Talk:Freedmen's Bureau

message: New International Encyclopedia does not mention that the lands of former slaveowners would be "broken up" and given to former slaves.  New International Encyclopedia states that the most important part of the law was "the provision authorizing the President to appropriate for the use of freedmen the confiscated and abandoned lands within the Southern States, not more than 40 acres for a period not longer than three years"....  That was the allowable practice.  The government did not take lands from white people and give it away to Negroes.  71.240.27.3 01:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: ::Other encylopedias are not reliable sources.  In fact the US seized the Sea Islands in 1862 and set up farms for Freedmen there. The 2nd Confiscation act allowed all the lands of Confederate slaveowners to be taken away. -- That did not happen but it was a live issue.  Rjensen 01:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go to Image 507, 508, and 509.   71.240.16.194 18:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Statutes at Large is the precise location.   71.240.16.194 18:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Encylopedias

message: According to the Congressional Record, Chap. XC. -  An Act to establish a Bureau for the Relief of Freedmen and Refugees became a law on March 3, 1865.  It was designed ..."to continue during the present war of rebellion, and for one year thereafter,...."  Its purpose was ..."the supervision and management of all abandoned lands, and the control of all subjects relating to refugees and freedmen from rebel states, or from any district of country within the territory embraced in the operations of the army, ...."  "The said bureau shall be under the management and control of a commissioner to be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, whose compensation shall be three thousand dollars per annum, and such number of clerks as may be assigned to him by the Secretary of War, not exceeding one chief chief clerk, two of the fourth class, two of the third class, and five of the first class."  
Sec. 2.  And be it further enacted, "That the Secretary of War may direct such issues of provisions, clothing, and fuel, as he may deem needful for the immediate and temporary shelter shelter and supply of destitute and suffering refugees and freedmen and their wives and children, under such rules and regulations as he may direct."  
Sec. 3.  And be it further enacted, "That the President may, ... appoint an assistant commissioner for each of the states declared to be in insurrection, ....
Sec. 4.  And be it further enacted, ..."tracts of land within the insurrectionary states as shall have been abandoned, or to which the United States shall have acquired title by confiscation or sale, or otherwise, and to every male citizen, whether refugee or freedman,  there shall be assigned not more than forty acres of such land, ... for the term of three years at an annual rent not exceeding six per centum ....  At the end of said term, or at any time during said  term, the occupants of any parcels so assigned may purchase the land and receive such title thereto as the United States can convey, upon paying therefor the value of the land, as ascertained and fixed for the purpose of determining the annual rent aforesaid.  
Sec. 5.  And be it further enacted, "That all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with the provisions of this act, are hereby repealed."  
Approved, March 3, 1865.  
* The word "education" is not mentioned.  
* The word "blacks" is not mentioned.  
* The word "schools" is not mentioned.  
* The word "churches" is not mentioned. 
Contrarily, the Wikipedia article often mentions "education" and "blacks" and "schools" and "churches."  The Wikipedia article also claims that "anti-white violence" existed.  (I had never heard of "anti-white violence" until I read the Wikipedia version of history).  The Wikipedia version makes no mention of a Commisioner.  (Old General Howard was the tyrannical ogre who wielded a heavy hand and tormented the "poor white farmers.")  The article is extremely distorted and non-factual.  
The URL is http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/hlawquery.html  
Search the thirty-eighth Congress, second session.  The entire text is available for reading.  This act was the first of two acts.  The thirty-ninth Congress passed a tougher version of the same law.  
The search term is "Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands"  
Help to ride the Wikipedia of the baloneyism.  71.240.16.194 18:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go to Image 507, 508, and 509.   71.240.16.194 18:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Statutes at Large is the precise location.   71.240.16.194 18:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Baloneyism

message: Employ this search term as you search the thirty-ninth Congress.  H. R. 613 is the bill.  Several examples of H. R. 613 are in the congressional record. You may examine the final version of the law until your hat floats.  
Rid Wikipedia of humbug.  
71.253.41.33 13:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "H. R. 613"

message: Some certain people have taken potshots at a dedicated servant of the U. S. Government by claiming that General Howard used a "loose interpretation" of the law.  He did no such thing, he obeyed his orders.  I am placing an NPOV into the article because it features untrue statements.  71.240.42.72 23:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern Snipers

message: I doubt that 4,300 shanties were built for negroes.  At a cost of $500 each, that would amount to $2,150,000.  Where would anyone find 4,300 teachers to teach the colored people?  Slaves were unprepared to be teachers.  The white men may have constructed several hundred shanties, but not 4,300 of them.  POV.  71.240.14.65 21:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hundreds of shanties

message: Statements of a dubious nature exist throughout the article from top to bottom. The KKK (Ku Klux Klan) slew many Negroes, readily.  NPOV  71.240.84.250 18:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it helps to point out statements of a dubious nature. Rjensen 02:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: STATEMENTS OF A DUBIOUS NATURE....

