US, not africans, responsible for slavery

[Pyrodrew]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Logic according to JohnT: "The French kings were already burning Jews in Paris in the 13th century. Therefore the Holocaust is their fault".

JohnT didn't say the slave trade was only the fault of those who started it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
Ge pap isnt it possible that they United states was having a few of internal problems such as the revolutinary war and the civil war to even address the issue of slavery? I do believe it was almost right after the civil war that slavery was abolished. i am rusty on my history but if i recall the civil war had a lot to do with one part of the country wanting to rid the country of slavery.

No. Mexico fought a long and bloody revolutionary war. It then went various years of internal struggle, and then in 1829 abolished it. Bolivar's Grand Colombia began to abolish it in 1821. France's revolutionary government abolished it in 1791, even in the midst of great crisis. The Brits did it in 1833.

So no, no internal US problems justify the situation.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

the conclusion i come to at the us being last is because of how new the goverment was to these folks. Logically the govts that had allowed this practice had been around a lot longer then the us goverment when the stopped the practice. For example arent most of us taught about the egyptians that hel slaves?? The only reason they were freed is due to superstious reasons about relegion, due to the plague and famine

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Gepap I said the civil war was based around the fact that half of the country wanted to abolish slavery the other half didnt. The country was torn about dividing into two seprate intities. How do you handle the brother against brother when you know that if you do split that another country can comein and take over due to weakness and disagreement amongst neighbors
Imust add that texas wasnt even a state when the brits abolished slavery we were fighting mexico for our own independance
This isnt going to help texas but they did fight for slavery but not as a state of the us

[GePap]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
Gepap I said the civil war was based around the fact that half of the country wanted to abolish slavery the other half didnt. The country was torn about dividing into two seprate intities. How do you handle the brother against brother when you know that if you do split that another country can comein and take over due to weakness and disagreement amongst neighbors

No it wasn't. The abolitionist movement in the United States was nowhere near actually doing it in 1860. The Republican platform was about not letting slavery into the new Western territories. Southeners thought that this compromise would eventually lead to abolishment of slavery, and they bolted form the Union, thiking it some great affront to their property rights. BUt most Americans had no problem with slavery, and they certainly did not fight for or against it for the most part.

And that of course is irrelevant as to why the US should be discussing the issue of slavery in 1861 as opposed to banning it outright in 1789, or 1791.

The sad fact is that many of the founder fathers decided property rights were more important than full human rights for all.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

like i said my history is rusty but as far as i know most of the northern states didnt want slavery. The south was all for it. Including as i said texas that wasnt a state yet. Which is why the civil war was started and going strong for as long as it did. I could have been taught wrong but i dont think so

[Mrs. Tuberski]

But of course Like others have said before, where did the slave owners in the us come from?? As far as i know they were all of eurpeon descent. Now dont think I believe that one countryis better then the other cause i dont. I think that they are all the same with faults and crosses to bear

[Imran Siddiqui]

I find it depressing that millions of blacks would have had freedom sooner had the 13 colonies remained in the British Empire than they did after the US fought for for independence on the theory of indvidual rights.

Well I think part of it was that slavery was more useful for the US than for Britain. Britain lost most of the areas where the economy was slave centered. I wonder if they would have done the same if they still had under their control places where slavery was important.

[Zkribbler]

I dunno. The suger-growing areas of the Carribean -- including Jamaca and Barbadoes -- always has needed cheap labor. Likewide, the planations in Rhodesia and the surrounding area. Britain held onto them for a long time.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Well I think part of it was that slavery was more useful for the US than for Britain. Britain lost most of the areas where the economy was slave centered. I wonder if they would have done the same if they still had under their control places where slavery was important.

Ah, you mean the many sugar producing islands of the West Indies? Those places were the population today is almost exclusively black because so much slave labor was necessary?

Give me a break

Oh, and I always thought the very point of why one should give a damn that the UNited States came into existance was of how freedom loving and enlightened the "values" of America were. Saying that for purely eocnomis reasons the US would allow millions to remain in servitude is so crass, no? I mean, heck, those French revolutionaries did it in 1791, even those backward latin American revolutionaries like Bolivar did it first....

[Imran Siddiqui]

Saying that for purely eocnomis reasons the US would allow millions to remain in servitude is so crass, no?

Aside from the fact that's its true?

you mean the many sugar producing islands of the West Indies

And how much of the economy did they make up? I think the cotton industry of the current US South gave far more cash.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And how much of the economy did they make up? I think the cotton industry of the current US South gave far more cash.

In 1833 the landowners of the planations were politically connected in the British Empire. Yet thier eocnomic interest did not matter to the lawe makers.

In 1789 there was no cotton industry in the US. IN fact, in 1789 the main areas of the cotton producing region were not even states. So why didn't the US ban it then?

NOt banning slavery right then and there was the greatest moral failing of the founding fathers, and one I can find little possible excuse for.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Sava
What a stupid discussion.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by GePap
Wait, American treatment of Native Americans was better?

Personally I find the fact that the US was almost one of the last republics to ban slavery in the western world depressing. I find it depressing that millions of blacks would have had freedom sooner had the 13 colonies remained in the British Empire than they did after the US fought for for independence on the theory of indvidual rights. I find it sad the freaking Tsars of Russia abolished serfdom before the slaves of the southern states got their freedom affirmed legally, thought neither group benefited as much from the end of their legal servitude as they thought they would.

To me the great shame was that in the name of property rights the UNited States allowed millions to be slaves.

And I find it sad that people have to try to explain that away with all sorts of utterly irrelevant statements.

Wahhhh. The world goes through 10,000+ years of history thinking that everything about it is hunky-dory, and then in a mere 100 year period the globe changes it's mind... and you're complaining that the US changed it's mind in year 80 as opposed to year 20?

Sorry, GePap, but given the timescales involved, this isn't much of a complaint. If]this is the depth of thought you put into it, where a countries place on the "anti-slavery" timescale is the only issue that matters, you'd do better to go whine at the Brazilians.

[Imran Siddiqui]

NOt banning slavery right then and there was the greatest moral failing of the founding fathers, and one I can find little possible excuse for.

You mean aside from the revolution being one of, oh, 10 states, and not including Virginia?

Like I said it was for economic reasons.. the South would NOT join in the rebellion if they campaigned against slavery.