Talk:Slave catcher

Hi!

I request comment to clarify issues that imply no difference in North and south legislated policy on runaway human "property" as well as free Black residents. Every credible 3rd party suggests Northern legislation had deliberate intent to prevent alleged fugitive rendition or kidnapping citizens for sale into permanent bondage. The section titled "Helping Fugitive Slaves Was a Punishable Offense" explicitly stated "even ... the North punished both ... people who helped slaves escape [and] ... fugitive slaves..." (emphasis added).

By stated facts are quite different in every other credible source located thus far that dates back to pre-1793 Fugitive Slave Act passage.Encyclopedia Britannica authors cite at least 4 north states that guaranteed alleged fugitives trial by jury. Such efforts grew much stronger post-1850 Fugitive Slave Law provisions, when most northern jurisdictions enacted tougher statutes to provide not only jury trials but authorized stiff penalties for kidnapping free citizens or perjured testimony in any case. Some northern lawmakers even prohibited courts from exercising power to entertain a legal claim over captives seeking safe harbor. (SEE, e.g.; https://www.britannica.com/topic/personal-liberty). For an excellent discussion of Northern personal liberty laws delineated by 4 distinct eras in US history, see http://essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com/personal-liberty-laws.html.

Thanks for reading my feedback. I look forward to your reply. . Respectfully Submitted,

Crissie C. Luckey, J.D.-CrissieLuckey (talk) 12:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Eladynnus: Returning property to its owner is quite a normal thing, but returning enslaved human beings to the people who claim to own them is really something else. That's why I think the wording "return escaped slaves to their owners" contains too much of the enslavers' point of view. On the other hand, I feel "oppressors" or "tormentors" to be too strong. So, "enslavers" seems to be a good compromise. Also, it is the stable version, see WP:NOCONSENSUS. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm the one who put "owners" in. My purpose was anything but supporting the slaveowners, it was to confront the reader with the fact that some humans owned others. deisenbe (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Now I'm confused. After you edited on 28 April and also on 19 April, the word was "enslavers". It was changed on 6 June to "owners" by Eladynnus. Did I miss something ? Rsk6400 (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I promise you that I am not this person! Eladynnus (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

It may have been the opinion of the owners/enslavers that they owned their slaves, but that doesn't mean that it is wrong - slaves did have the legal status of property. The vast majority of the literature on the subject uses either "owner" or "master" to refer to the person to whom they were bonded, and it does not seem to be consistent with Wikipedia's writing style to use circumlocutions based on our personal discomfort with the concepts discussed in certain articles. I am unaware of any debate or discussion about this issue, so I cannot see how WP:NOCONSENSUS applies. Eladynnus (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

You are right that WP should use normal language, but as far as I can see, the terms "enslaver / enslaved people" are becoming more and more normal in texts about slavery. I had similar discussions on a variety of articles, some editors prefer "masters / owners / slaves", others "enslavers / enslaved people". That I mentioned NOCONSENSUS was because you changed the wording a second time after I showed that I didn't consent. Rsk6400 (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have not seen "enslavers" outside of radical texts from the 1970s and contemporary writers who imitate them. It appears to be a term which is both politicized and inaccurate when read literally.Eladynnus (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply