US, not africans, responsible for slavery

[The Mad Viking]

Can't be bothered trying to dispell your delusions, correct your deep-seated and misguided faith in law, or read your garbled posts anymore.

Especially when your response to:

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

YES OR NO?

is as weak as

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

[Odin]

This Nickiow guy must be a lawyer with all his hairspliting BS and crap like evading a yes or no answer by spewing nonsense. Reminds me why I hate lawyers and why good lawyers they can easily get someone like OJ or Michael Jackson off by getting dumb jurors to believe thier BS.

Sophistry:

Using sophistry to defend slavery:

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Can't be bothered trying to dispell your delusions, correct your deep-seated and misguided faith in law, or read your garbled posts anymore.

Another reply instead of an answer.

If a dictorship enact s a law that says its lawfull to commit Genocide or throw Christians to the lions, thats a use of pysical force not backed by the body of law, when or if in your caase you learn the difference between law and the aplicatiopn of force in its place you will have learnt the difference i pointed out to you.

I see pointing out that your supporting arguments are of no value means they are garbled?, they only grablling i am aware of is your bad history and understanding of law.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking

Especially when your response to:

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

YES OR NO?

is as weak as

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

Look sonny, you framed a question to get the answer you wanted, ciied a documents not concerned with the principles of slavery only the form of government to be used for ther Union.The Constition sets out whats its purpose is in the preamble, the Constition itself sets out the framework of Government, it defines the political represenation of existing citizens, slaves are 3/5 of a free citizen, to obtain greater political representation all a state has to do is free slaves as and when it choses to do so, it then sets out taxation of citizens based on their free or alien status, less free pays less tax, thats enough to show the principle is to move from slavery to free as the denifits are clear, more tax at state level, more representation in the Union.

Now usually people like to frame a question to get an answer they want because of intelectual dishonesty, stacking the deck or just plain ignorance of the subjext matter, you win all three!.

Now leyts ignore the AOC and what that has to do with slavery and the actual USA existing before the Constition and look at what else happened on the principle of slavery.

T Jefferson and a committe looked at the NWT and confirmed that the principle of slavery was against natural law, fundamental UK law as per the Mnasfield case recently laid down and adopted into US fundamental law and that the fledling USA could and would not have slavery existence in the public lands that the US had aquired from the UK crown, passing through states to congress to determine what to do with it. The existing states could have or not have slavery, thats was a state matter, but the Union itself had its first public land, and it stated that slavery was not to be permitted in it, and slave entering it (NWT) was free, this would latter bring about the FSA but only slaves listed and proved in a federal court to be slaves through ownership could be returned.

As a matter of poitcs the issue of slave or free sate was a bargaining chip used in congress to allow sectional equivalency in votes, but thats a lot later.

So my uneducated friend the US sets out the principle of slavery for the first public land of the Union very clearly, it afirms it in many later USC rullings.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by Odin
This Nickiow guy must be a lawyer with all his hairspliting BS and crap like evading a yes or no answer by spewing nonsense.

Must be?, how so, a little education is a better guess...

I see, cite the yes no answer i evaded if you please, if its about the US constition then can you cite where the FF said in PA when they created it they were going to do what about it, let me help you here, they werer almost al;l against slavery on principle, only what to do about its end was an issue and who had that legal right to determine.

Originally posted by Odin
Reminds me why I hate lawyers and why good lawyers they can easily get someone like OJ or Michael Jackson off by getting dumb jurors to believe thier BS.

Sophistry:

Using sophistry to defend slavery:

Actaully i used facts and what they mean to defend a number of points, but aparantly your like the Viking, you would rather have genocide instead of slavery and call that lawfull. Egpyt and other early states had laws for slaves taken in warfare, the aduly males bent the knee and went to work as slaves or would not and were killed, the young and women taken and used. In later times this was still the norm, the difference is that through custom and usage loseing in war often ment slavery or genocide, Alexander destroyed Thebes and killed the males who resisted and sold the rest into slavewry when they resisted him, Rome destroyed a entire civilization of Carthage, sold the entire city population of Tarrentuim for rebelion into the east, so from a war perspcetive slavewry evolved from wars, and was better than death especially as laws protecting properety were then then enacted to regulate slavery practice.

There are no dumb jurrors btw, only bad lawyers.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Odin
This Nickiow guy must be a lawyer with all his hairspliting BS and crap like evading a yes or no answer by spewing nonsense.

Sigh....
DISCUSS THE TOPIC... NOT the posters.

[Adam Smith]

Lloyds

Having in a way started this part of the debate, I feel somewhat responsible for helping to sort it out.

First, Lloyds Register was introduced by me, not by TMV, as part of a brief post on the topic. I included Lloyds as a source because it is well known, would have provided pretty comprehensive coverage of shipping at the time, and was one of the first couple of items that came up on Google.

Second, I agree with TMV that there are potential problems with this source. One of the most obvious problems is whether it includes illegal slave shipments a la Armistad. That is why I included a second source in my original post.

HERE is the second source, which cites data from Hugh Thomas, The Slave Trade, 1997.

HERE is Amazon's information on Thomas's book.

Thomas's estimates closely agree with, but are not identical to, the estimates provided by Lloyds. Thomas's 850 page book contains a 200 page discussion of illegal slavery, so I presume that illegal slavery is included in his estimates. Moreover, I did not find either "Lloyds" or "Register" in the 45 page index, so I presume that Thomas did not use Lloyds as a source for his estimates.

Bottom line is that there are at least two reliable estimates that tell the same story: The US had a small part in the slave trade. Even if both estimates are off substantially, the US still had a small part in the slave trade. The basic point still stands, in spite of any arguments about the Lloyds source.

[JohnT]

I've read that book. Fascinating stuff.

[The Mad Viking]

Re: Lloyds

Originally posted by Adam Smith
Having in a way started this part of the debate, I feel somewhat responsible for helping to sort it out.

First, Lloyds Register was introduced by me, not by TMV, as part of a brief post on the topic. I included Lloyds as a source because it is well known, would have provided pretty comprehensive coverage of shipping at the time, and was one of the first couple of items that came up on Google.

Second, I agree with TMV that there are potential problems with this source. One of the most obvious problems is whether it includes illegal slave shipments a la Armistad. That is why I included a second source in my original post.

HERE is the second source, which cites data from Hugh Thomas, The Slave Trade, 1997.

HERE is Amazon's information on Thomas's book.

Thomas's estimates closely agree with, but are not identical to, the estimates provided by Lloyds. Thomas's 850 page book contains a 200 page discussion of illegal slavery, so I presume that illegal slavery is included in his estimates. Moreover, I did not find either "Lloyds" or "Register" in the 45 page index, so I presume that Thomas did not use Lloyds as a source for his estimates.

Bottom line is that there are at least two reliable estimates that tell the same story: The US had a small part in the slave trade. Even if both estimates are off substantially, the US still had a small part in the slave trade. The basic point still stands, in spite of any arguments about the Lloyds source.

And we now go full circle, back to the beginning.

Here is a quote from your second "source".

Contrary to legends and novels and Hollywood movies, the white traders did not need to savagely kill entire tribes in order to exact their tribute in slaves. All they needed to do is bring goods that appealed to the kings of those tribes. The kings would gladly sell their own kins. This explains why slavery became "black".... In the middle ages, all European countries outlawed slavery ... whereas the African kingdoms happily continued in their trade. Therefore, only colored people could be slaves, and that is how the stereotype for African-american slavery was born. It was not based on an ancestral hatred of blacks, but simply on the fact that blacks were the only ones selling slaves, and they were selling their own kins.

To say that this site is racist in the extreme is an understatement. The moron has no understanding of the diversity of African peoples. They were no more selling their "own kins" than the Americans were enslaving their own kins.

This is the post-rationalizing bullsh!t that is the source of the thread. A complete mis-application of the "blame" for lack of a better word.

It's not Saddam Hussein's fault he used chemical weapons on the Kurds. Because the USA happily sold it to him.

I leave you with this whopper of a lie.

and it's in the U.S. that large sectors of the population would start condemning slavery, contrary to the indifference that Muslims and Europeans always showed for it).

What's next Adam? Citing Newsmax?

[Adam Smith]

Re: Re: Lloyds

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
To say that this site is racist in the extreme is an understatement. ... What's next Adam? Citing Newsmax?

Excuse me ....??????

While I don't necessarily agree with the views expressed on that site, I would hardly characterize them as "racist in the extreme".

But that's not the point. The site quotes estimates from Thomas's book, which agree with the estimates from Lloyds Register. It's the Thomas and Lloyds estimates which we should be discussing.

I presume you understand the difference between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources.

edit: format

[molly bloom]

...and it's in the U.S. that large sectors of the population would start condemning slavery, contrary to the indifference that Muslims and Europeans always showed for it).

This is just nonsense.

Islam dictates that it is a charitable and meritorious act to free slaves.

The Quran also goes into detail on how slaves must be treated.

The notion that the abolition movement began in the United States is also false.

[The Mad Viking]

Re: Re: Re: Lloyds

Originally posted by Adam Smith
Excuse me ....??????

While I don't necessarily agree with the views expressed on that site, I would hardly characterize them as "racist in the extreme".

But that's not the point. The site quotes estimates from Thomas's book, which agree with the estimates from Lloyds Register. It's the Thomas and Lloyds estimates which we should be discussing.

I presume you understand the difference between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources.

edit: format

I'm not familiar with Thomas's book, so it would be unfair of me to accuse him of bias. However, I am not favourably inclined from what I have seen so far to believe that he is not. In any case, his "estimates" are not a "source" of any kind. The documents he based his estimates on would be "sources". And they are ...?

[Adam Smith]

I can understand your skepticism of estimates presented on a website which is, at best, sadly misinformed. It appears, however, that Hugh Thomas is well within the mainstream of scholarly research. He earned a Ph. D. in history at Yale, and currently teaches at the University of Miami. HERE is some biographical information. HEREis a site which cites Thomas's work in support of slavery reparations. Note to Molly: The reparations site contains the following:

In his 1997 book on the slave trade, Hugh Thomas records correctly that, "West Africa had known slavery on a small scale before the coming of Islam", and before the coming of the Europeans. "

I have no reason to believe that Thomas is biased in some way.

I do not know which documents Thomas used to prepare his estimates. They do not appear to be from Lloyds, and do appear to include illegal slavery. Perhaps JohnT, who has read the book, can shed some light on this issue.

But the basic points remain: here's another set of accepted estimates which show the US had a small part in the slave trade. Even if both the Thomas and Lloyds estimates are off subtantially, the US still had a small part in the slave trade. Since I don't have the time to rummage through the basement for my copy of Time on the Cross from grad school, or run down to the local library to consult The Cambridge History of Something or Other these will have to do for now. By OT standards this seems like incontrovertible proof.

edit:
btw,
Primary source = actual records
Secondary Source = Thomas's book, presumably based on a review of the actual records
Tertiary source = website that cites Thomas's estimates

http://memory.loc.gov/learn/lessons/psources/source.html

[Jon Miller]

I always thought that south america and central america all played much bigger roles in the slave trade then did north america...

does someone disagree with that?

now as far as slavery before the arabs and europeans, many primitive cultures have slavery of some type, the mediterrian area definitely did... as did the americas, and asia.. (I have no clue about australia)

Jon Miller

[The Mad Viking]

Thanks Adam.

I particularly enjoyed the site with the following.

A Commentary by Oscar L. Beard, Consultant in African Studies
24 May 1999

The single most effective White propaganda assertion that continues to make it very difficult for us to reconstruct the African social systems of mutual trust broken down by U.S. Slavery is the statement, unqualified, that, "We sold each other into slavery." Most of us have accepted this statement as true at its face value. It implies that parents sold their children into slavery to Whites, husbands sold their wives, even brothers and sisters selling each other to the Whites. It continues to perpetuate a particularly sinister effluvium of Black character. But deep down in the Black gut, somewhere beneath all the barbecue ribs, gin and whitewashed religions, we know that we are not like this.

...

The period from the beginning of the TransAtlantic African Slave so-called Trade (1500) to the demarcation of Africa into colonies in the late 1800s is one of the most documented periods in World History. Yet, with the exception of the renegade African slave raider Tippu Tip of the Congo (Muslim name, Hamed bin Muhammad bin Juna al-Marjebi) who was collaborating with the White Arabs (also called Red Arabs) there is little documentation of independent African slave raiding. By independent is meant that there were no credible threats, intoxicants or use of force by Whites to force or deceive the African into slave raiding or slave trading and that the raider himself was not enslaved to Whites at the time of slave raiding or "trading". Trade implies human-to-human mutuality without force. This was certainly not the general scenario for the TransAtlantic so-called Trade in African slaves. Indeed, it was the Portuguese who initiated the European phase of slave raiding in Africa by attacking a sleeping village in 1444 and carting away the survivors to work for free in Europe.

...

The first act against Africa by Whites was an unilateral act of war, announced or unannounced. There were no African Kings or Queens in any of the European countries nor in the U.S. when ships set sail for Africa to capture slaves for profit. Whites had already decided to raid for slaves. They didn't need our agreement on that. Hence, there was no mutuality in the original act. The African so-called slave "trade" was a demand-driven market out of Europe and America, not a supply-driven market out of Africa. We did not seek to sell captives to the Whites as an original act. Hollywood s favorite is showing Blacks capturing Blacks into slavery, as if this was the only way capture occurred. There are a number of ways in which capture occurred. Let s dig a little deeper into this issue.

Chancellor Williams, in his classic work, The Destruction of Black Civilization, explains that after the over land passage of African trade had been cut off at the Nile Delta by the White Arabs in about 1675 B.C. (the Hyksos), the Egyptian/African economy was thrown into a recession. There is even indication of "pre-historic" aggression upon Africa by White nomadic tribes (the Palermo Stone). As recession set in the African Government began selling African prisoners of war and criminals on death row to the White Arabs. This culminated as an unfortunate trade, in that, when the White Arabs attacked, they had the benefit of the knowledge and strength of Africans on their side, as their slaves. This is a significantly different picture than the propaganda that we sold our immediate family members into slavery to the Whites.

...

The fact of African resistance to European Imperialism and Colonialism is not well known, though it is well documented. Read, for instance, Michael Crowder (ed.), West African Resistance, Africana Publishing Corporation, New York, 1971. Europeans entered Africa in the mid 1400 s and early 1500 s during a time of socio-political transition. Europeans chose a favorite side to win between African nations at a war and supplied that side with guns, a superior war instrument. In its victory, the African side with guns rounded up captives of war who were sold to the Europeans in exchange for more guns or other barter. Whites used these captives in their own slave raids. These captives often held pre-existing grudges against groups they were ordered to raid, having formerly been sold into slavery themselves by these same groups as captives in inter-African territorial wars. In investigating our history and capture, a much more completed picture emerges than simply that we sold each other into slavery.

The Ashanti, who resisted British Imperialism in a Hundred Years War, sold their African captives of war and criminals to other Europeans, the Portuguese, Spanish, French, in order to buy guns to maintain their military resistance against British Imperialism (Michael Crowder, ed., West African Resistance).

Question:
If I kill a prostitute in Vancouver, should I expect some sort of absolution by pointing out the true fact that B.C. ig-farmer Robert Picton killed at least eleven prostitutes before me, and that all of them got into his car willingly and happily?

[JohnT]

Of course not, but since you brought up this bizarre analogy, if you were to claim that you were a better or more efficient prostitute-killer than Robert Picton, then you'd better expect some debate.