Talk:Manumission

message: I've deleted the picture of freed slaves voting in New Orleans in 1867.
The reason is that these people would have presumably been freed by the abolition of slavery at the end of the Civil War in 1865, rather than manumitted (freed by an individual owner while the instituation of slavery still existed).
Apeloverage (talk) 11:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: Shouldn't this article have something on manumission of slaves in America in the early 19th century? Some were freed contingent on them going to Africa, esp. Liberia, or to Haiti, I think.  According to D. W. Meinig, The Shaping of America, Vol. II, p. 305 ff., this was a thinly-disguised deportation project.  Most of the freed slaves didn't want to go to Africa, with which they retained little affinity. 69.249.59.121 20:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this article should not just be about manumission in ancient Rome and Greece--if anyone feels like writing sections about other contexts, that would be great. --Brian Z 15:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slaves in Modern Times? 

message: The "Motivations" section mentions "Manumission contracts found in... Delphi specify... the prerequisites for liberation. For instance, in the early years of slavery (before 1865)..." and goes on to give an example involving tobacco and rice. This is entirely inconsistent and connects two very distant timeframes in almost the same context. (Pre-1865 are hardly "early" years of anything in relation to Delphi.) These statements really should be clearly separated, and ideally more detailed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.255.118 (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Delphi and tobacco?

message: Since this article is found in a catagory for "surfdom," shouldn't manumission of mideval surfs be discussed?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chamberlian (talk • contribs) 23:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It should, and probably in a separate article. The Polish Wikipedia corresponding article focuses primarily on serfdom instead of slavery. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 04:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Serfdom?

message: This article uses the word "pecunium"; is it correct, or should it be either "pecuniam" or "peculium"?  I'm having trouble finding a definition for pecunium.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.149.221 (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: pecunium vs pecuniam vs peculium?

message: References are given, but no content related to this. Parkwells (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Slavery in Islamic countries and manumission

message: Not sure of the value of including content on ancient and nineteenth-century societies. More to the point, at least for comparison, would be inclusion of material for how France and Spain handled manumission of slaves in their colonies. The planters of the South liked to compare themselves to the ancient slave societies, but do not appear to have adopted much from them. Parkwells (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparative practices

message: The article is misleading and needs an expert.  While not always rigorously practiced, rabbinical Judaism actually made it a sin to manumit a non-Jewish slave and it was held to be one of the 613 mitzvot to hold a non-Jewish slave indefinitely.  The article overlooks the fact that Judaism traditionally had a negative outlook toward the manumission of non-Jewish slaves and arbitrary manumission as practiced by the Greeks or the Romans was technically prohibited in rabbinical Judaism.  It's against this backdrop that certain allowances for manumission were permitted.  Slaves could gain their freedom if they were seriously maimed (with various Talmudic restrictions imposed by the rabbis of the Talmud regarding intentionality and the extent of injuries) or if freeing a slave would allow for the performance of a significant mitzvah that would benefit more than a single Jew.  (Freeing a slave for the purposes of holding a minyan when short the required number of free Jewish men being the classic example). It was sometimes ruled that if there was a risk of illicit intercourse between a Jewish man and a non-Jewish slave woman, then the non-Jewish woman could be freed so that she would automatically be considered a ger (convert) and have the ability to accept or reject a marriage contract.  Finally, the Talmud discusses circumstances under which a slave could purchase his or her freedom (and, among other things, discusses about the need for a trusted third party to hold the money as the slave couldn't own property), but it was understood that the slave owner was still violating a mitzvah in permitting this, and this was discouraged even if allowances were made for the event it occurred.
24.113.109.228 (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Jewish manumission

message: After nearly a year, it's clear that proposed merger to Freedman has no juice. I'm bolding pulling down the banner. Carrite (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Pulling MERGE banner

message: There's a statement:
However, as population of free negroes increased, the state passed laws forbidding free negroes from moving into the state (1793) and requiring newly freed slaves to leave within one year unless they had special permission (1806)
It is sourced to:
 
Wilson, Black Codes (1965), p. 16
That book isn't listed in the bibliography.
I can find reference to a book  The Black Codes of the South by Theodore Brantner Wilson but that book is 1967, not 1965. Different date, different title, but is it the same book?
My concern is that it is used to support the date of 1793 for laws ""forbidding free negroes from moving into the state"". In contrast Taylor (location 598 in Kindle) refers to laws in Virginia but in 1778. How do we sort this out? Does any one have a copy of Wilson?--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the date to 1778 which is clearly supported by Taylor.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct date of law 

message: Apparently private manumission was prohibited in 1820 in the US. I will post the source when i find it again, but even this source only mentioned it and provided no further information. --Espoo (talk) 07:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Law regulating slavery (and manumission) differed from state to state. Some states restricted manumission, but many examples of slaves being manumitted exist for the whole period from 1776 to 1865. --Rsk6400 (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  prohibition of private manumission in 1820 

message: I dont know if this was an error by the editor that added the content, or if the source text reads as such. It is from a translation of Arabian nights, the quote beginning with the words "thou shall not manumit me.." (Correct grammer would be "thou shalt not manumit me..."  One of the following two things should be done:
1. If an editor error, just change shall to shalt.
2. If it was quoted correctly,  [sic] should be added after shall. Firejuggler86 (talk) 07:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad grammer in a quotation 

message: I believe there is enough material to combine from this Article, Roman Slavery, and Manumission into a more cohesive article on Roman Freedmen. Scholarship in this topic has picked up as of late. The Freedman section in "Roman Slavery" needs to be properly cited, at least.
Could the author of the "Roman Empire" section please get in touch? I'd be interested in input.
See: Mouritsen, H. (2015). The Freedman in the roman world. Cambridge University Press., Hunt, P. (2018). Ancient greek and roman slavery. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. , Hartnett, Jeremy. Roman Street: Urban Life and Society in Pompeii, Herculaneum, and Rome. Cambridge University Press, 2020.
NChapman98 (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Article: Roman Freedmen 

message: The current opening paragraph includes some vague truism about the supposed feelings of slave owners, i.e. it may (or may not) have been of value to slave owners: "Such feelings of benevolence may have been of value to slave owners themselves as it allowed them to focus on a "humane component" in the human traffic of slavery."  My suggestion would be to remove that line completely, as it adds nothing with any authority 40.133.170.80 (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truism