US, not africans, responsible for slavery

[molly bloom]

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.

You'll find that the sugar economy of the Caribbean islands was vitally important to the European empires of France and the United Kingdom- more valuable than the tobacco plantations in North America, for instance.

Sugar was used not merely to sweeten and make more palatable coffee, tea and hot chocolate, but also to make molasses, preserve food and as a medicine- and of course to manufacture rum.

Tobacco also had the disadvantage of exhausting the soil quickly.

The British in North America before the Revolution actually traded with the French sugar islands, trading cheap French sugar for British North American goods, and reselling the sugar as 'British' sugar to the U.K. .

Yankee traders, indeed.

It's interesting to note that in the various big wars of the 18th Century, the relatively small islands of the Caribbean enjoyed a disproportionate military/naval presence.

Slavery was an ethical problem for many English/British people, from the beginning of the 18th Century onwards- I've already in other threads quoted a Chief Justice whose opinion was that were any slave to set foot on English soil, they became free.

Of course his opinion (which was reiterated a year or so after) could be ignored by those in a position to do so- the slave traders of Bristol, for instance.

It's a sad fact that even the Quakers had a slaving ship.

I believe the first known African slave on the North American continent was in a Spanish party- but of course slavery had existed among indigenous Americans before then.


Of course slavery in Africa predates the Western European presence there, as African kingdoms and states (and Islamic Arab states) employed and sold and captured slaves commercially- one early black slave revolt being the Revolt of the Zanj, in which Basra was captured (869-883 a.d.) during the Abbasid Caliphate.

Western African kingdoms based on slave trading grew when the empires of Mali/Songhai declined.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
I remain incredulous that so many people try to mitigate the responsibility for slavery by making assertions like, "Most slaves were captured and sold by their countrymen."

Well they may say that because its a factually correct statement.
Consider the bible for instance, one of the principle texts codifing the Mosiac laws for slavery.


Where do you get your slaves?
(Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.

How long can you keep your slave?
(Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)
If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.

And, of course, women do not have the same rights.
(Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
There would not have been a slave trade if not for the demand created by the US. It's not like some Africans captured others, and went door to door in the US convincing people to try their great new product.

Simplly not correct, the salve trade was vast before the US demand for it in the US increased it, and at that time the international slave trade was not legal and the increase was from second third and so on generation of slaves already in the Us, regulated under the AoV and the constition. and antuional laws, fugative slave act for instance.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking

The US had a Constitution, prepared by educated people, which they duly ignored.

Slavery was recognised in the Aoc and the Constition, since only one state did not have slavery its fair to say slave owners created and regulted slavery in the constion and all its other provisons. Its not corrct to say the FF ignored slavery in the constition, they were almopst all slave owners or represenatives of states that had legal protection of the practice. Your fishing for WBTS, references by someone, so ill oblige, the law protects the right to own slaves, the WBTS was over slavery in large measure, but *who* had the legal ability/authority to make that law, the state or the nation. The nation did not say could not have slaves, it said you could have slaves if you acept the paramount authority of the nation rests not with states speratly. Read the EP it only refers to states in rebelion, since slaves were property they can be siezed under the law and freed or whatever, thats all the act did. And Lincoln ended up freeing the slaves as a war measure, he spent the first two years expalining the war was not over freeing slaves, and did so only in order tyo win the war.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
In Africa, some tribes captured members of other tribes, usually ancestral enemies, and sold them to slave traders. They were stone age people living by a stone age creed. They were not selling their "countrymen", they were eliminating their ancestral rivals, in a manner consistent with what virtually all ancient and most Medieval peoples practiced during times of conflict.

Slavery in Europe was santioned by the Pope, he enimies taken into slavery and gave papal santion to christians to sell other christians into slavery, slavery is indeed the lot of the mil defeated and was the norm throuight most of human history. Whats your point again?.

salvery in the US has one difference from all others, the slaves increased in number beyond any other example.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
It is sad that it is so hard for Americans to say, "This was an era of our history that we are not proud of."

Every nation has done things they are not proud of.

Canada has had many shameful dealings with its aboriginal populations, and interred innocent Canadian citizens of Japanese descent during WW II, stealing their assets in the process.

I think your conflating morality and law.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

The US had a Constitution, prepared by educated people, which they duly ignored.

Where?

And, you know, I think half a million American deaths - at the time a significant fraction of our population - might be sufficient atonement for the crime of slavery. (yeah states rights/maintaining the union blah blah whatever)

500,000 whites died in the WBTS, three times more blacks died in the same time period from a smaller population base, Lincoln may have freed the slaves, but they suffered a genocidal event in the process.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by GePap


No, not really, as the lives of those ex-slaves improved only slightly in many cases, and sourthern whites found ways to keep them second class citizens.

Ok so slaves lives have improved, thats good right?.

however they life expetancy was now lower, the dietry intake was lower, but they did increase in earnings and social mobility somwhat so it depends on what base we look at to compare.

Can you prove that southern whites acted differtly than northern whites in keeping them as second class citizens?, after all it was the northern states who already had in place the legal measures that made them second class citizens and the reconstructed southern states simply copied those laws.

Originally posted by GePap
Besides, as you so unelloquently state, the main reason most Americans fought the war was not slavery itself, but the delegation of powers. So for a second reason, no, the civil war in no way diminishes the culpability of the US in keeping slavery around longer than most Europeans, or anyone else in the Americas, save the Brazilians.

Well its clear that slavery was the most cost effiecent means of cotton production, post war cotton production increased through use of free people doing the same work, only difference it was no longer white labour lords but white land lords who had share croppers doing the work of slaves.

Economics alone preclude the demise of slavery, it was simply to proffitable and effiecent to die out on its own.

Originally posted by GePap
And the US certainly has never done anything really to atone. Whether anyone can atone for such acts or even meaningfully apologize is certainly an interesting question. BUt the fact remains that the UNited States profited immensely from the labor of millions of Africans and to this day, their decendents do not share in any way equally in the fruits of those labors.

Rther an odd viewoint, as an englishman i dont benifit from my distant forefathers work and effort as vassals/serfs/villiens nor dis my country not make vast profits from financial explotation of many more than the USever did, we had slavery to thank for plenty of that, and when morality and legislation moved together and slavery went away, we had the same thing under different names, the collies/laskars for example in india.

Originally posted by GePap
But it is always funny to see people speak about just how much they have actually done to appease the sins of the past-even thought its all bull.

sins of the past?, im no more resposnible for actions and events of 100 of years ago than i am for those 000s of years ago. I do take my own actions and their responsobities otoh into acount.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by GePap


Or perhaps those extra human beings could have been utilized to create stronger centralized states, therefore channeling human labor more efficiently, and creating greather wealth from other means, giving them the capital to import manufactured goods like other non-European systems did.....

Do you have an actual example in mind for this?, i dont know where your comming from except from aplying a monetary and economical argument thats has no basis in reality for the time period.

Originally posted by GePap

I think it should be rather obvious to anyone that shifting tens of millions of man-hours of labor from one place to another will do wonders for one, and be terrible for the other.

yes, thats why the almost equal number of africans sold into slavery to india and the east as to the New world is no different. But whats your point?, in the US the largest movement of slaves was when whites and their property went from VA/Maryland into Miss/LA etc to take advantage of the geography that allowed economic gain, so whats the difference?.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by GePap

has already paid for the past, as Kuci and Sprayber and others seem to imply.

One wonders of course when any people start to go on about the sins of others and *****ing about how another group of people have not atoned sufficiently for their past.

Now, to a certain extent, a group of people can try to
Saying that one can't really make up for the past, a point I would generally agree with, is different from saying that the country make up for what they did, like the Germans generally did with the Jews, in terms not only of lots of actual apologies, but of material restitution and such. The problem is that the US in the 1860's never even tried with African Americans. The "40 acres and a mule" never happened, blacks did not really get to participate that much in the western land grab. IN short, they went from being slaves to being indentured servants or share croppers stuck to pretty much the same soil.

That, and not slavery, is probably the real sin. NOt that the US was taking part in an ancient system, no matter how hypocritical for a state built on the enlightenment notion of the freedom of man, but that when it finally gave it up, it gave so few and so terrible options for the ex-slave.

Ah thats better, the WBTS was not about freeing original sin, nor was it about making negros equal and free, its worth noteing that chinese cant be citizens in 1865 either. The WBTS ended slavery, but only as a war measure over who was to govern.

If you want to argue that not untill the civil rights era does the negro become free and equal youl ahve my full support, and tha many americans focus to hard on the CW period in that regard, two black senators just after the war, one taking J Davis seat, and then squat for 90 odd years as the old order replaced itself, not that the north was any better than the south either btw.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by GePap


NO, the civil war was not an "atonement" for slavery. Yes, one can't possibly atone for something, specially a century and a half later. Yes, one needs to live in the present.

Im sorry but thats exactly what lincoln and the Republicans sold to the country in 64-65, and was central to keeping the public opinion behind the loss of life for a cause other than a difference of legal opinion about who was in charge.

Now you can ignore the primary texual references of those who prosecute the war, but it does not enhance your argument when you do so.

Originally posted by GePap
The reason pople do bring slavery back up is because we actually DON'T live in the present. We patently ignore the obvious racial differences in the country in terms of living standards and so forth, talk about how they don;t exist, how people who bring them up "live in the past" and then pat ourselves in the back about how good things are.

Even for blacks, I guess its easier to blame troubles on the past actions of the whites than on themselves AND the present actions of whites beyond simply not saying sorry and getting a one time check.

Slavery is a form of explotation, if you broaden your argument to far then your just going to get no where, its the extent of the explotation thats at issue.

i understood your objection was against slavery, not explotation of one by another.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by GePap


1. The US is a continuation of Europe. Americans were transplanted Europeans, speak a European tongue, so forth. So its utterly crazy to speak of the UNited States as anything ohter than part of the western tradition.

2. BY 1850 almost all European states had already banned Slavery in their empires. Portugal and Spain were the two backwards ones, as well as Brazil. Every other independent state in the America's save the US and Brazil had as well. The British actively fought the slave trade. The fact is therefore that while the US as in independent actor exietd only in the tail end of the practice of slavery in the west, the US remained one of the LAST bastions of it. To put it more simply, IIRCD only two republics came into existance in the Western Hemisphere that did not immidiatly ban the practice: the UNited States and Brazil.

3. This sad fact, that the US was one of the last Western states to criminalize slavery is a stain in US history, one that is even more appaling when one considers that the US founded itself upon humanistic liberal values of individual freedom, and yet for a good part of its early history allowed itself to utterly violate these very notions for millions of people on its soil.

number 3 is intresting, the USCS said slaves were not covered as being citizens (Dredd scott )and to be included in the DOI concepts, oddly frankklin when he drew up the AOC provisoions for who could be a citizen acepted and regulated frred blacks did become citizens of their state, and Pinckinny when he did the same for the constition did not acept this and did the oposite, some states did not acept this and ignored it, SC for instance.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by GePap


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.

The Republican party maifesto 56-60 contardicts entirely your opinion, it was oposed to slavery period and sought it end, it absolutyly was not going to nallow the extention of it to the NW and would not acept that any state could seperate from the Union and would be forcable constarined if it did.

Originally posted by GePap
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.

Lower south left the Union on primarily economic grounds, ie the threat to the economics of their states through non extension of slavery, as well as political and social problems this would cause, the Upper south left over coercion of those states by the federal government. its simplistic and misleading to just say the south bolted from then Union over a percieved threat to slavery, it describes nothing and expalins even less. Sc had bee trying to leave for decades but could not take enough other states with it to make a it viable, the NE states earlier had seen the same proble, and Calhound worked long and hard to provide a large enough base of support amnongst southern states to work in concert to achieve seperation should it be demed by them in the best intrets of them to do so.

Originally posted by GePap
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.

There was demand to ban it in 1789 or 91 though was there. the only reason it was a driving issue was because slavery was enwinned in the economy of the south which was diamtericly opposite of other section of the Union and the tariffs did not effect uniformly on all states when applied at high or low depending on who was in power and setting them.

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

They never said that was what they intended to do though, so nice red herring about application of false posistion for the FF, how about critiscm of the Sparatns legal system of Lycurgus while your at it?.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

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.

You might try "Time on the cross"

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393312186/104-3512300-9224748?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance

or "Without consent or contract" they both contain that data for europe and the US.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by GePap


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.

Incorrect, the sugar lobby was the largest, larger than the corn lobby and they had vast, trully vast influence, second only the the Nabobs from India on influencing law making

Originally posted by GePap
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? .

Because uour factually incorrect about the cotton industry.

Originally posted by GePap
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.

Except your appying your morality to theirs and claiming superiority.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by GePap


Last time I looked the rebellion was won by 1783. What does your statement have to do with the Constitutional convention of 1789?

Well im sorry to say that the state of VA outlawed international and interstate slave trade several years before the Uk did and they are the first nation to do so, so i understand his point, Its very instructive that YOU DONT.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by GePap
Slavery in 1789 was not an immensely strong institution.

Strong enough that the constition could not be created without its supporters though...

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by Pekka
"
i thought that one of the big targets in a Scanda-hoovian viking raid was 'thralls' so that they could spend the rest of the year drinking mead?"

Hey, I don't live in Sweden or Norway. Or Denmark. We always were the 'slave people'. I say it in quotations marks because it can't be compared to what Africans went through. But we were second rate folks for a long time so .. it's not like we had people working for us .

Morocco for instance, the DNA (Human G -Gnome)studies show that modern Morrocans have 13% Scandanavian DNA, thats a lot and there are no large scale population movements, and in all probability comes from the large sacle middieval pou[plation mixing through slavery.

[Pekka]

"Morocco for instance, the DNA (Human G -Gnome)studies show that modern Morrocans have 13% Scandanavian DNA"

Hey, I don't live in Sweden or Norway. Or Denmark.

Get it?