US, not africans, responsible for slavery

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Many slaves were captured by slavers or their agents. In the early days of the slave trade, some were sold by tribes who had captured rival tribepeople in raids.

Lets talk about language. If the Africans are 50% responsible for slavery, then my statement has no value, and the opposite arrangement "Africans, not US, responsible for slavery" would be equally desciptive of reality, and equally inaccurate.

If the Africans are 5% responsible for slavery, you can certainly argue that the statement is factually untrue. But that does not make in innaccurate. It is, in fact, a reprsentative statement.

If you disagree, what if the Africans are 0.5% responsible for slavery? Well, from an absolute, mathematical POV, the statement would still be "not true". Yet in language, this would be considered "true". Many legal definitions of purity accept 99.5% as "pure".

You have yet to demonstrate that responsibility for slavery can be explained or represented as a numerical value. You have also not suitably explained why it is that certain actions connected with slavery, specifically the ones undertaken by American and European traders, are more reprehensible than other actions connected with the trade undertaken by Africans.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking


"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?"

Various individuals, companies and states in the new country were responsible for maintaining slavery- in fact the cotton gin (a new item of machinery) actually increased the need for slaves/cheap workers to pick the cotton.

But to whom were the cotton plantation owners and the cotton mill owners supplying the cotton ?

And who was buying the cotton goods ?

'King Cotton' and 'Cottonopolis' are terms used in conjunction with Manchester- in the United Kingdom, not Hew Hampshire, U.S. .


Liverpool and Glasgow and Manchester and the textile barons of the North of England grew wealthy on the labour of slave workers of African origin and on slave trading.

You can bet too, that inhabitants of Canada were buying cotton goods produced by the transatlantic slave trade and its legacy.

It's estimated that at a time when the population of the United Kingdom was only between five and five and a half million, slaveships transported in the region of three times that number of Africans across the Atlantic, to South America, the Caribbean and North America.

This isn't even allowing for the numbers of Africans enslaved on the African continent by Muslim Arabs, or shipped across the Islamic world to India, the Ottoman Empire and China.

There are still today people in Pakistan descended from the slaves shipped there from East Africa:

...the descendants of the slaves brought from Zanzibar to the coastal areas of Sindh and Balochistan by primarily Arab traders. In Pakistan's largest city, Karachi, many of these mainly Baluch descendants of Africans live in the shanty neighbourhood of Lyari, also known as 'little Africa'. There is a very real consciousness among these people of their historical origins. Thus there is a street in Lyari called Mumbasa Street. At least two writers Noon Meem Danish from Karachi, and the late Muhammed Siddique Musafir, not only identify themselves as descendants of African slaves, but have also recorded the history and memories of their forefathers forced into slavery. At the institutional level, Al-Habsh (literally, 'the Ethiopian') was one of the first organizations of black Sindhis (known as 'Afro-Sindhis') established by the political activists and trade-unionist, Wali Muhammed Tahirzada, in the mid-1960s.

http://www.samarmagazine.org/archive/article.php?id=45

But Arabs and Christians and Europeans and Muslims were not the only people supplying the raw material for the slave trade- so were Africans, animist or otherwise:

Using horses to create cavalry forces, the rulers of Oyo conquered much of Yorubaland in the 17th century, and expanded their empire to its greatest extent when, between 1730 and 1748, they forced the powerful state of Dahomey to the west of Yorubaland to become their tributary. Oyo also took control of the seacoast between Whydah and Badagry, and expanded trade with Europeans. Its merchants sold slaves to Europeans in return for cloth and other goods. Sadly, as exports of slaves from Oyo reached about 20,000 per year between 1680 and 1730, this portion of the West African coast became known as the "Slave Coast."

http://www.uiowa.edu/~africart/toc/history/giblinstate.html

The war between Zanzibar and the British Empire (as well as being the shortest on record) also has the added benefit of having the site where slaves were exhibited, sold and whipped replaced by an Anglican cathedral.

http://www.utalii.com/Zanzibar/Anglican_Cathedral.htm

[Dinner]

How is the US responsible for the slave trade? Seriously, it existed long before the US formed.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Nickiow
and the act of 1790 defining naturlization says no negro can be a citizen .

There were lots of free negro citizens.

[MrFun]

Hell, there were free blacks in northern states that participated in the voting on the Constitution.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Nickiow


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.

You lost your thread of argument.

You have been arguing for some time that the courts proved that slaves were listed in the ships manifest.

I stated first that they were not, and then found evidence in your source that proved they were not listed on the ships manifest.

Now what are you arguing? That they were slaves? That they were Africans?

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by Oerdin


There were lots of free negro citizens.

Negro Citizens of states had been allowed prior to the constition, but who could be a citizen was defined by congress in its first naturlization act of 1790, Congress did not at that time include negros as being able to be citizens through naturlization, ie no noew negros citizens were allowed under the law.

Yes citizenship was allowed to be granted to negros for a selection of services and citizenship granted, subject to pres approval, but no negro by his own action could bvecome a US citizen.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking


You lost your thread of argument.

You have been arguing for some time that the courts proved that slaves were listed in the ships manifest.

I stated first that they were not, and then found evidence in your source that proved they were not listed on the ships manifest.

Now what are you arguing? That they were slaves? That they were Africans?

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking


You lost your thread of argument.

You have been arguing for some time that the courts proved that slaves were listed in the ships manifest.

I stated first that they were not, and then found evidence in your source that proved they were not listed on the ships manifest.

Now what are you arguing? That they were slaves? That they were Africans?

Nope i asked when you introduced Lyods registry what you knew that the court did not, Lyods not being mentioned at all in the court trnscripts, this was importnat becuse you say ship manifest dont always show cargo when slaves are involved. You later get confused over which government as well, the US rulling on the shiops manifest that they were free africans unlwfully taken to the US, this was not what the Spainish government argued nor whjat the spainish citizens argued.

You found what i already told you the court said was forged documents of ownership presented by those spainish citizens, its those document that a US court had already acepted and awared ownership on, but the the actual ships manifest was found, an appeal lodged which brought this, the last case on the matter due to ne evidence. That new evidence was the full ships manifest showing that the negros were taken against their will from africa, showing passage to other ships before finding themselves in the USA.

TYhe US court regected the Spainish crowns argument for ownership of them. it regected the spainish citizens argument for the return of their properety and made a very clear comment that those documents were a deliberate attempt to decieve the court.

It found them free african citizens, and set them free, on the evidence of the ships manifest. Which yopu said did not exist and that ships manifest were not reliable.

In Germany/Austria today if you say that the Shoah was done lawfully, you could get jail time.

Some countries view your ignorance of the events/historical and law very harshly.

About as harshly as i consider your inability to read the trial, the ships manifest was written by those doing the slave buying and transfer during ist voyage, and later were killed and that manifest was lost on board the vessel and only found by accident. Your refrence is to forged ownership of passengers so as to gain return of that propererty, to you thats a manifest/papers documents or whatever. To me its just flotasm of little bearing on what the ships manifest listed.

You say those same papers are evidence that ilegal slave trading was being undertaken, and that the UK was attempting to stop it, ok, except that Armistad did not intend to end up where it did and did so by accident not design, and those papers your cite existed simply as part of an ex post facto argument on ownership, not a pre concieved delberate attempt to fool any Uk ship that intercepted it.

Now who has lost the plot?, your against slavery but not on legal or moral grounds, but consider genocide lawfull....

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by MrFun
Hell, there were free blacks in northern states that participated in the voting on the Constitution.

Yes thats correct, whats your point?.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by molly bloom



But Arabs and Christians and Europeans and Muslims were not the only people supplying the raw material for the slave trade- so were Africans, animist or otherwise:

Its worth pointing out that the 13cent French ivory trade was the largest in Europe at that time. 300 Tonns annually from Africa into Paris, "Power and profit "The Merchant in Medieval Europe (
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/050...books&v=glance )

list the death rate of that transit greater than that of the latter trans Atalantic slave trade.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by Oerdin


There were lots of free negro citizens.

Prior to the constition yes, after its adoption, the first federal naturlization act of 1790 prohibits negros free or otherwise from being a citizen of the USA. Dred Scott was based on law, however much you may not like the rulling, the intent of that act was to deny future citinzship to the negro. Further acts need to be read to understand the evolution of that law.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Nickiow

Nope i asked when you introduced Lyods registry what you knew that the court did not, Lyods not being mentioned at all in the court trnscripts, this was importnat becuse you say ship manifest dont always show cargo when slaves are involved. You later get confused over which government as well, the US rulling on the shiops manifest that they were free africans unlwfully taken to the US, this was not what the Spainish government argued nor whjat the spainish citizens argued....

LAST POST.

1. Once again I tell you, I did not introduce Lloyds registry. Adam Smith introduced it as evidence of the demise of the slave trade.

I pointed out that contraband (smuggled goods) are not normally registered in legal documents. Do you think they are?

Therefore, I pointed out that Lloyds is not a reliable indicator of the slave trade, once England banned the slave trade. Do you think it is?

Finally I stated and later quoted, that slaves were not listed in the official manifest of the Amistad. This is supported by your source. I exerpt it again here:

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.

Note that it says "false representation of the papers of the schooner". Not falsified after the fact. Note that it says for the "purpose of evading British cruisers".

This supports my assertion that Lloyd's Register is not a reliable indicator of the slave trade. Do you think it is?

...Now who has lost the plot?, your against slavery but not on legal or moral grounds, but consider genocide lawfull....

You introduced legality, and attempted to justify slavery on the basis of laws at the time. I pointed out that laws change like the wind and really are not a useful arbiter, and used Nazi Germany as an example. You, trying to rebut my argument actually proved it, by saying that the Nazi laws were later found to be illegal.

THREE RHETORICAL QUESTIONS, AND ONE FOR NICKI:

Can genocide be lawful? Of course it can. Anything can be lawful, because a law is simply a rule made by people in power.

Was slavery lawful? At times, certainly it was, and I never suggested (or cared) otherwise.

Can two laws within a legal system contradict each other? Of course, this happens all the time.

Is the principle of slavery in keeping with the language of the of the American Constitution?

YES OR NO?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by molly bloom


The Quakers had of course had slaves, and had their very own slave ship.

Yes, my ancestors were slave owning Quakers. In the late 18th century the governing body of The Society of Friends saw the error of its ways and demanded that church members divest themselves of their human property. Many southern meeting houses resisted, citing the strong Quaker belief that an individual's conscience, not some committee hundred's of miles away, should guide his behavior. As time went on the pressure placed upon Quakers to free their slaves continued to increase. In 1830 my ancestors were finally required to release their slaves by the local meeting house.

They responded by leaving the Society of Friends and becoming Methodists. To put some distance between themselves and their critics they moved themselves and their slaves to Tennessee taking possession of land recently stolen from some unfortunate Cherokee planters.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking


LAST POST.

1. Once again I tell you, I did not introduce Lloyds registry. Adam Smith introduced it as evidence of the demise of the slave trade.

I can read thank you, and i was quite clear what i asked you on what you posted,not anyone else.

Cite lyods registry for the Armistad. You cant because it was not registered with them, Uk manifests did not change to acomadate the end of the salve trade by new legislation either btw.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
I pointed out that contraband (smuggled goods) are not normally registered in legal documents. Do you think they are?

Extremly, most often, as in the case you entered to show that they do not, for instance.

No one was contraband (different legal meaning btw) in this case, contraband is property already and can be taken/siezed and sold at auction, but that is not what the Armistad case was primarly concerned with.

In this case the free Afircan negros found themselves in the US, not by design of the slavers who bought and transported them there, there was no attempt to bring/smuggle them to the US.

Who they were, where they were from, how much was paid for them and to who, and on what ships they were transported and from which slave fort were all found from the manifest, this allowed the RN to find attack and destroy the slave fort they were held at before boarding the Armistad, and for the case to be rulled on as it was, all because of the papers and manifest found on the Armistad.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Therefore, I pointed out that Lloyds is not a reliable indicator of the slave trade, once England banned the slave trade. Do you think it is?.

You linked Lyods to the Armistad case specificly, your example has no basis in fact for that support as you claim, in fact it showed the exact o[posite not only for the african negros but for ther UK RN ability to find slave forts so as to destroy them, from the same manifest you claim does the oposite.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
It should also be noted that vessels shipping contraband don't list is on their manifests. Take, for example, the Amistad, which had legitimate cargo and 40-odd slaves, who were not listed on the manifest. It is generally accepteed that catching illegal traders was not.something the US wanted to spend any money on. Notwithstanding

Your post that is full of errors and false supporting case law, when asked on it you deny saying what you plainly have said, stop wriggiling like a worm please.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking

Finally I stated and later quoted, that slaves were not listed in the official manifest of the Amistad. This is supported by your source. I exerpt it again here:

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.

Note that it says "false representation of the papers of the schooner". Not falsified after the fact. Note that it says for the "purpose of evading British cruisers".

This supports my assertion that Lloyd's Register is not a reliable indicator of the slave trade. Do you think it is?

Get an example that uses a Uk Lyods resigesterd ship manifest first sonny. Not the armistad case because it does not. You made the claim and used this case, neither is correct.

As to the main body of your post, already answerd. Who they were, where they were from and how much was paid for them and on what ships and stations they were held transported was found on the Armistads manifest.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
You introduced legality, and attempted to justify slavery on the basis of laws at the time. I pointed out that laws change like the wind and really are not a useful arbiter, and used Nazi Germany as an example. You, trying to rebut my argument actually proved it, by saying that the Nazi laws were later found to be illegal..

No i pointed out your conclusion are based on ignorance of history and false presentation of the legal posistion.

Nazi laws were unlawfull at the time, acording to Existing German law, the Nazis imposed new laws without due process making it lawfull to put people into ovens and kill on race, the allies did not go to war over that issue but made it clear in the Atlantic charter and other policy commitments in respect to a return to democratic principles for all nations that had them removed , that all Nazis (membership of the Nazi was a crime because it itself was a ilegal organisation, mil rank of major or higher to be summarily executed when taken pow, oficial Uk/US law from 41 to 42, held for trial at wars end from 43 on) and Germans (civilians off Mayor of higher rank, 1445 german judges were tried for there part in acting on those laws post war) who acted on those laws would be held to a court of law or summiry execucted when taken, one of the principle speeches of allied Intent that WSC gave was that what was at stake was a return to a legal practice not known since the christian era, that had been put in place in the Riech and occupied countries, so i find your knoweledge of ww2 to equal that of the Amistad case and indeed the salve trade to the USA.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
THREE RHETORICAL QUESTIONS, AND ONE FOR NICKI:

Can genocide be lawful? Of course it can. Anything can be lawful, because a law is simply a rule made by people in power.

Not a single country acepts thats genocide is lawfull, can be lawfull or has ever been lawfull, and the penaltys for it are acepted in the UN, how many countrioes does that exclude?.

In history some nations have practiced genocide on others, thats not lawfull or unlawfull because no uniform code of jursiprudence applied to them, hence no law was applicable.

Now you say that country x passes a law that all people of a certain race can be killed and this was lawfull, what an odd world you live in, no wonder you did not want to argue on law or morality in respect of slavery.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Was slavery lawful? At times, certainly it was, and I never suggested (or cared) otherwise.

Oh but you sure wanted someone responsible for it though, the US in fact. But you think genocide just fine as long as you pass a law that entire races or sections of your own country can be killed.

[QUOTE] Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Can two laws within a legal system contradict each other? Of course, this happens all the time.[/SIZE]

Cite a historical case involving slavery or genocide that contradicts itself, any single case please.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking

Is the principle of slavery in keeping with the language of the of the American Constitution?

YES OR NO?

Not a yes no question though is it. It mentions a pre existing situation and defines that relationship for aspect of government.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking


LAST POST.

Does that mean youve had enough?. I hope you can return when you know more about history and can actually contribute something other than a false view of it, and maybe even an ability to answewr questions put rather than meerly reply.