US, not africans, responsible for slavery

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Okay, time for clarifications.

Most of you read at least the whole thread title, and understood that my premise was that the US and not Africans bore the responsibility for the slave trade between the US and Africa.

You could only say this if you were sure that the U.S. (from the time of its independence) and the U.S. alone were responsible for shipping all slaves from Africa to the U.S. .

Given the existence of the triangular trade in the North Atlantic and the preparedness of states such as Denmark, the British Empire, France, and Spain and Portugal to engage in the trading of slaves from Africa (and not only the U.S. is responsible- so are the African kingdoms on the West coast of Africa that grew rich on the slave trade, and North African slavers) it is untrue to say that the U.S. and the U.S. alone bears responsibility for shipping slaves to the United States.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Cyclotron.

I suspose "dishonest" is closest...

However, the title of a thread is rarely the premise; as I said, it can be more accurately compared to a newspaper headline - something which hints at the contents of the article, often simplyfying things and losing nuance, both by necessity (need for brevity) and by design (to stimulate interest).

Then why reply to me that moraility and legaility are non issues of the premise when the body of text you just talk about encludes those issues?.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Some posters responded to the thread as if I suggested that the US invented slavery. I posted that if they had so much as read the entire thread title they could see that was not the argument. ).

Invented?, you also just told me that indded the crux of your argumnet is that the Us is responsible because it "caused something to exist or occur".

now which is it?, your trying to have it both ways, and instead of confronting the real issue, whatever that may be, your just adding to the confusion by wriggiling. I dont mean that i a bad way, just its difficult to argue against a shifting posistion.

[Nickiow]

start of the 9th century and derived from Slovenci, the name by which the Slavs being enslaved by the HRE at the time called themselves.

Ok, 1 and 2 BCE we have veniti, they become Sclavini in the 5 and Slovenci and Antes in the 9th as they become east and west slavs respectivly.
Slovenci were further divided into Poles, Pommeranians, Polabians or wends if you prefer, Bohemian and Morovian. Other sub sets include Siliesian, Sebs, Croats, Mazovian, and

Antes were a Sarmation confederacy of even more diverse nature and composistion.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking

And a note of caution wrt Lloyds Register. 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.

Why do you think it vwas registerd with Loyds of london? and that the human cargo was not listed?, its Spainish ship with legal slave cargo and listed as such acording to the trial documents.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/amistad/AMI_SCT2.HTM

Wat do you know the trial judges did not?, specificly in the armistad case that Sain brought slaves ilegally to the US.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Nickiow
Why do you think it vwas registerd with Loyds of london? and that the human cargo was not listed?, its Spainish ship with legal slave cargo and listed as such acording to the trial documents.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/amistad/AMI_SCT2.HTM

Wat do you know the trial judges did not?, specificly in the armistad case that Sain brought slaves ilegally to the US.

Well, if you choose to believe the case of the government in Amistad, I am truly sorry for your soul.

You do know the difference between "papers" and a "ship's manifest". Even the governments case states that Ruiz had "papers" that claim he owned the slaves. Notwithstanding serious suspicians that these documetns were forged by Ruiz after the fact, it is not the same thing as listing "slaves" as cargo in the ship's manifest. And they WERE NOT.

Here is part of the case presented by the defence, from your website.

But in this case we make no charge upon the Governor of Cuba. A fraud upon him is proved to have been practised by Ruiz and Montez. He never undertook to assume jurisdiction over these Africans as slaves, or to decide any question in regard to them....
...The custom house license, to which the name of Espeleta in print was appended, was not a document given or intended to be used as evidence of property between Ruiz and Montez, and the Africans; any more than a permit from our customhouse would be to settle conflicting claims of ownership to the articles contained in the manifest. As between the government and the shippers, it would be evidence if the negroes described in the passport were actually put on board, and were, in truth, the property of Ruiz and Montez, that they were legally shipped; that the customhouse forms had been complied with; and nothing more. But in view of facts as they appear, and are admitted in the present case, the passports seem to have been obtained by Ruiz and Montez, only as a part of the necessary machinery for the completion of a slave voyage. The evidence tends strongly to prove that Ruiz, at least, was concerned in the importation of these Africans, and that the reshipment of them under colour of passports obtained for Ladinos, as the property of Ruiz and Montez, 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. It is a remarkable circumstance, that though more than a year has elapsed, since the decree of the District Court denying the title of Ruiz and Montez, and pronouncing the Africans free, not a particle of evidence has since been produced in support of their claims. And yet, strange as it may seem, during all this time, not only the sympathies of the Spanish minister, but the powerful aid of our own government have been enlisted in their behalf!

I don't know how to converse with someone who is only concerned with legality and does not understand physical responsibility.

The holocaust was legal, according to German law at the time. So ****ing what?

The US caused slavery to exist in the US. Therefore, they are responsible. What is so complicated about that?

And molly, if nobody in the US bought slaves, who would have shipped slaves to the US?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking

The US caused slavery to exist in the US. Therefore, they are responsible. What is so complicated about that?

The U.S. did not 'cause' slavery to exist in the territories that became the United States.

Slavery as a concept existed before the United States; enslavement of Africans in the individual colonies existed before the Declaration of Independence and the establishment of the United States.

The first African slaves landed in the North American territories that were to become the United States were disembarked from a Dutch ship in Jamestown, Virginia- in 1619:

The first representative assembly in the New World convened in the Jamestown church on July 30, 1619. The General Assembly met in response to orders from the Virginia Company "to establish one equal and uniform government over all Virginia" which would provide "just laws for the happy guiding and governing of the people there inhabiting." The other crucial event that would play a role in the development of America was the arrival of Africans to Jamestown. A Dutch slave trader exchanged his cargo of Africans for food in 1619. The Africans became indentured servants, similar in legal position to many poor Englishmen who traded several years labor in exchange for passage to America. The popular conception of a race-based slave system did not fully develop until the 1680's.

http://www.apva.org/history/

And molly, if nobody in the US bought slaves, who would have shipped slaves to the US?

This is arrant nonsense, and not something I've asserted, if you'd bother to read my post correctly.

Since I referenced both the triangular trade and the European and African shipping of slaves, I've already recognised that slaves were shipped across the seas to the Americas- although it should also be noted that both European and Native American slaves were shipped to the Caribbean too, again BEFORE the creation of the United States.

The United States was not therefore 'responsible' for slavery in its territories in the sense of having created slavery; the concept and the actuality existed in those territories well before the revolution.

Pennsylvania passed an act calling for abolition of slavery in 1780:

SECT. 3. Be it enacted, and it is hereby enacted, by the reprefentatives of the freeman of the commonwealth of Pennfylvania, in general affembly met, and by the authority of the fame, That all perfons, as well Negroes and Mulattoes as others, who fhall be born within this ftate from and after the paffing of this act, fhall not be deemed and confidered as fervants for life, or flaves; and that all fervitude for life, or flavery of children, in confequence of the flavery of their mothers, in the cafe of all children born within this ftate, from and after the paffing of this act as aforefaid, fhall be, and hereby is utterly taken away, extinguifhed and for ever abolifhed.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/statutes/pennst01.htm

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

[The Mad Viking]

The U.S. did not 'cause' slavery to exist in the territories that became the United States.

Slavery as a concept existed before the United States; enslavement of Africans in the individual colonies existed before the Declaration of Independence and the establishment of the United States.

You're right.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking

Will get back to you when the net stops eating my post.

[DaShi]

This an anti-US thread or what?

[DinoDoc]

Yes.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Well, if you choose to believe the case of the government in Amistad, I am truly sorry for your soul.

Which Government? US or Spain?, if you mean the US that found the Spanish defendants attempt to deceive the court as to the origin and nationality of the human cargo, established by the finding and introduction of the ships manifest, (required by Spanish law so that the crown and shipowners got its cut), then i simply ask where and when i asked why you claim the ship cargo manifest was with lords registry, did you find that was implied in that question? i notice that question still lacks a response from you. It was manifestly clear from the courts rulling what the manifest showed about the human cargo, thats why the rulling came down as it did once it was introduced.

If you mean the Spanish government then yes under Spanish law the cargo manifest does list human cargo, as its law requires it to do, under UK law what a ship captain does in international waters is not listed in detail and is merely a total of undisclosed profit from undisclosed actions, but the ship was not British nor British registered or on the Lloyds registry so again, your reply in no way to those question. Why do you think the ship was listed with Lloyds?, and why since the case was won on the finding and introduction of the actual Spanish manifest that showed the origin, and route those humans took that established the defence argument, that the defendant were free Africans who found themselves in America and illegally brought there, and was accepted as legally proven from those manifest that you said did not exist, unless your confusing what the Spanish citizens attemted to do with the fake manifest compared to the actual full one that showed what they did do.

lastly i asked why you claim the manifest that proved the defences case did not in fact exist, but was central to the US courts finding for the defendants being free African citizens unlawfully transported for the purpose of slavery.

My soul is a matter for me and my God/s or lack of them/him/her or it, but i do notice that since i agree with the Court im agreeing on a matter of law, not morality, and even if i was agreeing that slavery was good and a positive benefit, there is not a single word in the bible that says i have committed a sin by doing so, but perhaps you can find where slavery is a sin in the bible, or perhaps the Koran?. I agree with the courts finding btw, the free Africans citizens were victims of international slavery, so my soul should sit square with the house of the lord, and the rule of law which is more relavent.

But yes should i find myself held to account for my actions by some divine being, after i get over the shock, being an atheist of the worst kind in that i think all religions harmful to both the individual and society, ill stand tall and take it.

Now in the past the church advocated burning to save your soul, and Jesuits are instrumental in spreading the practice of slavery to the rest of the world, when M Luther nailled his views to the church door he also told Swabian peasents that did not mean they were free, only that in the after life would all men be equal, in this life on earth they must acept slavery. St Augistine preached that all men are brothers and that God intended all men were created equal as part of divine will, he did not say slavery was wrong, only that we should treat our slaves as our brothers, as mentioned earlier, the Siclian slaves rose in revolt after the clothing allowance for slaves was removed and theu were expected to be naked irespective of the job they did, all in the pursuit of max economic gain by the Romans, several years of mass slaghter and the most horific punishment resulted, and it was that kind of thing he was referencing, in the NT there is volumes on the relationship of master and servant, all call for treatment of one by the other to be equatable, not that the relationship ofmaster and slave is wrong. Which is why you probably have a contract of employment and earn a living and another emplyos you and earns a living from your labour, both you and he/they benifit, thats what has happened to slavery, it has been abolished but it is still here so as to speak, most are still slaves its just the terms and conditions are very, very good, stops all that nailling to the cross along the Appian way, and you working naked, and so on.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
You do know the difference between "papers" and a "ship's manifest". Even the governments case states that Ruiz had "papers" that claim he owned the slaves. Notwithstanding serious suspicions that these documents were forged by Ruiz after the fact, it is not the same thing as listing "slaves" as cargo in the ship's manifest. And they WERE NOT.

I notice your not at all familiar with the case, good job i linked you to it, or what constitutes a ships manifest. Yes the claimants had papers showing legal transfer from Cuba, but the real ships manifest showed that the origin of the slaves was not Cuba but Africa, without that manifest, as the first trial showed, the defendants would be returned to Spanish authority, it was only when they ship full manifest was discovered and the deception exposed that the Judge ruled as he did. Quite a famous case, even made into a film, and as everyone who saw the film knows, that's how the case was cracked, with the finding after losing the first trial, of the ships manifest showing origin of slaves, and supporting the defences position of the origin of the human cargo.

WERE NOT is to draw my attention to the FACT that your not aware of the evidence of the case right?.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Here is part of the case presented by the defence, from your website.

Yes i have read that part, your point is what?, that the individuals defence attempted to deceive the US court as to the origin of the slaves so as to have them returned to them, or that your not familiar with the case?. Why not read the courts findings and ruling as to how the court knows they are Africans and not spanish property to be returned to Spanish citizens.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
I don't know how to converse with someone who is only concerned with legality and does not understand physical responsibility.

well the problem is not my understanding, but your definition of the premise, you have defined responsibility in such a manner as to have a neutral leagal and moral bearing, this meas that the act itself being neutral has no means of determination other than being a neautral act, even if it was true that the US was responsible, which it was not, this neatral act as per your definition has no consequences except of being a neatral act, neiter right/wrong/lawfull/unlawfull/ etc. so the problem is the premise is not sound, and secondly the use and definition of responsible is not sound, conclusion get a better premise and argument rather than enter denial.

Oh i understand physical responsibility, i just find your attempt to define it and use it to your premise rather odd, so both are benefiting here, your exposed to my unexpected lines of inquiry and i to unusual applications of lines of thought. Your line of argument appears to go action/resposobility/consequence but i have to make an assumption that this is so as consequence has yet to make an appearance other than an implied slavery is bad, so while it bears the structure of either mans or gods laws, your using it without reference to them, but without clearly defined resposibility and consequence there is merely you claiming a thing that cannot be indepedantly examined for merit and conformity, we just have to accept that your claim is correct that resposibility is where you say is is, or show your facts do not support your claim, accept then where resposibility is to be found, and then what are the conserquences?, a sharp intake of breath followed by a frown? or death by fire to ve your soul?.

The reason we have laws is to prevent just such baseless premises from gaining acceptance, and another reason is that by having laws we have clearly defined actions having consequences and individuals and groups held to account for those actions, and know before hand what consequences follow from their actions.

Well that's easy, responsibility as you have defined it does not support your stated contention, so the next best thing is to adopt denial, this is the stage your now at, soon you will re think and refine your premise so as to be one that can be supported. its basicly a poorly chosen premise and even worse to defend it on a physical defence argument that is so undefined and meaningless as to be without merit. Why not think for a while on *why* it took a civil war to end slavery in the US, unlike nearly everywhere else.

Responsibility to who and for what?, you premise assumes positions not proven, that slavery is a wrongful physical action, responsibility to who for the act?, the slave?, society?, the law? God? oneself?...and the consequences are what? and apply to who?.

I understand individual responsibility very well, i know that not a single person in history is responsible on their own for the slave trade, i know that no single nation was resposoble for it either, i also know yours is a poorly thought out argument for a factually unsurprtable premise. Every original state in the Union was opposed to slavery, what they could not agree about (amongst themselves) was when and how to end it in a responsible manner, so far from your premise as to give the impression your just yanking our chains.

Jesus understood physical reponsibility, he not once preached that slavery was wrong, he cured a slave of Roman centurion because of the masters love for the slave and had taken care of him otoh, apparently having Jesus agreeing that the love of a master for his servant is a responsibility worthy of a miracle is an example of the kind of responsibility i am familiar with, i just don't see it helps your position in any way shape or form. But maybe you know of a miracle used to reward someone for freeing their slaves?.


At least if you had the sense to argue on law you could at least support your contention with something a little more than i *want* slavery to be wrong,and i want the US to be wrong and responsible for having it, legal precedent, or even primary source documents are so more effective in argument than, i *want* anyone doing it to be responsible for it, what that actually means you don't bother to define so i don't yet fathom that part, at least in law you are aware of the consequences of your acts and could be held to account for them, in your vague view your just responsible and that's it?. So far since your unable to tell me of a nation that had slavery less time as a legal practice than did the US, i cannot help but think your premise needs a lot of work.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
The holocaust was legal, according to German law at the time. So ****in what?

In your premise though that act was neutral, neither right or wrong.

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.

Or perhaps you think governments are not allowed the responsibility of judicial murder at all?, or do you just equate genocide with the practice of US slavery?, you would do better in comparison to US legal provision for American Indians, the Cherokee and Apache for instance were lawfully and legally subjected to laws until 1960, that made the US liable for prosecution under the same Nuremberg Genocide laws the Nazis found themselves charged under, the US changed the Indian Beau laws on forced sterilization of them against their will for instance and other legislation before it ratified the genocide laws well post war to avoid prosecution under its provisions. If that's of interest to you look up Lemkin, its he and other international jurists who codified the law of genocide in 44 for the actions of the Nazis in occupied Europe, and why it took the US so long to ratify.

I think you argued that legality was not required in your premise, merely that you start from a position that slavery is wrong, you don't say what grounds we accept this is so only that it is, and that someone is responsible for doing it, rather than allowing it to happen to them.

The difference is that in law all can see what is lawful and not and what the consequences are for infractions, under your view, responsibility is determined by some sort of mystical its all your fault and that's it, case closed next case, move along nothing to see....

Those Quakers who were so against slavery also had a slave ship, and then they really got into their stride and expelled any Quakers who worked in the slave trade or owned slaves, that's a matter of responsibility and laws of their society, they didn't say ok slavery is wrong but if your comftable doing it you can still be a Quaker.

Do you think responsibility and consequences are just arbitrarily determined without recourse to law (man or Gods) to have any practical application?, if so without legal/moral consideration what are the consequences of the abrogation of responsibility?.

Is the whole worlds population to blame?, following your logical premise line of thought, without their demand for cheaper cotton to make clothes the need for slaves to gather it does not exist, is it just a matter of scale that 19 century trade allowed world wide demand require cotton volume of such a level that made the scale of slavery so large?, your responsobilty concept is in no way applicable to assigning actual responsibility, for that you need laws, Gods or mans will do just fine, but playing inapplicable illogical word games wont.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
The US caused slavery to exist in the US. Therefore, they are responsible. What is so complicated about that?

Nothing complicated at all, its factually incorrect and has been shown to be so on your own criteria of responsibility to boot!.

What was complicated was what to do about the pre existing condition and who should decide what to do,and that's a question of politics and economics as much as it was law, Gods or mans.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by DaShi
This an anti-US thread or what?

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

UK killed in transit more negros than Jews lost there life in the Shoah, main difference was that the Uk did not intend the death by the process but sought to limit the number lost in transit, and the Nazis sought to gain max finacial benfit from the death of the Jews. Intent is what is the dfference in UK not committing genocide, and intent of the US when formed was to remove the practice of slavery.

Is that anti UK?, or a brief ex pxosistion on the difference in death caused by the UK and Nazis through the practice and instition of slavery to those enslaved, and why one was a genocide and the other not?.

You see what you want to see or what the evidence will support.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by DaShi
This an anti-US thread or what?

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.

[Nickiow]

Molly

Due to your scotish law line of inquiry i have been looking at scottish land tenure laws, the only substantive difference i have found from English law is that of mil service through land tenure, perhaps you can help me out and tell me what you know that ive been unable to find?.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Nickiow
Molly

Due to your scotish law line of inquiry i have been looking at scottish land tenure laws, the only substantive difference i have found from English law is that of mil service through land tenure, perhaps you can help me out and tell me what you know that ive been unable to find?.

And why would I want to do that ?


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).

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

Welsh 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.

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.


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.