US, not africans, responsible for slavery

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by molly bloom

And why would I want to do that ?

To help me out?.

Besides what else do we have to do with our free time....

[QUOTE] Originally posted by molly bloom
You said that English and Scottish laws were the same (I paraphrase for convenience) and that they were created by the same body (implying the existence of a ' United Kingdom' in 1535).[QUOTE] Originally posted by molly bloom

Ok i already commented on my sloppy exposistion, but the point was villiens in english law and vassals in scottish law being regulated fundametally the same, feudal land tenure and obligation. Both becoming free of that at the same time later on.

Origins of scots law are also from Normandy, de bruce was a principle follower of William and got lands in scotland and repalced existing law when he did so.

What im after is if scotts law removed vassals independantly and before english law did so for villianage.

Originally posted by molly bloom
I pointed out that there was no 'United Kingdom' in 1535, and that Scottish law and English law were different, as indeed they are.

Agree re the Act of Union etc, but dont fuly acept that feudal obligation between scotland to the English throne was not in place in 1535, the scots in law accept that at many times in their history and gave it up for good in 1603 iirc. Which is where i was coming from, scotts vassals and english villiens owed feadal obligations for land tenure, i have yet to find a substantive difference in those obligations outside that of mil obligation.


W

Originally posted by molly bloom elsh law up until the reign of Henry VIII was also different from English law- following the Act For The Union Of England And Wales in 1536, in 1543 English common law was used to replace Welsh or Welsh Marcher law.

But thats for an economic difference in large measure was it not?, markets etc , not one that changed the nature or obligation of feadal land tenure. ill have to look that up mind you.

Originally posted by molly bloom
Scottish law is older than English law, tracing its ancestry back to a century before English law- to the ninth century in fact.

Given the 'Auld Alliance' between France and Scotland, the main influence on the development of Scottish law, especially from the 15th Century onwards, was Continental European Roman law, with Scottish lawyers often training at the schools of law in France (at Paris) or in Leiden.

Precedent was not the force in Scottish law that it was in English law, with the Scots taking the more Gallic approach of finding a guiding principle or principles for a case.

The only interruption to this came with Cromwell's Interregnum, when Scottish law was replaced with English law during the war with the Covenanters in 1651, but even so, distinctive native Scottish law returned with the Stuart Restoration in 1660.

Not much to play with there, i suppose i could add that the english played on the use of Old pretender to mock him in english, as pretending to be king, while in french pretender means to uphold or maintain a right, in this case the line of seccesion through prima gentre and the 1715 did not acept the english legal posistion.

Originally posted by molly bloom
Differences between Scots and English law:

http://www.mms.co.uk/html/article.asp?articleID=83

http://www.answers.com/topic/scots-law

Even the language used is different- avizandum and 'not proven' are concepts in Scottish law, not English.

Last one mentions feudal law and the highland clearences, both which are confirming what i have on my book shelf, and what i found online http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/News-Extras/159

What i cannot find is scottish law making scots vassals free or substanativly different from english villians except in mil obligations for their land tenure.

[Nickiow]

http://exhibitions.eastlothianmuseums.org/tranent/mining/Ai41-284.htm

1775 Act of Parliament

From the early years of the seventeenth century the law in Scotland had treated miners and their families as property belonging to the mine owner, with no right to leave or to refuse to be sold on with the pit. Many sold themselves to the mine owners to escape the worse poverty of unemployment. This act intended to abolish slavery in the mines and salt works, but it provided for the working off of existing indentures, and mine owners were able to manipulate the indebtedness of the colliers. Many miners remained in (or returned to) slavery.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Nickiow


To help me out?.

Besides what else do we have to do with our free time....

I don't know about you, but I have cats to feed, food to buy and a jumble sale at the local Unitarian Meeting House to attend, let alone the new Douanier Rousseau exhibition and the lamb curry with black cardamom that I'm preparing for tomorrow.

Not much to play with there, i suppose i could add that the english played on the use of Old pretender to mock him in english, as pretending to be king, while in french pretender means to uphold or maintain a right, in this case the line of seccesion through prima gentre and the 1715 did not acept the english legal posistion.

None of which is relevant to whether or not Scots law is and has been different from English law.

Let's stick to relevant facts, shall we, and avoid pointlessly refighting the Jacobite rebellions....

[Dr Strangelove]

Saharan Africans were selling their Ivory Coast brethern to North African interests centuries before Europeans became involved. Apologists claim that muslim slavery wasn't lifelong, yet one wonders how many Ivory Coast Africans were able to make the long journey back across the Sahara. For instance, the Spanish writer Cervantes was taken prisoner by Northern Africans on his way home from a pilgrimmage to the Holy Land. Because he was literate the slavers assumed that he was noble and worth more to them as a hostage than a slave. When after a decade no one offered a reward for him he was allowed to return home. He was the only one of his group ever to make it home, the others having been sold into wonderfully enlightened muslim slavery. I know of no scholarly estimate of the number of Africans and Europeans sold into slavery on the markets of North Africa.

But I digress. The slave trade existed long before the Europoeans began customers. To my knowledge the trade in slaves wasn't originally sought by Europeans, but after North African rulers offered slaves as payment of war reparations Europeans quickly realised the opportunities of the trade. Once Europeans became interested in slaves they were not satisfied with merely buying them from native African slave traders. Often ships from Spain, Portugal, France, or England would land on the coast of Africa and send out armed parties to gather up slaves. What portion of slaves shipped west from the coast of Africa were captured by Europeans and what portion were sold by Africans? I don't think that anyone knows. Certainly the market for slaves in the Americas contributed to the number of West Africans deprived of their freedom from 1500 until 1880.

My answer to the question is that both the slave owners and the slave traders of Africa, Europe and the Americas were responsible for American slavery. Furhtermore I recognise the culpability of my ancestors from 1650 to 1865. They all owned slaves, and I am certain that they all went to Hell for it.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Nickiow


Not really its about thinking about complex matters and not reducing them to a soundbite.

But that is what the thread title did even if Mad Viking did not intend it that way.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by molly bloom

I don't know about you, but I have cats to feed, food to buy and a jumble sale at the local Unitarian Meeting House to attend, let alone the new Douanier Rousseau exhibition and the lamb curry with black cardamom that I'm preparing for tomorrow.

Oh spooky, copy that on the cat and the food shop, but dont know my Douanier from any other customs....

Originally posted by molly bloom
None of which is relevant to whether or not Scots law is and has been different from English law.

Let's stick to relevant facts, shall we, and avoid pointlessly refighting the Jacobite rebellions....

Did not attempt to re fight anything, nor did i wonder off and point out that Isle of Man and Gascony continued to have their own laws in addition to your earlier list that differ from english law, or the difference between Kings and baraonial and clerical law...opps.

My intrest in the relavant feadal land tenure difference between english and scots law, Edward I by M Prestwick tells me that difference at the time both civil and mil, C Barnet Social and adminstartive History of the British army tells me the difference from that period upto the present, what i dont know is the period in between, particulry civil aplication.

AFAIKT there is no difference in Scottish law and english on the issue of feadal land tenure in respect of the end of vassalage in scots law, Villanians in english law.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by MrFun



But that is what the thread title did even if Mad Viking did not intend it that way.

Yes he did, thats part of ythe internets problem, its so easy to offend without intention of doing so.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Saharan Africans were selling their Ivory Coast brethern to North African interests centuries before Europeans became involved. Apologists claim that muslim slavery wasn't lifelong, yet one wonders how many Ivory Coast Africans were able to make the long journey back across the Sahara. For instance, the Spanish writer Cervantes was taken prisoner by Northern Africans on his way home from a pilgrimmage to the Holy Land. Because he was literate the slavers assumed that he was noble and worth more to them as a hostage than a slave. When after a decade no one offered a reward for him he was allowed to return home. He was the only one of his group ever to make it home, the others having been sold into wonderfully enlightened muslim slavery. I know of no scholarly estimate of the number of Africans and Europeans sold into slavery on the markets of North Africa.

But I digress. The slave trade existed long before the Europoeans began customers. To my knowledge the trade in slaves wasn't originally sought by Europeans, but after North African rulers offered slaves as payment of war reparations Europeans quickly realised the opportunities of the trade. Once Europeans became interested in slaves they were not satisfied with merely buying them from native African slave traders. Often ships from Spain, Portugal, France, or England would land on the coast of Africa and send out armed parties to gather up slaves. What portion of slaves shipped west from the coast of Africa were captured by Europeans and what portion were sold by Africans? I don't think that anyone knows. Certainly the market for slaves in the Americas contributed to the number of West Africans deprived of their freedom from 1500 until 1880.

My answer to the question is that both the slave owners and the slave traders of Africa, Europe and the Americas were responsible for American slavery. Furhtermore I recognise the culpability of my ancestors from 1650 to 1865. They all owned slaves, and I am certain that they all went to Hell for it.

Cordoba was for a time the leadingh slave market acording to the Muslim writters.http://libro.uca.edu/cgi-bin/perlfec...l&q=population

Its worth mentioning that Arabic (al-saqaliba) refers to both the Slavic tribes and for slaves specifically bought from the Black Sea region (although later, they used it for any fair-haired, light-skinned slave). They used completely different terms for slaves acquired from other regions (e.g. al-sudan).

A very usfull link, for data sets, i hope you find something of either intrest or use.http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/GENOCIDE.HTM

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP3.HTMUntil modern times slavery was almost universal, and in most parts of the world the slave's life was wholly dependent upon the master. But even before being sold, millions of people were killed while being pressed into legal slavery--during slave raids, transportation on slave ships and in overland convoys--or they died from associated deprivation and disease. In the 16th to 19th centuries alone the death toll among African slaves being transported to the New World may have been over 1,500,000,10 possibly 2,000,00011; millions more died in capture and in transit to the Orient or Middle East. And just among those kept in Africa some 4,000,000 may have died.12 Overall, in five centuries, Europeans, Arabs, Asians, and African slave traders, possibly murdered near 17,000,000 Africans; perhaps even over 65,000,000.13 I am sure that this total only partly excavates such cold-blooded, government approved or committed, bloodletting known as slavery.

Hell must be bigger than i though it to be....

[Dr Strangelove]

There was also the often forgotten horrors of the Ivory trade. The Sultans of Zanzibar were the largest suppliers of ivory throughout the 18th and 19th centuries. They would send armed parties to the savannah regions of Africa, along the way gathering up forced labor to carry their spoils back to Zanzibar. Their expeditions could "gather" tens of thousands of tusks, requiring tens of thousands of workers to carry. The Arabs often neglected the feeding of their workers. Those who fell behind were left to die. Those who made it all the way to Zanzibar were then forced at gun point to attempt to swim the ocean between the island and the coast of Africa. Few survived.

[The Mad Viking]

Actually at Nuremberg, international law found those Race laws not just bad law and repealed them, but found them stare dacis, ie not law at all as they were against pre existing German fundamental law, and had never been legal, and post Nuremberg prosecuted the German judiciary for rulings made on it, not for passing the law you understand but enacting its requirements that the judiciary sign the order sending people to the camps, not just the Shoah but the genetic and mental euthanasia program. So no, German law did not make it legal, German law was subverted and replaced with unlawful statutes that all citizens should have refused to obey, that's what happens when you elect dictatorships into power as a matter of course.

Your views on law as an arbiter of action verge on moronic:

If you pass a law, it can make what you do legal, and therefore justified.

But then you can pass another law, after the fact, to make what you did illegal.

By that argument, the US Constitution "subverted" pre-existing laws that allowed slavery. Thanks for making that clear.

(Now Dubya wants to pass a law to make torture legal.)

People change them laws like they change their clothes. The powers in charge pass laws to suit themselves. You cannot judge actions simply by comparing them to laws. But you can judge societies by looking at what the actions of the those who make and enforce laws.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by molly bloom
It shouldn't have been, but the way Mad Viking phrased and re-phrased his point, it seemed to turn out that way.

If he'd said that various state governments in what became the United States had allowed the existence of slavery within their borders both before and after the Declaration of Independence and the creation of the United States and some continued the external and internal trade in slavery and sought its continuation well into the 19th Century- well, that would have been much more accurate, although in itself a rather more unwieldy thread title.

Yes, and yes.

Better still I should have ASKED:

"How does the fact that some Africans sold some slaves to slave traders reduce America's responsibilities for maintaining the institution of slavery many decades longer than other western nations?"

[The Mad Viking]

Nicki- re Lloyds register and the Amistad.

1. The ships manifest did not list SLAVES. Here is the quote again "in connection with the false representation on the papers of the schooner, that they were "passengers for the government," was an artifice resorted to by these slave-traders, for the double purpose of evading the scrutiny of British cruisers, and legalizing the transfer of their victims to the place of their ultimate destination"

They were listed as passengers. They had passports issued on behalf of Ruiz et al, falsely listing them as Ladinos (Latinos). And Ruiz, (probably falsely) claimed to be their owner.

