Talk:Treatment of slaves in the United States

Content fork from Slavery in the United States

See Talk page discussion at Talk:Slavery_in_the_United_States#Content_fork:_.22Treatment.22_section. --Noleander (talk) 19:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Given the extensive writing about slave conditions, there seems to be an over-reliance on one article by Moon related to sexual conditions for slaves. Other sources would also be useful.Parkwells (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Just skimming the book, not only are there no virtually no sources in the article, it's also written by persons who make their sole living from

victim hood. I'm not sure if this would qualify as original research or not, but it is certainly biased. I'm not personally going to look into

the Wikipedia rules or make an edit myself. Wikipedia is a lost cause.

Democracy: Where any two idiots can outvote a genius. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.3.251.71 (talk) 01:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for sources

While copyediting the lead, I added two requests for citations. The claim regarding medical knowledge of slaves appears to be sourced elsewhere in the article, but I was unable to verify as the source is unavailable online. Also, I'm not sure if there's a policy to avoid citations in the lead. If that is the case, please let me know (preferably on my talk page.) ʝunglejill 23:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

What's the deal with this article?

I am confused by the contrast between this article's low level of prose and wikifying and the apparent effort that went into its creation. The low level of prose leads me to believe that it is not copyrighted - I also did not find the text online. If anyone can shed some light on this and answer the few requests for citations, that would be great. ʝunglejill 20:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Objectivity of this article

This article is titled "Treatment of slaves in the United States". It seems to me that it should be titled something along the lines of "Slavery abuse in the U.S". I will obviously have to clarify that I am anti-slavery, but it seems obvious to me that no honest effort was committed to an actually objective take on slavery.

I haven't seen a single mention in this article of those occasions on which slaves were treated humanely, and in which they were actually happy with their living conditions. From what I understand, such situations were not as rare as people think. Maybe not common, but still worth covering.

I realize that this may be difficult to write, since the entire idea of slavery is putrid to us (as it should be), but since this website is supposed to be objective, I think that it should be done.

For example, there is at least one collection of quotations on the web taken from interviews with ex-slaves at the beginning of the 20th century. Like this one, by Patsy Mitchner:

"Before two years had passed after the surrender, there was two out of every three slaves who wished they was back with their marsters. The marsters' kindness to the black after the war is the cause of the black having things today. There was a lot of love between marster and slave, and there is few of us that don't love the white folks today. . . . Slavery was better for us than things is now, in some cases. blacks then didn't have no responsibility; just work, obey, and eat."

Again, I am very much anti-slavery - I'm not some neo-nazi or historical revisionist, but maybe we could add a small section dedicated to these cases. 50.142.171.110 (talk) 04:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)Greemo

I think objections to this article's objectivity some assert in various sections are meritless and beg more questions about critics' internalized biases. So, my best reply is refer to Official Wiki policy at link]]. Per these guidelines, explicit verbiage defines 'neutral' as "[R]epresenting fairly, [and]proportionately, ... all significant views...published by RELIABLE sources (emphases added). That lexis definition alone would appear to make clear that well-known historical events proven beyond rational debate as true fact by extensive hard-core evidence with obvious impact are totally objective bases from which to extrapolate in all cases as logical deductions impossible to escape insofar as US slavery (NO pun meant).

For instance, consider the above commentary. It begins with being forced to admit that instances where slaves were content with their sad existence were rare, or "not common." Quite correct - for very good reason. Such "happy Blackey step & fetch lackey" tales are very few and virtually 100% discredited long ago. Thus, it's fair to represent direct contrary evidence of credible sources in correct proportion to its overwhelming preponderance. That's what this article did by omission of one word so absurd as contentment with perpetual captivity to net zero credibility for all Wikipedians.

Despite this, I admit one point is quite valid the above critic made by a blockquote from ex-slave interview Patsy Mitchner gave white FWP reps decades ago in Jim Crow heydays. On just cursory read up to Paragraph One of its full-text, I had to stop, drop and roll around laughing and crying at once. Mrs. Mitchner greets her visitors so graciously, she quite literally reeks condescension from the grave:

Come right in, honey, I been expectin' you white folks a long time from what I dreampt an' I wants to tell you my story. You see I is umble an' perlite 'cause my white folks teached me dat way."Come right in, I'm not feelin' well. My husban' has been dead a long time. I cannot stan' up to talk to you so have a seat" (emphases added) Slave Narratives, "M"

So, it's no wonder why the rest of her statements are safe to dismiss as highly dubious at best.

Nonetheless, Mrs. Mitchner's narrative goes on to relate the sale of her mother, sister and brother to slave traders bound for the Mississippi Bottoms. She never saw or heard any word from or about her mother or brother again but managed to run into her sister by some incredible coincidence after civil war forced US slavery's end. And although she did state they had no responsibility during captivity except "work, obey and eat," Mrs. Mitchner also added that,"de food wus bad at marsters. It wus cooked one day for de nex'," and "No biscuit wus seen in de slave houses. No sir, dat dey wus not."

As for other basic essentials, Mrs. Mitchner said "Our clothes wus bad an' our sleepin' places wus jest bunks. Our shoes had wooden bottoms on 'em." Hardly seems like a great life of opulent luxury with which anyone should be content. Especially when young Patsy had to witness bad treatment "Marster" gave her mother by beating her "till de scars wus on her back, so I could see 'em.""

Likewise, it's no surprise that "Before two years after the surrender, ... two out of every three slaves .... wished they was back with their marsters." Set free by "masters" under duress of Union troops' presence or let loose by those same groups who came as agents of rescue with full power of federal law behind them, slaves had few viable ways to earn a living amid war-ravaged Southern landscapes after lifetimes of legislated illiterate ignorance and ongoing socio-economic oppression by new Black Codes that deliberately recreated slavery conditions. Moreover, ex "masters" exhibited token "kindness" out of self-interest in efforts to lure desperately needed labor back to its old place on slave plantations. Why else is no ex-captive known to accept such gracious invitations to return home who built a new life of their own making for themselves and loved ones? The true reply is easy to deduce by equally self-evident truths with no citation or external verification required.

But for those who refuse to accept reality, an especially noteworthy exemplar of eloquent prose depicts sarcastic etiquette at its finest is Jourdan Anderson's Letter to My Old Master, first published by the Cincinnati Centennial in 1865 and reprinted with high profile fanfare and praise by the New York Daily Tribine and other news outlets of equal prestige. Another one is from fugitive Jarm Logue in reply to his "mistress" who demands his return or $1,000 in lieu thereof forced to sell formerly rich lands with no good hands to work them at Wretched Woman! Quite curiously, that letter is not referenced by a [page] on Jarm Logue and his many great post-liberation accomplishments. Yet one more famous piece of proof that a man set free from captivity can indeed manage to exceed beyond all expectations is Frederick Douglass' lengthy written oration to his former 'owners' entitled "I am Your Fellow Man, Not Your Slave".

I could go on about many flaws in FWP methodology and interview techniques, some of which were done by known descendants of subjects' own ex "masters." Not to mention widespread racial animus that led subjects to fear interviewers and say what they wanted to hear - not what those who read their stores must know. Such issues are much better addressed by well-documented edits of affected Wiki pages, which I plan for my near future. Meanwhile, try an exercise on for size dubbed Can You Guess Who Did This Interview? It features the full-text of two oral interview transcrips with the same subject on separate dates by FWP reps of opposite race. Differences in subject's revelations are quite revealing. CrissieLuckey (talk) 12:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute

I logged in and noticed that there hasn't been any discussion taking place about my comments, so I have placed a POV tag on the page, and will further explain my reasons of doing so.

I believe that the neutrality of this article should be called into question for the following reason: The article only accurately represents a single dimension of slaves’ treatment - specifically, the negative kind. And while no educated individual would call such treatment rare, it was not exclusive. The title of this article is "Treatment of slaves in the United States", not "Abuse of slaves in the United States". There were a large amount of slaves that were actually treated with comparative humaneness, and were happy with the status quo.

Now, before anyone objects, please understand that when I say a "large amount of slaves" that were treated well, I do not mean to say that there was a large percentage of them. I admit that it was a low one - but it is a fact of history, and one that needs to be covered properly here. As evidence of this history, I have provided at least one quotation from a slave about her sentiment towards her life as one. There are plenty more – there is one such collection located at this link, though I doubt it can be considered a valid enough source to cite, and it has since gone offline.

On Wikipedia, we dedicate space to discuss the Good Samaritan Germans during the holocaust, who took in Jews and protected them from the Nazi regime. We also clarify that these cases were infrequent, but we do not leave them out. I think the same subject matter needs to be addressed here, and as far as I can see, it is not covered at all.

I understand that this matter is sensitive. We hate slavery, as well we should. We want to paint it in evil light, because that’s what it is: evil. Our first inclination is to say that it is bad, and that the conditions were bad. It is, and they were – but we must also be objective, and describe what else happened, even though it may have been the exception.

50.142.171.110 (talk) 06:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Greemo

II think your objections can be safely ignored, considering that you have sited a source that came from American Renaissance, a noted white nationalist/white supremacist organization. I think the idea that slavery wasn't bad for everyone is repellant in the extreme. Further, the first line of this article "The treatment of slaves in the United States varied by time and place, but was generally brutal and degrading. Whipping, execution and rape were common." implies that not all slaves were mistreated (beyond of course the fundamental mistreatment of treating humans as property). Citing specific examples of slaves that weren't mistreated is pointless. protohiro (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I knew people would find this objection repulsive, so I tried very hard to show that my intention here is only factuality, and that I really do not want to give the wrong picture here. Emotions must not come into play. However, I was not aware that this "American Renaissance" publication had the history you just cited. In that case, I absolutely agree that any references from it are clearly inappropriate on this site.

However, I still maintain that if a historical basis may be found for some exceptions, they ought to be mentioned. But I clearly have not demonstrated that historical basis, and unless I do, I therefore concur with you that the neutrality of this article is not currently compromised. 68.52.172.145 (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Greemo

George Washinton's mixed race slaves

Just added a short paragraph under the Mixed Race Children heading on one possible reason why Washington may have manumitted his slaves in his will. Comments welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MKStuckey (talk • contribs) 02:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Incendiary

I read the first few sentences of this Wiki and had to stop: it is so perversely opinionated.

Perhaps a few foolish slave holders were brutal, certainly not the majority.

My grandmother related to me with tears in her eyes, seeing her mother raped by the Yankees after they had burned everything because the family property in Maryland had been used to breed slaves to send to the Deep South. Slaves were valuable, and certainly nothing to beat or wantonly destroy. Then, cabins full of slaves would be like having a lot full of cars for sale today: would you destroy the cars you owned? Breeding was encouraged; that and six other plantations did nothing but provide, train, and educate slaves for sale to Deep South places where they were required.

I cannot believe Wikipedia allows this terribly slanted article, admittedly on a precarious subject, be published.

Whoever follows this up TalcottFactors@GMail.com or +63-2-239-82-05 Wm. Talcott May (a Cuba Atkinson, we redeployed our slaves to sugar planting in Cuba and Brasil) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.28.127.230 (talk) 11:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I am also extremely taken back by how this article is written. It is for the most part improperly sourced, and is totally misleading. It focuses on only one aspect of slavery, when in fact slaves were like family in many southern homes. I am aware that this may make people uncomfortable in a generation when hating one's history is considered a good thing, but facts are facts.Samuel Rosenbalm (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Samuel, they were slaves. Bought, sold, whipped, worked, abused. Not family. Not friends. Slaves. The Kippumjo aren't girlfriends; the Joy Divisions weren't joyous. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Feminism?

There is a comment about 'patriarchy' about men seeing all woman as property. One doesnt need to be a sociologist to know its blatant feminist propaganda. That if there is evidence of misogyny in this topic (Im sure there was far more misogyny 100 years ago, Im sure there was during slavery), that it should be presented in an UNBIASED way, not in feminist terms. We shouldnt describe events in history as to associate them with contemporary parties, that is, that whether you are democratic or republican right now, you dont feel a connection with democrats and republicans back then. I dont think we should promote our agendas on abortion, feminism, gay rights or any other topic on a slavery article. If there is mention of rape, homophobia, or anything else in the bibliography, it should be described as ambiguous actions and verbs ("killed"),not as in judgemental, interpretative way ("were sick dogmatic conservatives"). Use the word 'irreligious' instead of 'neoliberal godless', etc. The patriarchy comment is crude... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.229.77.86 (talk) 05:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Numbers? Statistics?