message: I am not sure what is driving the obviously biggoted commentators above, but this is the ONLY Talk Page I have seen that refers to blacks as "Colored People" and "Negroes."  As for the reference to "schools", even if a dwelling is a shanty that would still constitute a viable place for a "school."  Most of the comments above - with the exception of Rjensen - are virtually incoherent.  Stevenmitchell 06:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: YO, you must be from Mars THE PLANET because you cannot be dumb enough to have never known that Negro is one of the commonest words in the history of the United States of America.  Benjamin Franklin owned a "negro wench" and advertised her for sale.  George Washington owned over 100 Negroes.  Andrew Jackson owned Negroes.  Slave peddlers advertised in newspapers: FOR SALE NEGROES.  Do yall sell vanilla ice cream cones on mars, YO?HeyYallYo 17:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bigotry on the Talk Page 

message: The 5th sentence in the first paragraph under "Overview" ends with this erroneous phrase, but I don't know the facts needed to correct it: "of ised Blacks that the plantation lands of their former and employers." Rtrac3y (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Obvious error but no obvious correction

message: Wiki has been getting praise for its bibliographies--which can help users and, buried at the end, are unlikely to distract readers. The Bureau has been the topic of a great deal of recent scholarship that demonstrates its importance and relevance. Rjensen 11:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography 

message: The dates that this gives for the life of the Bureau are internally inconsistent.  This is most unhelpful.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.154.254.17 (talk) 03:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates 

message: Hello, there is an article here, http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/face/Article.jsp?id=h-1447, that might be useful. 
Thanks, 
Justin --Duboiju (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link 

message: For the unsourced information in this article I highly recommend picking up some of the books listed in the references. Not all information can be found on the internet. When I wrote this article originally, all of the information came from those sources. If people are unsure about the source of those claims I'd advise them to take a look at those books. I can even note which page the information is on (at least for parts that I wrote). Bonus Onus (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Noting which page the information is on should be a routine part of citing sources; as should in-line citations rather than a list of sources at the end. --Diannaa (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Wiki rules say that we should title the article by the usual name--a quick glance at the bibliography or at any textbook demonstrates that the usual name is "Freedmen's Bureau" so I will change it unless there are objections. Rjensen (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change name to "Freedmen's Bureau" 

message: I have proposed merging Freedmen's Bureau Bill into this article.  That article is a stub and it doesn't seem as though the legislation itself has significance beyond its result, which is the bureau that is the subject of this article.  Please discuss. —Tim Pierce (talk) 20:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: that article mixes up two different bills--one signed by Lincoln in 1865 and one vetoed by Johnson 1866, and should be corrected and merged here. Rjensen (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not confident that I have the background to sort out which bill is which; does someone else here feel up to the task of correcting Freedmen's Bureau Bill? —Tim Pierce (talk) 15:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freedmen's Bureau Bill 

message: I changed the introduction section. It needed sources and new sources which I have done.  I also thought that some of the information was a little unclear or slightly inaccurate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Say022 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New general info/intorduction 

message: I added a new section to the article.  It is a state by state summary of a freedmen's bureeau report made on May 1866.  The report does not report on states such as Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, Tennessee and Arkansas, information of the state of the bureau should be included from them as well.  There are some formation issue such as the heading of the section I had some trouble with.  I am new to Wikipedia and still unfimiliar with some of the commands.  The sources for the section were from one document so I cited it in a small intro to the section.  I'm not sure if this is the best way to the overall information of the section.  I did not want to over load the reference section.  Please feel free to change the format or reference if you feel it is not in standing with wikipedia standards.~~say022~~
::Nice job!  I cleaned it up a bit and dropped repetitive info that anyine can get with a clickthrough. (always sign your talk page posts with four tildes like this: ~~~~ Rjensen (talk) 11:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Section 

message: There were merge discussions concerning Freedmen's Bureau bills in 2006 and 2009 there, and 2010 and 2011 here. Although there was no actual objections there never was a merge and the template removed with comments that, "...there's enough material there now for a separate article.", and hopeful plans for expansion. I left comments on the talk page concerning a merge and reasoning. The main thing is that the lead of this article discusses both "bills", that are not included in the main body, and that would be a good place for a history section of the Bureau. A none controversial merge and inclusion in a history section would be a simple solution. I would think this would improve the article and remove a long standing redundant article. Otr500 (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article merge 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Freedmen's Bureau. 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:
*Added  tag to http://uscodebeta.house.gov/statutes/2000/2000-106-0444.pdf
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130116055656/http://www.africanaheritage.com/Freedmens_Bureau.asp to http://www.africanaheritage.com/Freedmens_Bureau.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified