![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 23 February 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Proslavery to Pro-slavery. The result of the discussion was No consensus. |
![]() | On 12 March 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Proslavery to Support for slavery. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
![]() | On 17 April 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Proslavery to Proslavery thought. The result of the discussion was moved. |
I altered what The Article claimed of St. Augustine Of Hippo and Removed a Quote from Tertullian.
I did this because these Misrepresented the Views of Augustine and Tertullian, and in some cases the Views of their Sources.
The Article claimed, for example, "Tertullian condemned the Marcionites for their advocacy of the liberation of slaves: "what is more unrighteous, more unjust, more dishonest, than to benefit a foreign slave in such a way as to take him away from his master, claim him who is someone else's property".[3]". The 3 refers to the below Citation.
De Wet, C.L. (2016-10-17). "The punishment of slaves in early Christianity: the views of some selected church fathers". Acta Theologica. 23 (1): 263. doi:10.4314/actat.v23i1S.13. ISSN 1015-8758.
But De Wet did not say this, and if One were to Read Tertullian's "Agaisnt Marcion", it is even more clear that Tertullian was not condemning them for their view that Slaves should be Liberated.
Rather Tertullian condemned the Marcionistes using a supposed Liberation of a Slave as a Metaphore.
From Book 1; Against Marcion.
" But what sort of goodness is that which is manifested in wrong, and that in behalf of an alien creature? For peradventure a benevolence, even when operating injuriously, might be deemed to some extent rational, if exerted for one of our own house and home.(1) By what rule, however, can an unjust benevolence, displayed on behalf of a stranger, to whom not even an honest one is legitimately due, be defended as a rational one? For what is more unrighteous, more unjust, more dishonest, than so to benefit an alien slave as to take him away from his master, claim him as the property of another, and suborn him against his master's life; and all this, to make the matter more iniquitous still whilst he is yet living in his master's house and on his master's garner, and still trembling beneath his stripes? Such a deliverer,(2) I had almost said(3) kidnapper,(4) would even meet with condemnation in the world. Now, no other than this is the character of Marcion's god, swooping upon an alien world, snatching away man from his God,(5) the son from his father, the pupil from his tutor, the servant from his master--to make him impious to his God, undutiful to his father, ungrateful to his tutor, worthless to his master. If, now, the rational benevolence makes man such, what sort of being prithee(6) "
The Issue was not that Marcionites wished to Liberate Slaves, and Tertullian saw that as Wrong. Tertullian was saying it is not good to cause disaffection from Moral Good in the guise of a false benevolence.
In other words, they gave a seeming Freedom, but in Actuality, only gave liscence to Sin which brought about the Ruon of Life.
That is not condemnation for the Advocacy of Freeing Slaves.
I also took the Time to Read De Wet's Article. The Wiki Article said "According to Augustine, God approved of the flogging of disobedient slaves: "You must use the whip, use it! God allows it. Rather, he is angered if you do not lash the slave. But do it in a loving and not a cruel spirit."[3]"
But Augustine did not say this was about Disobedient Slaves, and certainly didn't mean it how most would think. Augustine did not say it was OK to Whip a Slave fvor merely not doing as cmmanded. Rather, he limited it to Acting Badly, which is not the same Thing. Today, if One Reads this, it may seem the same,but its not.
“if you see your slave living badly, how else will you punish him if not by the whip?”
I Have not been able to coberste if Augustine even said this.
I Shall return. But this was sloppy. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
SKWills (
talk •
contribs)
23:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Having looked at several Resources, though admitedly not enough for a Final Determination, I also removed the Line that said George Whitfield was Instrumental in the Legalization of Slavery in Georgia Colony. I have found no Evidence of this, unless repeating the Claim is Evidence, and in His own Words, specifically in a Letter to John Wesley, He said He had nothing to do with the Legalization. The Claim seems to have been based on a Letter to the Georgia Colonial Board of Trustees in which he Requested more land, 500 Acres, and said He wished a Negro or a few Negroes to aid in the Work in His Bethesda Orphanage. Nothing suggests the Board of Trustees gave Whitfield more weight than others, or any at all, and it seems the Letter was Written more to gain Aid from The Colonial Government than as a Campaign.
I removed and extensively edited the claim that Whitfield believed Slaves had Souls. I did this not because it was not True, but because it is misleading. I also see several Articles saying Religious Leaders who supported Slavery argued that The Negro had No Soul. I Find this to be rather odd, given I have seen this claim often but never from an 18th or 19th Century Source.
In fact, theologians such as Charles Hodges or John Miller remained consistent in their Systematic Theology with Traditional Christian Views that All Life had a Soul, and it was impossible to be Alive without a Soul.
Some argued that Humans had Immortal Souls and Animals had only Mortal Souls, and this seems in Popular Imagination to have become Humans have Souls and Animals do not, but I have yet to find this being taught in Official Church Doctrines of any Church of the Period.
Given Whitfield died in 1770, it is even less likely anyone held the View that Negros had no Souls.
I am presently researching Historical Views on Slavery, and so I have many materials I have reviewed for this, and I do feel the Period is poorly understood. Especially in terms of Religious Attitudes and Arguments.
SKWills (
talk) — Preceding
undated comment added
22:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Also, I removed where he Campaigned for Slavery and replaced it with Supported, which is more accurate as Whitfild seems not to have actively Campaigned for Slavery to be Legalized in Georgia, He simply supported the Idea.
SKWills (
talk)
22:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
By its title, the article is significantly misleading. Proslavery men lived in Northern States, too. The northern voters controlled the political power in the Union by weight of their numbers. Northerners elected proslavery Democrats to governmental offices. Today, the myopic view of slavery is that Southerners supported slavery while Northerners were against it. Someone ought to compose an article titled Pro-Slavery Thought in the Old North. Keep history in balance, do not skew it. GhostofSuperslum 15:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I came here looking for the religious arguments for slavery, and for citations to back up this quotation: "Defenders of slavery noted that in the Bible, Abraham had slaves. They point to the Ten Commandments, noting that "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, ... nor his manservant, nor his maidservant." In the New Testament, Paul returned a runaway slave, Philemon, to his master, and, although slavery was widespread throughout the Roman world, Jesus never spoke out against it." - http://www.ushistory.org/us/27f.asp Who were the prominent religious defenders of slavery? Any high-ranking clergy? -- Hugh7 ( talk) 21:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Few of no "destitute whites" lived in the antebellum South. Many white people deserted the Southern states and moved North into new states where 400 acres of land was available for about $500. Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois attracted thousands of such southerners. For example, Abraham Lincoln moved to Illinois. Some of them brought their slaves North with them. Southerners were not obliged to continue to live in the southern states as "destitute whites." As time passed, more states were created. Many southerners moved west into those states, too, where they purchased land for about one dollar per acre. Oklahoma, Texas, and California became occupied by slaveowners, too. Basically, the reference to "destitute whites" is phantasmic rhetoric. GhostofSuperslum 20:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that if you see something wrong, just edit it...
However, the idea that there were enough pro-slavery men in the Old North is also skewed; popular opinion heavily weighed in favor of abolishing slavery. Ed1t0r0wn4g3 04:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
This is about support for slavery, not slaveholding itself. Support for it existed in the north too and one editor says that it existed in indiana in 1840s. BillMasen ( talk) 17:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
If abolitionist sentiment did not spread until the early 1800s, why did every state in the North abolish it during, or immediately following, the Revolution?
For another - re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_Indiana - Indiana only took as long as it did to fully abolish slavery because of the role of Southerners in that state. Stop trying to whitewash a terrible history.
This article is filled with neo-Confederate bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.210.62.36 ( talk) 18:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I started providing material and sourcing to the section that is basically background for the opposition that would develop later. This section, IMO, needs to set the stage for showing, when finished, how the South transitioned from defending slavery as a necessary evil to defending it as a positive good.
In the article as a whole, there needs to be a lot of "fill in" before Calhoun and Hammond are discussed. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 02:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
The United States is not the only nation in history wherein slavery has been practised; it is not the only nation in history wherein slavery has been abolished; I am sure it was not the only nation in history in which the abolition was contested, with some opposing abolition (although admittedly the US is unique in that the debate became so heated that it became a cause of war.) So I am sure there is a history of proslavery outside the antebellum US, both geographically elsewhere and historically prior or subsequent; given that slavery is still practised in some parts of the world today, there surely must be people in the world today who still support it. ( One article on this site suggests that the Wahabbis still defend slavery as part of Islamic law.) This article should try to give a less US-centric focus 143.238.26.194 ( talk) 08:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm having trouble finding anything about Thomas Aquinas thoughts about slavery, and in the page for john locke, it specifically says he opposed slavery and aristocracy. So why are they put in there as examples of supporters of slavery? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.184.180.27 ( talk) 03:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Deisenbe, I reverted your adding of this section heading. This article always has a problem with being US-centric and that heading was just making it worse. Slavery has been around for thousands of years, and on almost every continent – pro-slavery opinion has never been limited to the United States. SJK ( talk) 21:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
@ SJK: Which article are you talking about? deisenbe ( talk) 22:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Deisenbe, this article, the article whose talk page we are on. SJK ( talk) 07:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
@ SJK: I disagree with you, the topic is pro-slavery in the United States. There was nothing anything like it at any other time or place. How about changing the title? Like Pro-Slavery Movement in the United States. deisenbe ( talk) 11:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link). And here's a paper on how the British proslavery movement used the Bible – Taylor, Michael (2016-01-02).
"British Proslavery Arguments and the Bible, 1823–1833". Slavery & Abolition. 37 (1): 139–158.
doi:
10.1080/0144039X.2015.1093394.
ISSN
0144-039X..
SJK (
talk)
Special:Diff/1045343323 removes content that I was about to restore, however it would seem to be a stretch to use the voice of wikipedia as the removed text comes from a quote in the Tennessean article and not any published analysis of the subject. This would appear to make it only useable with attribution. Dropping here for other opinions. Slywriter ( talk) 03:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus. While the hyphen version does seem more intuitive, corpus evidence for the current title is persuasive. No such user ( talk) 08:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
In the article itself 17 no hyphen, 24 hyphen
Google gives 1M no hyphen, 125M hyphen
Http://worldcat.org has 2152 no hyphen and 5608 hyphen
The article
Slavery as a positive good in the United States has 13 no hyphen and 16 hyphen
deisenbe (
talk) 23:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC) — Relisting.
feminist🇺🇦 (talk) 04:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. ---
CX Zoom(he/him) (
let's talk|
contribs)
14:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Proslavery is an ideology that..., and the section heading "Political proslavery"), and is also used as such in RS. For example, I find a 2021 academic book titled "When Slavery Was Called Freedom: Evangelicalism, Proslavery, and the Causes of the Civil War". OTOH, all uses of the hyphenated form in the article are as an adjective and it seems that modern RS rarely use the hyphenated form as a noun. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to a compound title like "Pro-slavery thought", though it would depend on the degree to which it found support in RS usage. Colin M ( talk) 15:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
The article title uses proslavery as a noun; adjectival article titles are unusual. I find the noun proslavery unnatural, but I am not a native speaker. The -ery suffix seems to double as a kind of -ism suffix, as if the noun was (pro-slave)-ery rather than pro-slavery. The noun is absent from multiple dictionaries including Merriam-Webster [10], which has only adjective proslavery; however, the noun seems attested in use, and thus exists; and Collins has it as a noun as well.
The frequency of proslavery (noun) can be determined using Google Ngram Viewer: GNV: proslavery_ADJ,proslavery_NOUN,defense of slavery,justification of slavery. If one believes GNV, the noun is not all that uncommon, although it is unclear how reliable the Google tagging with part of speech is.
I find the terms defense of slavery and justification of slavery more natural and better fitting the subject since proslavery refers to any support, whether articulate or not, whereas defense and justification are by definition the articulations of reasons. However, proslavery_NOUN is a little bit more common in GNV than defense of slavery. If we could suppose that the part of speech tagging with NOUN is unreliable, we could use defense of slavery as the title, and I would find it more natural, but I am not sure how to support the unreliability hypothesis.
-- Dan Polansky ( talk) 18:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Believing the Google Ngram Viewer [11], the adjective tends to be spelled more often proslavery than pro-slavery. Thus, proslavery forces, proslavery advocates and and proslavery arguments are more common than their pro-slavery variants. Dan Polansky ( talk) 13:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Please feel free to create any redirects that are deemed helpful. Dekimasu よ! 05:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Proslavery → Support for slavery – The page title is a bit odd, using an adjective instead of a noun. I think that changing this to be a noun (rather than an adjective) would be an improvement and be more consistent with how we generally title articles. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
@ SamMitchell45: you keep on changing the lede in order to remove an alleged "anti-religious slant". I don't see any "anti-religious slant", I don't see how your changes reduce one, and I don't see how your changes are an improvement. As requested before, you can you please discuss it here rather than just making the change again. SomethingForDeletion ( talk) 02:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) -- Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH) 21:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Proslavery → Proslavery thought – I know a lot of editors object to the title "proslavery" because it is generally viewed as an adjective, and we generally prefer nouns to adjectives as article titles. Yes, there is some usage of it as a noun, and even a few dictionaries which include it as a noun, but the adjectival usage predominates. If you look at the academic literature, "proslavery" is the predominant term for this (sometimes hyphenated, especially in older sources, but nowadays more often not); while many think it is something specific to the antebellum US, academic research on the opposition to slavery abolition in the UK uses the term "proslavery" there as well. But, if you look at all that research, the vast majority of it uses "proslavery" as an adjective: Proslavery Britain, Proslavery thought, Proslavery Christianity, Proslavery Ideology, proslavery liberalism, Proslavery rhetoric, Proslavery Foreign Policy, The Pro-Slavery Argument; a few academic researchers do use it as a noun, but the impression I formed in my (far from exhaustive) dive into the literature, is that the noun usage is occasional and vastly outweighed by the adjective.
In an attempt to satisfy those editors who dislike the current title, I am proposing Proslavery thought. That's what the Encyclopedia of the New American Nation calls its article on the topic, and the same phrase is used in the titles of two academic works on it: Faust, Drew Gilpin, ed. The ideology of slavery: Proslavery thought in the antebellum South, 1830–1860 (LSU Press, 1981); Brophy, Alfred L. University, court, and slave: Pro-slavery thought in southern colleges and courts and the coming of civil war (Oxford University Press, 2016). While all three of those sources are focused on the antebellum US, proslavery thought is sufficiently broad to encompass the UK proslavery movement as well (see Paula Dumas' book Proslavery Britain).
Another option would be proslavery movement. However, I think proslavery thought is superior because: (a) there wasn't a single proslavery movement, so it would really have to be proslavery movements–there was the US one, there was the UK one – and while they borrowed ideas from each other, they were distinct; there were also proslavery movements in other countries which had legal slavery, for example Brazil, although it is much harder to find English language sources on that; (b) there is a long history of proslavery thought in Western culture going back to ancient times, and all those proslavery movements drew on that thought for inspiration – which I think means it makes more sense to make the article scope be the history of proslavery thought overall (incorporating the various proslavery movements within it), rather than just limiting it to those times in history when proslavery became an organised political movement.
All that said, I have no objection to leaving the title as-is too. I am just proposing this in the spirit of compromise. SomethingForDeletion ( talk) 00:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
I move that we move the entire contents of this page onto the “slavery” page. Doesn’t make sense to have an entirely separate page. Plus this is a pretty poorly written and cited article. SamMitchell45 ( talk) 05:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 23 February 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Proslavery to Pro-slavery. The result of the discussion was No consensus. |
![]() | On 12 March 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Proslavery to Support for slavery. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
![]() | On 17 April 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Proslavery to Proslavery thought. The result of the discussion was moved. |
I altered what The Article claimed of St. Augustine Of Hippo and Removed a Quote from Tertullian.
I did this because these Misrepresented the Views of Augustine and Tertullian, and in some cases the Views of their Sources.
The Article claimed, for example, "Tertullian condemned the Marcionites for their advocacy of the liberation of slaves: "what is more unrighteous, more unjust, more dishonest, than to benefit a foreign slave in such a way as to take him away from his master, claim him who is someone else's property".[3]". The 3 refers to the below Citation.
De Wet, C.L. (2016-10-17). "The punishment of slaves in early Christianity: the views of some selected church fathers". Acta Theologica. 23 (1): 263. doi:10.4314/actat.v23i1S.13. ISSN 1015-8758.
But De Wet did not say this, and if One were to Read Tertullian's "Agaisnt Marcion", it is even more clear that Tertullian was not condemning them for their view that Slaves should be Liberated.
Rather Tertullian condemned the Marcionistes using a supposed Liberation of a Slave as a Metaphore.
From Book 1; Against Marcion.
" But what sort of goodness is that which is manifested in wrong, and that in behalf of an alien creature? For peradventure a benevolence, even when operating injuriously, might be deemed to some extent rational, if exerted for one of our own house and home.(1) By what rule, however, can an unjust benevolence, displayed on behalf of a stranger, to whom not even an honest one is legitimately due, be defended as a rational one? For what is more unrighteous, more unjust, more dishonest, than so to benefit an alien slave as to take him away from his master, claim him as the property of another, and suborn him against his master's life; and all this, to make the matter more iniquitous still whilst he is yet living in his master's house and on his master's garner, and still trembling beneath his stripes? Such a deliverer,(2) I had almost said(3) kidnapper,(4) would even meet with condemnation in the world. Now, no other than this is the character of Marcion's god, swooping upon an alien world, snatching away man from his God,(5) the son from his father, the pupil from his tutor, the servant from his master--to make him impious to his God, undutiful to his father, ungrateful to his tutor, worthless to his master. If, now, the rational benevolence makes man such, what sort of being prithee(6) "
The Issue was not that Marcionites wished to Liberate Slaves, and Tertullian saw that as Wrong. Tertullian was saying it is not good to cause disaffection from Moral Good in the guise of a false benevolence.
In other words, they gave a seeming Freedom, but in Actuality, only gave liscence to Sin which brought about the Ruon of Life.
That is not condemnation for the Advocacy of Freeing Slaves.
I also took the Time to Read De Wet's Article. The Wiki Article said "According to Augustine, God approved of the flogging of disobedient slaves: "You must use the whip, use it! God allows it. Rather, he is angered if you do not lash the slave. But do it in a loving and not a cruel spirit."[3]"
But Augustine did not say this was about Disobedient Slaves, and certainly didn't mean it how most would think. Augustine did not say it was OK to Whip a Slave fvor merely not doing as cmmanded. Rather, he limited it to Acting Badly, which is not the same Thing. Today, if One Reads this, it may seem the same,but its not.
“if you see your slave living badly, how else will you punish him if not by the whip?”
I Have not been able to coberste if Augustine even said this.
I Shall return. But this was sloppy. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
SKWills (
talk •
contribs)
23:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Having looked at several Resources, though admitedly not enough for a Final Determination, I also removed the Line that said George Whitfield was Instrumental in the Legalization of Slavery in Georgia Colony. I have found no Evidence of this, unless repeating the Claim is Evidence, and in His own Words, specifically in a Letter to John Wesley, He said He had nothing to do with the Legalization. The Claim seems to have been based on a Letter to the Georgia Colonial Board of Trustees in which he Requested more land, 500 Acres, and said He wished a Negro or a few Negroes to aid in the Work in His Bethesda Orphanage. Nothing suggests the Board of Trustees gave Whitfield more weight than others, or any at all, and it seems the Letter was Written more to gain Aid from The Colonial Government than as a Campaign.
I removed and extensively edited the claim that Whitfield believed Slaves had Souls. I did this not because it was not True, but because it is misleading. I also see several Articles saying Religious Leaders who supported Slavery argued that The Negro had No Soul. I Find this to be rather odd, given I have seen this claim often but never from an 18th or 19th Century Source.
In fact, theologians such as Charles Hodges or John Miller remained consistent in their Systematic Theology with Traditional Christian Views that All Life had a Soul, and it was impossible to be Alive without a Soul.
Some argued that Humans had Immortal Souls and Animals had only Mortal Souls, and this seems in Popular Imagination to have become Humans have Souls and Animals do not, but I have yet to find this being taught in Official Church Doctrines of any Church of the Period.
Given Whitfield died in 1770, it is even less likely anyone held the View that Negros had no Souls.
I am presently researching Historical Views on Slavery, and so I have many materials I have reviewed for this, and I do feel the Period is poorly understood. Especially in terms of Religious Attitudes and Arguments.
SKWills (
talk) — Preceding
undated comment added
22:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Also, I removed where he Campaigned for Slavery and replaced it with Supported, which is more accurate as Whitfild seems not to have actively Campaigned for Slavery to be Legalized in Georgia, He simply supported the Idea.
SKWills (
talk)
22:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
By its title, the article is significantly misleading. Proslavery men lived in Northern States, too. The northern voters controlled the political power in the Union by weight of their numbers. Northerners elected proslavery Democrats to governmental offices. Today, the myopic view of slavery is that Southerners supported slavery while Northerners were against it. Someone ought to compose an article titled Pro-Slavery Thought in the Old North. Keep history in balance, do not skew it. GhostofSuperslum 15:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I came here looking for the religious arguments for slavery, and for citations to back up this quotation: "Defenders of slavery noted that in the Bible, Abraham had slaves. They point to the Ten Commandments, noting that "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, ... nor his manservant, nor his maidservant." In the New Testament, Paul returned a runaway slave, Philemon, to his master, and, although slavery was widespread throughout the Roman world, Jesus never spoke out against it." - http://www.ushistory.org/us/27f.asp Who were the prominent religious defenders of slavery? Any high-ranking clergy? -- Hugh7 ( talk) 21:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Few of no "destitute whites" lived in the antebellum South. Many white people deserted the Southern states and moved North into new states where 400 acres of land was available for about $500. Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois attracted thousands of such southerners. For example, Abraham Lincoln moved to Illinois. Some of them brought their slaves North with them. Southerners were not obliged to continue to live in the southern states as "destitute whites." As time passed, more states were created. Many southerners moved west into those states, too, where they purchased land for about one dollar per acre. Oklahoma, Texas, and California became occupied by slaveowners, too. Basically, the reference to "destitute whites" is phantasmic rhetoric. GhostofSuperslum 20:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that if you see something wrong, just edit it...
However, the idea that there were enough pro-slavery men in the Old North is also skewed; popular opinion heavily weighed in favor of abolishing slavery. Ed1t0r0wn4g3 04:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
This is about support for slavery, not slaveholding itself. Support for it existed in the north too and one editor says that it existed in indiana in 1840s. BillMasen ( talk) 17:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
If abolitionist sentiment did not spread until the early 1800s, why did every state in the North abolish it during, or immediately following, the Revolution?
For another - re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_Indiana - Indiana only took as long as it did to fully abolish slavery because of the role of Southerners in that state. Stop trying to whitewash a terrible history.
This article is filled with neo-Confederate bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.210.62.36 ( talk) 18:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I started providing material and sourcing to the section that is basically background for the opposition that would develop later. This section, IMO, needs to set the stage for showing, when finished, how the South transitioned from defending slavery as a necessary evil to defending it as a positive good.
In the article as a whole, there needs to be a lot of "fill in" before Calhoun and Hammond are discussed. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 02:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
The United States is not the only nation in history wherein slavery has been practised; it is not the only nation in history wherein slavery has been abolished; I am sure it was not the only nation in history in which the abolition was contested, with some opposing abolition (although admittedly the US is unique in that the debate became so heated that it became a cause of war.) So I am sure there is a history of proslavery outside the antebellum US, both geographically elsewhere and historically prior or subsequent; given that slavery is still practised in some parts of the world today, there surely must be people in the world today who still support it. ( One article on this site suggests that the Wahabbis still defend slavery as part of Islamic law.) This article should try to give a less US-centric focus 143.238.26.194 ( talk) 08:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm having trouble finding anything about Thomas Aquinas thoughts about slavery, and in the page for john locke, it specifically says he opposed slavery and aristocracy. So why are they put in there as examples of supporters of slavery? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.184.180.27 ( talk) 03:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Deisenbe, I reverted your adding of this section heading. This article always has a problem with being US-centric and that heading was just making it worse. Slavery has been around for thousands of years, and on almost every continent – pro-slavery opinion has never been limited to the United States. SJK ( talk) 21:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
@ SJK: Which article are you talking about? deisenbe ( talk) 22:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Deisenbe, this article, the article whose talk page we are on. SJK ( talk) 07:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
@ SJK: I disagree with you, the topic is pro-slavery in the United States. There was nothing anything like it at any other time or place. How about changing the title? Like Pro-Slavery Movement in the United States. deisenbe ( talk) 11:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link). And here's a paper on how the British proslavery movement used the Bible – Taylor, Michael (2016-01-02).
"British Proslavery Arguments and the Bible, 1823–1833". Slavery & Abolition. 37 (1): 139–158.
doi:
10.1080/0144039X.2015.1093394.
ISSN
0144-039X..
SJK (
talk)
Special:Diff/1045343323 removes content that I was about to restore, however it would seem to be a stretch to use the voice of wikipedia as the removed text comes from a quote in the Tennessean article and not any published analysis of the subject. This would appear to make it only useable with attribution. Dropping here for other opinions. Slywriter ( talk) 03:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus. While the hyphen version does seem more intuitive, corpus evidence for the current title is persuasive. No such user ( talk) 08:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
In the article itself 17 no hyphen, 24 hyphen
Google gives 1M no hyphen, 125M hyphen
Http://worldcat.org has 2152 no hyphen and 5608 hyphen
The article
Slavery as a positive good in the United States has 13 no hyphen and 16 hyphen
deisenbe (
talk) 23:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC) — Relisting.
feminist🇺🇦 (talk) 04:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. ---
CX Zoom(he/him) (
let's talk|
contribs)
14:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Proslavery is an ideology that..., and the section heading "Political proslavery"), and is also used as such in RS. For example, I find a 2021 academic book titled "When Slavery Was Called Freedom: Evangelicalism, Proslavery, and the Causes of the Civil War". OTOH, all uses of the hyphenated form in the article are as an adjective and it seems that modern RS rarely use the hyphenated form as a noun. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to a compound title like "Pro-slavery thought", though it would depend on the degree to which it found support in RS usage. Colin M ( talk) 15:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
The article title uses proslavery as a noun; adjectival article titles are unusual. I find the noun proslavery unnatural, but I am not a native speaker. The -ery suffix seems to double as a kind of -ism suffix, as if the noun was (pro-slave)-ery rather than pro-slavery. The noun is absent from multiple dictionaries including Merriam-Webster [10], which has only adjective proslavery; however, the noun seems attested in use, and thus exists; and Collins has it as a noun as well.
The frequency of proslavery (noun) can be determined using Google Ngram Viewer: GNV: proslavery_ADJ,proslavery_NOUN,defense of slavery,justification of slavery. If one believes GNV, the noun is not all that uncommon, although it is unclear how reliable the Google tagging with part of speech is.
I find the terms defense of slavery and justification of slavery more natural and better fitting the subject since proslavery refers to any support, whether articulate or not, whereas defense and justification are by definition the articulations of reasons. However, proslavery_NOUN is a little bit more common in GNV than defense of slavery. If we could suppose that the part of speech tagging with NOUN is unreliable, we could use defense of slavery as the title, and I would find it more natural, but I am not sure how to support the unreliability hypothesis.
-- Dan Polansky ( talk) 18:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Believing the Google Ngram Viewer [11], the adjective tends to be spelled more often proslavery than pro-slavery. Thus, proslavery forces, proslavery advocates and and proslavery arguments are more common than their pro-slavery variants. Dan Polansky ( talk) 13:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Please feel free to create any redirects that are deemed helpful. Dekimasu よ! 05:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Proslavery → Support for slavery – The page title is a bit odd, using an adjective instead of a noun. I think that changing this to be a noun (rather than an adjective) would be an improvement and be more consistent with how we generally title articles. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
@ SamMitchell45: you keep on changing the lede in order to remove an alleged "anti-religious slant". I don't see any "anti-religious slant", I don't see how your changes reduce one, and I don't see how your changes are an improvement. As requested before, you can you please discuss it here rather than just making the change again. SomethingForDeletion ( talk) 02:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) -- Maddy from Celeste ( WAVEDASH) 21:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Proslavery → Proslavery thought – I know a lot of editors object to the title "proslavery" because it is generally viewed as an adjective, and we generally prefer nouns to adjectives as article titles. Yes, there is some usage of it as a noun, and even a few dictionaries which include it as a noun, but the adjectival usage predominates. If you look at the academic literature, "proslavery" is the predominant term for this (sometimes hyphenated, especially in older sources, but nowadays more often not); while many think it is something specific to the antebellum US, academic research on the opposition to slavery abolition in the UK uses the term "proslavery" there as well. But, if you look at all that research, the vast majority of it uses "proslavery" as an adjective: Proslavery Britain, Proslavery thought, Proslavery Christianity, Proslavery Ideology, proslavery liberalism, Proslavery rhetoric, Proslavery Foreign Policy, The Pro-Slavery Argument; a few academic researchers do use it as a noun, but the impression I formed in my (far from exhaustive) dive into the literature, is that the noun usage is occasional and vastly outweighed by the adjective.
In an attempt to satisfy those editors who dislike the current title, I am proposing Proslavery thought. That's what the Encyclopedia of the New American Nation calls its article on the topic, and the same phrase is used in the titles of two academic works on it: Faust, Drew Gilpin, ed. The ideology of slavery: Proslavery thought in the antebellum South, 1830–1860 (LSU Press, 1981); Brophy, Alfred L. University, court, and slave: Pro-slavery thought in southern colleges and courts and the coming of civil war (Oxford University Press, 2016). While all three of those sources are focused on the antebellum US, proslavery thought is sufficiently broad to encompass the UK proslavery movement as well (see Paula Dumas' book Proslavery Britain).
Another option would be proslavery movement. However, I think proslavery thought is superior because: (a) there wasn't a single proslavery movement, so it would really have to be proslavery movements–there was the US one, there was the UK one – and while they borrowed ideas from each other, they were distinct; there were also proslavery movements in other countries which had legal slavery, for example Brazil, although it is much harder to find English language sources on that; (b) there is a long history of proslavery thought in Western culture going back to ancient times, and all those proslavery movements drew on that thought for inspiration – which I think means it makes more sense to make the article scope be the history of proslavery thought overall (incorporating the various proslavery movements within it), rather than just limiting it to those times in history when proslavery became an organised political movement.
All that said, I have no objection to leaving the title as-is too. I am just proposing this in the spirit of compromise. SomethingForDeletion ( talk) 00:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
I move that we move the entire contents of this page onto the “slavery” page. Doesn’t make sense to have an entirely separate page. Plus this is a pretty poorly written and cited article. SamMitchell45 ( talk) 05:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)