by clarifying that Manumission be merged into Freedman. I think the overlap is sufficient that the mnerge is a good idea and I think Freedman is the correct resulting article. Jojalozzo 18:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Freedman would be the better choice of the two, especially after seeing that "Freedmen" redirects here. Although I think that the US concept of "Freedmen" may be most essential for readers, it is also totally unsourced; we need to work on this before trying to merge in more poorly sourced material...Boogerpatrol (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Examples of Freedmen and Freedwomen

Hello, this is a nice article but I think it would benefit greatly if you hyperlinked some examples of freedmen and freedwomen. For example a freedwoman from Rome would be Hispala Faecenia. Thank you for your time :) --RunaBellona (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)RunaBellona

Wiki Education assignment: Pompeii and the Cities of Vesuvius

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 12 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pompeii 315 (article contribs).

Proposal: "Roman Freedmen" Article

I believe there is enough material to combine from this Article, Roman Slavery, and Manumission into a more cohesive article on Roman Freedmen. Scholarship in this topic has picked up as of late. The Freedman section in "Roman Slavery" needs to be properly cited, at least.

See: Mouritsen, H. (2015). The Freedman in the roman world. Cambridge University Press., Hunt, P. (2018). Ancient greek and roman slavery. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. , Hartnett, Jeremy. Roman Street: Urban Life and Society in Pompeii, Herculaneum, and Rome. Cambridge University Press, 2020.

NChapman98 (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Today's African Americans are Freedmen + Freedman is a legal status

It is commonly misunderstood that the term Freedmen is only applied to those who were emancipated in 1865 however, the term was applied to those freed before 1865 and also the descendants of those emancipated in 1865. In fact, terms like Choctaw Freedmen, Cherokee Freedmen, Chickasaw Freedmen, can still be found in use today.

Congressmen began using the term "American Freedmen" to refer to that class of persons who were free by self-emancipation and other forms as early as 1863. Proof can be found with the title of a government agency called the ‘American Freedmen's Inquiry Commission’ which was created under U.S. Secretary of War Edwin Stanton in 1863.

Understanding the term ‘Freedmen’ as an intended status as opposed to being a racially relative identifier is significant as certain African Americans realign with the usage of ‘American Freedmen’ for delineation and disaggregation purposes. Oxford languages defines ‘Status’ as “the relative social, professional, or other standing of someone or something.” In the Supreme Court holding SFFA vs. Harvard and UNC, Justice Clarence Thomas rightfully noted that the term Freedmen was an "under inclusive proxy for race."

The organization United Sons and Daughters of Freedmen, formed in 2020, defines “American Freedmen” as the the 4 million men, women and children emancipated in 1865 by way of the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution. It also includes the progeny of those historically identified as Negroes, Blacks, Coloreds or Mulattos of African descent who gained freedom from slavery prior to 1865 by way of either the Emancipation Proclamation, being contrabands under the Confiscation Acts, being Fugitives in accordance to Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution as well as the Fugitive Slave Acts, Freedom Suits, Gradual Abolition or Emancipation in northern states, purchasing their own freedom, manumission by owners or enlisting and fighting as Patriots during the American Revolution.

The ‘American Freedmen’ families today are descendants of those emancipated persons as cited in the definition above. According to Black's Law 5th edition, a person's status is not one that is terminable by the will of any party. The courts also understood that this particular status (Freedmen) was one passed down from parent to child:

“The term “freedmen ” was one generally applied to the lately emancipated slaves and their descendants… The court further finds that the term “freedmen,” as used in the will, refers to that class of persons in the United States who were emancipated from slavery during our late civil war or by its results, and embraces also the descendants of such persons.”

In a book published in 1904 titled, On the Social Standing of Freedmen as Indicated in the Latin Writers, the fact that Freedman/Freedman also embraced the descendants of the emancipated (manumissi in Rome) is succinctly highlighted.

In the legal documents titled "Corpus Juris" vol.27, pg. 895 (1922), it defines Freedmen as, "A term which defines that class of persons and their descendants who were emancipated during the war between the American states."

We are urging that you consider adding this as a section to this particular page and to also make a distinction by using the word Freedmen or Freedman as a standalone word, and using American Freedmen in the same way you distinguish the Indian Freedmen by their respective names such as Choctaw Freedmen, Chickasaw Freedmen, etc.

I can provide MANY more sources that will accentuate my suggestion if needed. Also, I will be willing to draft the section myself and have any of the editors edit that section according to the wikipedia standards. Sheik Way-El (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)