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 th amendment and the other was legalised under the th amendment not the corwin amendment of 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 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 ww 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 july