" 2010 (UTC)

An interesting comment:  ""Convict leasing isn't the same as slavery where there's ownership and title. However, I would agree that we could amend the lead to read: ""effectively abolished slavery...""

True there is a difference with chattel slavery and forced prison slave labour. One ended w/ the 13th amendment, and the other was legalised under the 13th amendment (not the Corwin Amendment of 1861). In other words, what would be the legal justification for the prison labour in California, Oregon and other states that practise this form of human rights abuse without the ""involuntary servitude"" clause? WWhat do you think they were referring to? 

Futhermore, I don't see a problem including this in the article, so long as it is a small reference, and not the focus of the article. As to scholarship, there is reputable work on this, and there is no doubt that starting in 1866 the prison chain gangs were leased to private business, plantations, mines etc for being picked up for the most frivilous charges. Yes they were mostly black. The mortality rate was higher than chattel slavery because they were leased and not owned. Virtual life sentences on absurd charges directed against black people w/ forced labour is slavery, though not chattel. This was systematic and went on until WW2, though today's version is slightly different. Now, some of you asked for refrences and rightly so. Slavery by Another Name by Douglas Blackmon, who is a respected writer & journalist and received the Pulitzer Prize for this book which is on this very topic. That's the point. This is FAR from original research, and there are other scholars who've written about it. Now I haven't edited the article nor will I unless there is some agreement w/ others editors here, but I'd like to know the issue as it is now. How do other editors feel? 

One other thing, American historians do not always agree on things, and I have noticed at least one conspicious neo-Confederate argument in the article (unsourced), though on a different part of the article. So yes it's important to look at historians, but on some topics there's a whole lot of rubbish, particularly w/ slavery issues, so a consensus by historians may never happen, and sadly ideological agendas do exist, and I understand what you blokes mean about good sources. I'd say that keeping this article from vandalism is far more important.  15:00, 18 July"