The lack of estimates on the frequency of the various abuses makes this page almost useless as is. Needs work. 86.26.236.107 (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Whipping may have been 'common' but how common? And how common relative to other people's experience in those days? Was it more common say than in the British navy or army? Without such data the subject is impossible to properly evaluate. Cassandra

Isn't in line with stats

If slaves were as horribly treated as described, they would be dying early in large numbers, given the stage of medicine in the 18th and 19th centuries. But census data suggests slaves died only 4 years earlier than white men. 71.31.30.66 (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Excessive reliance on primary (often partisan) sources, excessively lengthy quotations

This article makes excessive use of primary sources, including sources which are highly partisan and hence whose reliability is questionable at best. For instance, outright abolitionist propaganda, from which this article quotes at length, obviously is going to portray the treatment of slaves in the worst possible light in furtherance of the abolitionist cause, which makes the scholarly value of such sources, particularly without context/critical commentary, negligible to nonexistent. Inserting quotes from equally biased pro-slavery primary sources, as some have done, is not the solution either. This is not even touching on the issues with encyclopaedic tone andNPOV throughout the article. Simply put, this article is a mess. St Judas the Lazarene (talk) 08:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid, this article really is a mess. See WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTREPOSITORY. The whole section "Sources on American treatment of slaves" has to be deleted. Still, I don't agree that abolitionist sources have a "negligible to nonexistent" value. First-hand accounts by victims of American slavery like Frederick Douglass or Harriet Jacobs are highly valued by historians. --Rsk6400 (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of enslaved people which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Essay-like/Uncited/WP:SYNTH under "Slavery as a positive good"

The content after the first paragraph of "Slavery as a Positive Good" (starting with "Southern newspapers..." to the end of the section) has various issues. The quote is something that would be nice if this were a persuasive essay or something instead of Wikipedia, but seems out of place here. I believe everything after that first paragraph should either be removed or reworked. Does anyone have any comment/preference here?

Also, the subsequent section "The myth of the faithful slave" seems offtopic. Article is about the treatment of slaves, not views in the aftermath of slavery. "Black Confederates" subsection is also uncited.

Frankly, the entire section after that first paragraph should be removed or heavily reworked. I would side toward removing it, since the "See also"/main article does a much cleaner job of summarizing this content. DirkDouse (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

There are also some other sections that seem largely unrelated to the actual topic (treatment of slaves). The ones that stand out are "Female slave stereotypes" and "Anti-miscegenation sentiment." DirkDouse (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I just deleted the two sections you mentioned last and some other stuff. However, I'd rather re-word the "myth of the faithful slave" / "positive good" parts, since they provide the background for the current debate: Racists have always argued that slaves were treated well and therefore faithful. To counter this, serious historians discuss the numbers of people who escaped slavery and escpecially the number of Black people who fought as Confederate soldiers, the latter being zero. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Please note that I restored two paragraphs containing quotations by Douglass and Isabella Gibbons, now in the section "Summaries by survivors of slavery". One of the problem of the article is the excessive use of primary sources selected by WP editors (which is a kind of OR). Those two have the advantage that they have been quoted by historians or are engraved on modern monuments, i.e. they were selected by scholars, not by WP editors. --Rsk6400 (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The rewrite of the section looks much better. Also, the whole article seems to have a lot of improvements. Nice work here. In particular, cutting down the sections and adding Main/See Also tags definitely cleans this up a lot. DirkDouse (talk) 06:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@DirkDouse: I restored most of Douglass's description of the cowskin whip. Normally, I'm as skeptical as you regarding primary sources and lengthy quotes, but I think we can still use some of them ("with care" according to WP:PSTS). That one has been in the text for a long time, and I just deleted the other one (about his disabled cousin). I just read Ty Seidule's "Robert E. Lee and Me". Seidule writes something like "Douglass was one of the best writers about slavery" (I don't remember exactly). --Rsk6400 (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

This article has been cut over 50% 60% by just one user

The present lede is pretty inadequate. deisenbe (talk) 01:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: Like many other people I prefer to be mentioned by name instead of being called "just one user". You might want to read through the discussions above and through my edit summaries to see that I didn't cut anything without a reason and received some support by other users. Feel free to improve the lead or any other parts of this article. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Compare this article in its present state with its state at its longest: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Treatment_of_slaves_in_the_United_States&oldid=1055466160

It's better now? deisenbe (talk) 10:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The former, long version was mainly based on primary sources. A short summary of what an article should be based on can be found at Wikipedia:Based_upon#What_sources_should_articles_be_based_upon?. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question. Is it now better? deisenbe (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't claim that it's good, but, of course, it's better now. Rsk6400 (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)