"Atlantic triangular trade" - texan translation of slave trading

[MrFun]

But even given the states rights position as another cause, it was clearly interconnected with the issue of slavery.

[Al B. Sure!]

Ozzy:

But state's rights would not have been an issue if not for slavery. They were concerned with the states' rights to decide if slavery would remain or not in their states.

[Patroklos]

All of Europe ended slavery long before we did.

False, look up the Dutch.

In any case, I don't consider it a big deal when nations who who had few slaves in their home regions and after their main slave holding colonial regions were being steadily lost decided to abolish slavery first. The simple fact is that they did so because slavery no longer figured into their economic interests so strongly.

As for Latin America, is it surprising that the colonies of freaking Spain would consider abolishing slavery to be priority #1 seeing as they were pretty much giant sweat shops under their colonial yoke?

[MrFun]

False, look up the Dutch.

In any case, I don't consider it a big deal when nations who who had few slaves in their home regions and after their main slave holding colonial regions were being steadily lost decided to abolish slavery first. The simple fact is that they did so because slavery no longer figured into their economic interests so strongly.

As for Latin America, is it surprising that the colonies of freaking Spain would consider abolishing slavery to be priority #1 seeing as they were pretty much giant sweat shops under their colonial yoke?

I read the book, King Leopold's Ghosts. Horrible stuff that happened in the Congo region.

[Patroklos]

That was Belgium.

[MrFun]

Yeah, it was. Just bringing up another example of European enslavement.

[Dr Strangelove]

No, I'm not. Let's prove it.

Let's say DaShi gets popped in the nose by Stangelove. Blood flows.
DaShi wants to know why, and Stangelove tells him.
Up rushes Mr Fun, saying that no, that wasn't the reason. This is the reason.
Strangelove points out that since he was the one that popped DaShi in the nose, he should know.
Mr Fun continues to try and project what was in Strangelove's mind and the motivation.
DaShi believes Mr Fun, and Strangelove justs tells DaShi to believe what you want then.

Let's say that the Southern aristocrats pushed for secession. They owned slaves.
That doesn't explain why millions of men who owned no slaves, yet made up 95% of the agricultural efforts, rushed in to join the Cause.
They told you why. I tell you why. The North didn't and doesn't listen.
So, believe what you want.

Actually it's closer to only 70% didn't own slaves. It was pretty common for slave owners to loan some help to their non-owning relatives during slack seasons. Many slave owners also rented out their slaves. Wouldn't want them to become lazy between planting and havesting time would we? Probably half the South used slave labor at some time of the year.
Southerners were hardly paragons of states rights supporters anyway. They fought tooth and nail to deprive the northern states of their "states rights" to keep slavery out of their territories. After the Dred Scott decision southern newsapapers were filled with editorials calling for lawsuits to force the free states to abandon their supposedly illegal restrictions on the individual rights of slave owners.

[David Floyd]

Slowwhand, I used to hold your view. Upon actually studying history, I no longer agree. Yes, the surface issue may very well have been State's Rights - especially for Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas (who only seceded AFTER Lincoln called for 90 day volunteers to invade the South). But EVERYONE knew the State Right in question was slavery, pure and simple.

Yes, principled men like Robert E. Lee fought for the South, and Lee's primary motivation was fighting for his state, Virginia. I absolutely agree that happened. Unfortunately for your argument, the State Legislature's who voted for secession, overwhelming voted as such over the issue of slavery. The State's Rights argument is baloney - that dog don't hunt.

Which, by the way, does NOTHING to absolve Lincoln from his gross abuses of power, far worse than Nixon ever did, as recognized by SCOTUS in Ex Parte Merriman. But that's another argument.

[Dry]

That was Belgium.

Yeah, it was. Just bringing up another example of European enslavement.

No it wasn't.

It was King Leopold.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Free_State

The Congo Free State was a government privately controlled by Leopold II, King of the Belgians through a dummy non-governmental organization, the Association Internationale Africaine. Leopold was the sole shareholder and chairman, who increasingly used it for rubber, copper and other minerals in the upper Lualaba River basin (though it had been set up on the understanding that its purpose was to uplift the local people and develop the area). The state included the entire area of the present Democratic Republic of the Congo and existed from 1885 to 1908. The Congo Free State eventually earned infamy due to the increasingly brutal mistreatment of the local peoples and plunder of natural resources, leading to its abolition and annexation by the government of Belgium in 1908.
...
The Congo Free State was recognized as a neutral independent sovereignty[1] by various European and North American states.
...
King Leopold initially gained ownership of the Congo largely through the cooperation on the part of the major powers of Europe.
...
All nations were now agreed that the King's rule must be ended as soon as possible, but no nation was willing to take on the responsibility. No nation seriously considered returning control of the land to the native population, with its ages-old record of tyranny and slavery (and in some areas, cannibalism). Belgium was the obvious European candidate to run the Congo, but the Belgians were still unwilling.

I remind also that at the time (from 1885 to 1908), Belgium is still bound by it's neutrality, has no right to intervene, nor to even express itself in international affairs (it's only after WW1 that Belgium will have the right to express its opinion on the international scene).
In particular, in the conditions of existence of Belgium, as stipulated by the major powers, was that Belgium could not modify it's borders by a single inch.

And to put things in perspective, FYI, the Wounded knee massacre was in 1890.
And here in Belgium, around those dates - 1895 - the brother of my grand-grand-mother died in a coal mine at the age of 13. He wasn't black, he wasn't a woman, he wasn't Fleming.
These were the times, Africans got their hand cut, while little white, arrogant, racist, french speaking, Belgian children died as a free men in coal mines at the age of 13.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_Congo

When the Belgian Government took over the Administration from King Leopold II in 1908, the situation in the Congo improved in certain respects. The brutal exploitation and arbitrary use of violence, in which some of the concessionary companies had excelled, were curbed. The tragedy of 'red rubber' was put to a stop. Article 3 of the new Colonial Charter of October 18, 1908 established that: "Nobody can be forced to work on behalf of and for the profit of companies or privates".
...

The 'crimes' of the Belgian administration exist (read the Belgian Congo Wiki article), but they are nothing compared to those of King's Leopold.

[Dinner]

I'd like to get some trianglar trade going with two chicks.

[MrFun]

Talk with Lancer, then.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well played, MrFun

[Patroklos]

Did someone just try and compare Wounded Knee to the The Congo? Seriously?

[MrFun]

[seriously]