This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Joewesty, Junetitus, Goud96, Christian.CBC, Cnester, Ryanmoor7.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 23:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm glad someone has started this article. It is really needed. When I looked at the article on NJ history, I thought material on slavery and African Americans was lacking, as well as a general sense of immigration and population movement. It would be useful to provide context for the number of slaves in 1790 - what proportion of the population was enslaved? Where were they concentrated? It's my understanding (don't have a source right now) that most of the slaves were in south Jersey, in the chief agricultural areas. That would make sense. -- Parkwells ( talk) 15:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
In terms of sources, the 1881 county history would likely not be considered as reliable as later works by peer-reviewed historians.-- Parkwells ( talk) 18:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
There is a clear contradiction in this article; the date of abolition. It is widely accepted that New Jersey did not legally abolish slavery until 1866, with ratification of the 13th Amendment. While slave numbers had dwindled extensively (down, at last count in 1850, to a mere 226) they still, in fact and in a legal sense, existed in New Jersey until ratification. 24.88.79.249 ( talk) 06:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This reference shows "birth certificate" records for 15 children of slaves born in Burlington County after enactment of the 1804 law dictating freedom of such children following servitude until the age of 21 (females) or 25 (males). The Wiki article might benefit from inclusion of one of these "birth certificates" as an example.
http://www.nj.gov/state/archives/cbucl001.html
70.193.196.71 ( talk) 15:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)1712NJfamily
Unfortunately, one of the external links no longer exists as a website. Therefore, I am going to remove it. 74.102.216.186 ( talk) 19:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Done. 74.102.216.186 ( talk) 19:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on History of slavery in New Jersey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on History of slavery in New Jersey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
In this edit, Rusf10 reverts back to a version fron December 9, 2007, claiming a copyvio. Per WP:COPYVIO there needs to be discussion of the suspected source but there was nothing from Rusf10 in the edit summary or talk page; Earwig and other tools don't detect copying or close paraphrasing. Without a purported source, it's almost impossible to determine if the material was copied *from* Wikipedia (rather than the reverse).
WP:COPYVIO is clear on the procedure: "If you suspect a copyright violation but are uncertain if the content is copyrighted or whether the external site is copying from Wikipedia, you should at least bring up the issue on that page's discussion page, if it is active. In that case, please tag the page copypaste|url=insert URL here, if known, unless your concerns are swiftly resolved. Others can then examine the situation and take action if needed. The most helpful piece of information you can provide is a URL or other reference to what you believe may be the source of the text. You may also make a note of your concerns at Wikipedia:Copyright problems." However, there was no discussion on the talk page, no tagging with the copypaste template, no suspected URL was provided and there was no notice at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Without following procedures, there is no way for any editor to address the allegations of copyright violation. Alansohn ( talk) 03:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
A cursory check of sources reveal the claim of Wikipedia:Copyright violations to be false. The wholesale blanking of vast amounts of material is Wikipedia:Vandalism, which has been reverted. See below examples:
“ | The Legislature of the State of New Jersey expresses its profound regret for the State’s role in slavery and apologizes for the wrongs inflicted by slavery and its after effects in the United States of America; expresses its deepest sympathies and solemn regrets to those who were enslaved and the descendants of those slaves, who were deprived of life, human dignity, and the constitutional protections accorded all citizens of the United States; and we encourage all citizens to remember and teach their children about the history of slavery, Jim Crow laws, and modern day slavery, to ensure that these tragedies will neither be forgotten nor repeated. | ” |
Djflem ( talk) 07:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
How come the first three paragraphs of this page do not have any citations? Citations should be added. Joewesty ( talk) 22:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
The first two sentences in the lede were edited 13 July 2012. They are word-for word the same as footnoted text marked copyright 1997-2013 American Civil War Institute [3] captured by the Wayback Macnhine 3 March 2013. These two captures are not dispositive. ACWI may have copied from the WP article. Alternatively, the WP editor may have lifted this text from ACWI. The following four paragraphs are substantially the same; the sixth is similar in construction. There were only two references in the first six paragraphs.
A review of the prior year's edits to the lede shows that the structure did not change, but individual paragraphs were modified. I draw the conclusion that ACWI copied from Wikipedia without attribution on or soon after 13 July 2012. Rhadow ( talk) 00:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
This bibliography was compiled by a student group currently reviewing this article as part of a history course assignment.-- JBhistorian ( talk) 23:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Malberg, Edward I. Slavery As an Institution: New Jersey and the South. 1966. Call Number: E445.N54M53. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey Special Collections and University Archives, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. https://catalog-libraries-rutgers-edu.proxy.libraries.rutgers.edu/vufind/Record/925201
Raven, Catalogue, 12; Frusciano and Justice, “History and Politics,” 24
Gigantino, Ragged Road to Abolition, 130.
Gigantino, James J. "TRADING IN JERSEY SOULS:". Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies. 77 (3): 282. doi:10.5325/pennhistory.77.3.0281. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joewesty ( talk • contribs) 21:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Steven G. Greiert, “The Earl of Halifax and the Land Riots in New Jersey, 1748–1753,” New Jersey History 99, no. 1–2 (February 1981): 13–31
Smith, History of Nova Caesaria, 453.
Kenneth Edward Marshall, Manhood Enslaved: Bondmen in Eighteenth-and Early Nineteenth-Century New Jersey, (Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press, 2011).
Kennedy, Michael V. (2003-01-01). "THE HIDDEN ECONOMY OF SLAVERY: COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL HIRING IN PENNSYLVANIA, NEW JERSEY AND DELAWARE, 1728-1800". Essays in Economic and Business History. 21 (1). ISSN 0896-226X. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joewesty ( talk • contribs) 21:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
African American Autobiographers: A Sourcebook, ed. Emmanuel Nelson (Westport, CT: Greenwood, 2002).
Rutgers: A 250th Anniversary Portrait, ed. Nita Congress (London: Third Millennium Publishing, 2015).
William H. S. Demarest, A History of Rutgers College, 1766–1924 (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers College, 1924).
Richard P. McCormick, Rutgers: A Bicentennial History (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1966).
Stephanie E. Smallwood, Saltwater Slavery: A Middle Passage from Africa to American Diaspora (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007).
J. David Muyskens, ed., The Diary of Dina Van Bergh, trans. Gerard Van Dyke (New Brunswick, NJ: Historical Society of the Reformed Church in America, 1993).
This is a primary source: — Preceding unsigned comment added by JBhistorian ( talk • contribs) 20:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC) New Brunswick (NJ) Common Council, Minutes of the New Brunswick, N.J. Common Council 1796-1819 (New Brunswick, NJ: New Brunswick Historical Society, 1910). http://archive.org/details/minutesofnewbrun00newb
Cooley, Henry Scofield. A Study of Slavery in New Jersey. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1896. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=A9xHAAAAYAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA7&dq=slavery+new+jersey&ots=6vGhXNjQLt&sig=5J2OXiCuIAZC6Vm-JFi3iubJvEw#v=onepage&q=slavery%20new%20jersey&f=false
17:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goud96 ( talk • contribs)
The article states that "The slave trade was a royal monopoly and had become a lucrative enterprise." I tried to check this. It is rather vague about dates. I presume the Royal African Company was meant, which by a charter of 1660 had been granted a monopoly over English trade along the west coast of Africa (later including slaves). However, in 1689, the Company acknowledged that it had lost its monopoly with the end of royal power in the Glorious Revolution. The Trade with Africa Act 1697 (9 Will. 3 c. 26) opened the African trade to all English merchants who paid a ten per cent levy to the Company on all goods exported from Africa. Nevertheless the company became insolvent in 1708, surviving until 1750 in a state of much reduced activity. The Company continued purchasing and transporting slaves until 1731, when it abandoned slaving in favour of ivory and gold dust. (Slave trading was doubtless lucrative for some, but it doesn't sound as though it was lucrative for the Company.) So it seems there was no monopoly during the c18. To call it a 'royal' monopoly before that could be misleading - was it not simply created by Royal Charter, even though it had royal interests? So, in short, is the sentence as it stands so vague as to be misleading? Starple ( talk) 15:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Joewesty, Junetitus, Goud96, Christian.CBC, Cnester, Ryanmoor7.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 23:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm glad someone has started this article. It is really needed. When I looked at the article on NJ history, I thought material on slavery and African Americans was lacking, as well as a general sense of immigration and population movement. It would be useful to provide context for the number of slaves in 1790 - what proportion of the population was enslaved? Where were they concentrated? It's my understanding (don't have a source right now) that most of the slaves were in south Jersey, in the chief agricultural areas. That would make sense. -- Parkwells ( talk) 15:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
In terms of sources, the 1881 county history would likely not be considered as reliable as later works by peer-reviewed historians.-- Parkwells ( talk) 18:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
There is a clear contradiction in this article; the date of abolition. It is widely accepted that New Jersey did not legally abolish slavery until 1866, with ratification of the 13th Amendment. While slave numbers had dwindled extensively (down, at last count in 1850, to a mere 226) they still, in fact and in a legal sense, existed in New Jersey until ratification. 24.88.79.249 ( talk) 06:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
This reference shows "birth certificate" records for 15 children of slaves born in Burlington County after enactment of the 1804 law dictating freedom of such children following servitude until the age of 21 (females) or 25 (males). The Wiki article might benefit from inclusion of one of these "birth certificates" as an example.
http://www.nj.gov/state/archives/cbucl001.html
70.193.196.71 ( talk) 15:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)1712NJfamily
Unfortunately, one of the external links no longer exists as a website. Therefore, I am going to remove it. 74.102.216.186 ( talk) 19:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Done. 74.102.216.186 ( talk) 19:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on History of slavery in New Jersey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on History of slavery in New Jersey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
In this edit, Rusf10 reverts back to a version fron December 9, 2007, claiming a copyvio. Per WP:COPYVIO there needs to be discussion of the suspected source but there was nothing from Rusf10 in the edit summary or talk page; Earwig and other tools don't detect copying or close paraphrasing. Without a purported source, it's almost impossible to determine if the material was copied *from* Wikipedia (rather than the reverse).
WP:COPYVIO is clear on the procedure: "If you suspect a copyright violation but are uncertain if the content is copyrighted or whether the external site is copying from Wikipedia, you should at least bring up the issue on that page's discussion page, if it is active. In that case, please tag the page copypaste|url=insert URL here, if known, unless your concerns are swiftly resolved. Others can then examine the situation and take action if needed. The most helpful piece of information you can provide is a URL or other reference to what you believe may be the source of the text. You may also make a note of your concerns at Wikipedia:Copyright problems." However, there was no discussion on the talk page, no tagging with the copypaste template, no suspected URL was provided and there was no notice at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Without following procedures, there is no way for any editor to address the allegations of copyright violation. Alansohn ( talk) 03:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
A cursory check of sources reveal the claim of Wikipedia:Copyright violations to be false. The wholesale blanking of vast amounts of material is Wikipedia:Vandalism, which has been reverted. See below examples:
“ | The Legislature of the State of New Jersey expresses its profound regret for the State’s role in slavery and apologizes for the wrongs inflicted by slavery and its after effects in the United States of America; expresses its deepest sympathies and solemn regrets to those who were enslaved and the descendants of those slaves, who were deprived of life, human dignity, and the constitutional protections accorded all citizens of the United States; and we encourage all citizens to remember and teach their children about the history of slavery, Jim Crow laws, and modern day slavery, to ensure that these tragedies will neither be forgotten nor repeated. | ” |
Djflem ( talk) 07:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
How come the first three paragraphs of this page do not have any citations? Citations should be added. Joewesty ( talk) 22:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
The first two sentences in the lede were edited 13 July 2012. They are word-for word the same as footnoted text marked copyright 1997-2013 American Civil War Institute [3] captured by the Wayback Macnhine 3 March 2013. These two captures are not dispositive. ACWI may have copied from the WP article. Alternatively, the WP editor may have lifted this text from ACWI. The following four paragraphs are substantially the same; the sixth is similar in construction. There were only two references in the first six paragraphs.
A review of the prior year's edits to the lede shows that the structure did not change, but individual paragraphs were modified. I draw the conclusion that ACWI copied from Wikipedia without attribution on or soon after 13 July 2012. Rhadow ( talk) 00:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
This bibliography was compiled by a student group currently reviewing this article as part of a history course assignment.-- JBhistorian ( talk) 23:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Malberg, Edward I. Slavery As an Institution: New Jersey and the South. 1966. Call Number: E445.N54M53. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey Special Collections and University Archives, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. https://catalog-libraries-rutgers-edu.proxy.libraries.rutgers.edu/vufind/Record/925201
Raven, Catalogue, 12; Frusciano and Justice, “History and Politics,” 24
Gigantino, Ragged Road to Abolition, 130.
Gigantino, James J. "TRADING IN JERSEY SOULS:". Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies. 77 (3): 282. doi:10.5325/pennhistory.77.3.0281. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joewesty ( talk • contribs) 21:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Steven G. Greiert, “The Earl of Halifax and the Land Riots in New Jersey, 1748–1753,” New Jersey History 99, no. 1–2 (February 1981): 13–31
Smith, History of Nova Caesaria, 453.
Kenneth Edward Marshall, Manhood Enslaved: Bondmen in Eighteenth-and Early Nineteenth-Century New Jersey, (Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press, 2011).
Kennedy, Michael V. (2003-01-01). "THE HIDDEN ECONOMY OF SLAVERY: COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL HIRING IN PENNSYLVANIA, NEW JERSEY AND DELAWARE, 1728-1800". Essays in Economic and Business History. 21 (1). ISSN 0896-226X. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joewesty ( talk • contribs) 21:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
African American Autobiographers: A Sourcebook, ed. Emmanuel Nelson (Westport, CT: Greenwood, 2002).
Rutgers: A 250th Anniversary Portrait, ed. Nita Congress (London: Third Millennium Publishing, 2015).
William H. S. Demarest, A History of Rutgers College, 1766–1924 (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers College, 1924).
Richard P. McCormick, Rutgers: A Bicentennial History (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1966).
Stephanie E. Smallwood, Saltwater Slavery: A Middle Passage from Africa to American Diaspora (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007).
J. David Muyskens, ed., The Diary of Dina Van Bergh, trans. Gerard Van Dyke (New Brunswick, NJ: Historical Society of the Reformed Church in America, 1993).
This is a primary source: — Preceding unsigned comment added by JBhistorian ( talk • contribs) 20:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC) New Brunswick (NJ) Common Council, Minutes of the New Brunswick, N.J. Common Council 1796-1819 (New Brunswick, NJ: New Brunswick Historical Society, 1910). http://archive.org/details/minutesofnewbrun00newb
Cooley, Henry Scofield. A Study of Slavery in New Jersey. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1896. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=A9xHAAAAYAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA7&dq=slavery+new+jersey&ots=6vGhXNjQLt&sig=5J2OXiCuIAZC6Vm-JFi3iubJvEw#v=onepage&q=slavery%20new%20jersey&f=false
17:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goud96 ( talk • contribs)
The article states that "The slave trade was a royal monopoly and had become a lucrative enterprise." I tried to check this. It is rather vague about dates. I presume the Royal African Company was meant, which by a charter of 1660 had been granted a monopoly over English trade along the west coast of Africa (later including slaves). However, in 1689, the Company acknowledged that it had lost its monopoly with the end of royal power in the Glorious Revolution. The Trade with Africa Act 1697 (9 Will. 3 c. 26) opened the African trade to all English merchants who paid a ten per cent levy to the Company on all goods exported from Africa. Nevertheless the company became insolvent in 1708, surviving until 1750 in a state of much reduced activity. The Company continued purchasing and transporting slaves until 1731, when it abandoned slaving in favour of ivory and gold dust. (Slave trading was doubtless lucrative for some, but it doesn't sound as though it was lucrative for the Company.) So it seems there was no monopoly during the c18. To call it a 'royal' monopoly before that could be misleading - was it not simply created by Royal Charter, even though it had royal interests? So, in short, is the sentence as it stands so vague as to be misleading? Starple ( talk) 15:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)