The point I was making, not to you but to Adam Smith, is that ships manifest are not in any way a reliable indicator of SMUGGLING.

Do you think they are?

Do you understand the meaning of "an artifice resorted to by slave-traders" and "evading British cruisers"?

Slave traders LIED on their manifests to try to avoid detection by the British, who were trying to enforce the ban on slave trading.

(Now I expect to get a eight paragraph response explaining why lying on a ships manifiest was legal for Spanish ships in the 19th C...)

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
There was also the often forgotten horrors of the Ivory trade. The Sultans of Zanzibar were the largest suppliers of ivory throughout the 18th and 19th centuries. They would send armed parties to the savannah regions of Africa, along the way gathering up forced labor to carry their spoils back to Zanzibar. Their expeditions could "gather" tens of thousands of tusks, requiring tens of thousands of workers to carry. The Arabs often neglected the feeding of their workers. Those who fell behind were left to die. Those who made it all the way to Zanzibar were then forced at gun point to attempt to swim the ocean between the island and the coast of Africa. Few survived.

wow -- that is interesting

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking


Your views on law as an arbiter of action verge on moronic:

If you pass a law, it can make what you do legal, and therefore justified.

If you say so, persoanly i disagree with you, but would not say that makes you a moron.

its a simple matter of historical/legal fact that Nazi Nurmeburg laws have no legal standing as precedent, that they were contary to german established legal precdent and allowed the allies to prosecute as co conspirators anyone involved in participation of them.

So no no verging on the moroninc, jsut sinmply stating the facts, you otoh, well......

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
But then you can pass another law, after the fact, to make what you did illegal.

Law is rulled by precedent, when you pass a new law that breaks legal precedent, particulry one of 00s of years you not only set new precedednt but fundamently change the nature of the law and its direction, since conformity with precedednt is an essential aspect of law.

Passing laws that make it legal to put people into ovens is not an everyday new set of laws you find often, which is why it considered stare dacis, ie not only a bad law, but not law at all.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
By that argument, the US Constitution "subverted" pre-existing laws that allowed slavery. Thanks for making that clear..

Factuall and logicaly unsuportable. The US constition does not prohibit slavary, it defines in part the relationship of slaves under the constition. In law, as the USSC rulled slaves were not on the same legal footing as free citizens, and the act of 1790 defining naturlization says no negro can be a citizen .

Cite US constition that subverts existing law re slaves.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Nicki- re Lloyds register and the Amistad.

1. The ships manifest did not list SLAVES. Here is the quote again "in connection with the false representation on the papers of the schooner, that they were "passengers for the government," was an artifice resorted to by these slave-traders, for the double purpose of evading the scrutiny of British cruisers, and legalizing the transfer of their victims to the place of their ultimate destination"

They were listed as passengers. They had passports issued on behalf of Ruiz et al, falsely listing them as Ladinos (Latinos). And Ruiz, (probably falsely) claimed to be their owner.

The point I was making, not to you but to Adam Smith, is that ships manifest are not in any way a reliable indicator of SMUGGLING.

Do you think they are?

Do you understand the meaning of "an artifice resorted to by slave-traders" and "evading British cruisers"?

Slave traders LIED on their manifests to try to avoid detection by the British, who were trying to enforce the ban on slave trading.

(Now I expect to get a eight paragraph response explaining why lying on a ships manifiest was legal for Spanish ships in the 19th C...)

Asked and answered already. You just dont like the courts answer any more than mine.http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...d/AMI_SCT2.HTM

the Judge found the prat of the case you continue to post from "Ruiz and Montez are proved to have made the pretended purchase of these negroes, with a full knowledge of all the circumstances. And so cogent and irresistible is the evidence in this respect, that the District Attorney has admitted in open Court, upon the record, that these negroes were native Africans, and recently imported into Cuba, as alleged in their answers to the libels in the case. The supposed proprietary interest of Ruiz and Montez, is completely displaced, if we are at liberty to look at the evidence of the admissions of the District Attorney."

He found they were free negros from Afrcia and ilegally transported to the US anmd set them free.
Now re read the trial transcript as to how he rulled so and stop waisting my time with your uneducted, unable to comprehend the facts of the matter attitude.