Talk:Slavery in the United States

2025 Resumption of International Slave Trade by the Trump Administration

There is a reasonable argument to be made that the actions taken by the Trump administration to pay El Salvadorian work prisons to take individuals who, in the United States were not convicted of any crime, without due process, would constitute resumption of the international slave trade.

This is substantiated with news sources which explicitly make this claim "By effectively subsidizing and populating a modern penal colony, Trump has reignited the international slave trade. The United States will profit from this deal, too." https://www.thenation.com/article/society/trump-human-trafficking-el-salvador/

I believe that the possibility of adding section to this article to discuss the apparent modern resurrection of international slave sales by the Trump administration merits a new section to this article. -- Anthony S. Castanza (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @A. S. Castanza This article is focused on chattel slavery from 1776 to 1865. This issue sounds like it would be a good match for Human trafficking in the United States or possibly Penal labor in the United States. appreciate your interest in contributing to wikipedia. TY! jengod (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

"This article is about slavery from the founding of the United States in 1776. For the colonial period, see Slavery in the colonial history of the United States. For modern illegal slavery, see Human trafficking in the United States. For modern legal forced labor, see Penal labor in the United States."

That is inconsistent with the description of the article, which does not set a formal end-date for the relevant conduct. The informal end date of 1865 is not for article scope reasons, but purely because that until this administration the United States had ceased trading in slaves. This conduct could be appropriate to the Human Trafficking article, however, that is typically understood to be criminal conduct by non-state actors. The United States government seizing individuals off the street with no legal process, and selling them to a forced labor facility in an independent nation most closely falls under the type of chattel slavery discussed in this article. Furthermore the Penal Labor article is not appropriate as it is scoped to "legal forced labor" - of which selling individuals to a foreign nation is not. Perhaps there is a more appropriate article to discuss this conduct. But so far, I believe that this is, in fact, the most appropriate one. -- Anthony S. Castanza (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Northwest ordinance of 1787

Years ago someone inserted material to the effect that Manasseh Cutler and another man were responsible for the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. The extensive scholarly literature is ignored. Historians have been puzzled why the southern slaveholders who controlled the Continental Congress almost unanimously passed a provision to outlaw slavery in the Northwest Territory. (There was one negative vote, by a New Yorker.) Scholars are pretty well agreed with [[Ray Allen Billington]] ''Westward expansion: history of the American frontier''. 4th edition 1974 page 211 that "Cutler  and his fellow land-jobbers had nothing to do with shaping the Ordinance." Rjensen (talk) 05:14, 13 April 2025 (UTC)  

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2025

I would like to revise the "Effects on Southern economic development" subsection within the economics section.I would like to add further context about the North's complicity in slavery, and show that not just the South economic incentive to enslave black people. Northern textile mills, farming tool factories, and railroads are all great examples that show that white America as a whole profited from slavery. There are 2 sources I've put them into citations, that should aline with the already existing text. Thanks for your consideration, text below:

The history of slavery in the U.S. was marked by brutal working conditions that sustained the economic systems of both the South and the North. As Aaron Hall highlights in "Slaves of the State," enslaved people were not only exploited by private individuals but also directly by state governments, which used them for large-scale infrastructure projects. For example, Southern states like Louisiana and Virginia forcibly leased enslaved laborers to build railroads, dig canals, and maintain levees—critical projects that fueled regional development. Hall notes that “economically and environmentally disparate states explored techniques to buy, borrow, lease, and sponsor public slave labor: they became masters, managers, and investors in service of growth.”[354] This system functioned through direct state ownership, where governments purchased enslaved people outright, or through leasing arrangements, where private enslavers rented out their human property to the state. The labor conditions were often even deadlier than on plantations, with enslaved workers facing extreme violence from overseers, rampant disease in labor camps, and high mortality rates in dangerous construction sites. By embedding slavery into public works, governments legitimized and perpetuated the system, ensuring that economic progress depended on forced labor. Similarly, Seth Rockman’s "Plantation Labor Outsourced" reveals how slavery extended far beyond Southern plantations, with Northern industries profiting at every stage of the supply chain. Northern textile mills, particularly in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, relied on cotton harvested by enslaved workers, but their involvement went even deeper. Northern manufacturers produced and sold tools specifically designed for slave labor—heavy hoes, reinforced shovels, and durable whips—marketed to plantation owners as essential for maximizing productivity. Rockman explains that these businessmen justified their sales by distancing themselves from the moral implications of slavery, framing their role as mere suppliers in a free-market exchange. One manufacturer even advertised his tools as “ideal for tropical labor,”[355] a euphemism that avoided direct mention of slavery while catering to plantation needs. As Rockman observes, “Commercial entanglements garnered an occasional comment from organized abolitionists in the 1830s and 1840s, but rarely prompted calls to close the textile mills on account of their complicity in slavery several states to the south.”[355] This complicity was not passive; Northern banks financed Southern plantations, insurance companies underwrote enslaved lives as property, and shipping firms transported slave-grown goods to global markets. Over time, the South’s economy became wholly dependent on slavery, embedding it into agriculture, transportation, and state-sponsored projects. Yet the North was deeply intertwined in this system—not only did its textile mills rely on slave-produced cotton, but its financial and industrial sectors thrived on the exploitation of enslaved labor. For instance, New York’s financial district bankrolled Southern expansion, while Connecticut’s metalworks produced the shackles used in the domestic slave trade. This interconnected economy reveals how slavery was not just a Southern institution but a national one, binding the country together through shared profit and systemic oppression. Even after Northern states abolished slavery within their own borders, their economies remained yoked to the institution, demonstrating how deeply capitalism and racialized forced labor were entangled in the antebellum era.

[354] Rockman, Seth. "Plantation Labor Outsourced: Rethinking New England Outwork and the National Economy of Slavery in Antebellum America." Enterprise & Society 21, no. 3 (September 2020): 591–623. https://doi.org/10.1017/eso.2020.25. [355] Hall, Aaron. "Slaves of the State: Infrastructure and Governance through Slavery in the Antebellum South." Journal of American History 106, no. 1 (June 2019): 19–43. https://doi.org/10.1093/jahist/jaz002. Garmentwombat (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)