Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-12-2014, 04:31 PM
 
1,021 posts, read 2,296,261 times
Reputation: 1478

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by nightbird47 View Post
These were abolitionists. A great many more weren't. And industry used cheap and disposable labor, servants were part of the furnature and replacable if the chose not to be, and industry in general used the poor as a good source of workers who became disposable if due to poor conditions they happened to be injured or die. This was much more the prevelant view of labor. The question was why did those who bought slaves off african sellers not refuse and end slavery. Because they were business men and slaves were just a kind of merchandise. That is a very similar attitude to the clothing mills and railroad and other major forms of work when looking at potential labor.

It was not a good time to be poor or weak or usable.
I think you should explore the links about abolitionists a little more. The perspective of the abolitionist has historically been swept under the rug. As long as there has been the Transatlantic Slave Trade there have been people vehemently against it. The presence of abolitionists refutes the whole notion that slavers were "men of their time". As many on this board have already indicated, there were far more people either steadfastedly against or non-complicit in the slave trade then active participants.
I can't say your assertions are incorrect, but those who justify why slavery should have taken place come from multiple, contradictory directions. The most common view I see on forums is the"Africans sold other Africans into slavery" Fox News Talking Point. And the point is limited to that quotation. No motive is given, no mechanism is discussed as to how the slaves ended up in the Western Hemisphere, and no explanation is given as to why Africans would be sold by other Africans without a European (or American) market present. This view is too simplistic and easily dismissed.

On the flip side of that coin, I wish someone like John UK would patrol a forum like this. The English/British were at the top of the global totem pole during the era of the Chattel Slavery. Industry and plantation agriculture were two VERY different economic systems that produced decidedly different social results. The British textile industry relied on cotton grown and picked by slaves. However, at no period of time were the English/British poor permanently consigned to the status of being poor. A great many of the poor migrated to the American colonies and later Southern Africa, Oceania, and all of the far-flung colonies of the British Empire on which the sun never set.

To be slave wasn't merely economic. While "owned" as property, African descent slaves were resigned to a permanent social underclass. I would think a Brit today would argue that their participation in the slave trade and its abhorrent results was short lived. The narrative would be something to the effect that yes, "second sons" of English gentry did go to the Americas and operate plantations using indentured servants but after the 1660s exclusively black slave labor. However, the argument would be that it was necessary to use captives to "fast track" the economy in an effort to assert political and economic control in the Caribbean and North America over the claims of the Spanish and French.

However, the English/British direct complicity in the slave economy would only last roughly 150 years tops in their assertion. During the American Revolution, irrespective of how the British felt about blacks they knew they could cripple the colonial economy by emancipating slaves. Despite British reliance on slave produced exports, certainly the colonies were worth more as possessions than the cotton itself. In roughly the 50 years after the establishment of the U.S. Constitution, Britain would go from banning slavery, to outlawing the Transatlantic Slave Trade, to emancipating slaves in their colonies and actively pursuing countries that trafficked slaves at presumably a great expense:

BBC - History - British History in depth: British Anti-slavery

Despite having a global leading textile industry that was the catalyst for making them a world power, I don't see where the British ever regarded themselves as economically-wedded to slavery and the commodities it produced.

Also why the abolitionists are important is because they are part and parcel of a mischaracterization of the actors within the slave system:

http://www.inmotionaame.org/migratio...topic=5&bhcp=1

As you can see from this article, the traders who actually made a great deal of profit off of capturing and selling slaves are viewed as dregs of society. Between the abolitionists, British government, and slaveholders themselves, I would think more parties would argue against the economic implications of the slave trade and argue that it was a social tour de force (you can even call it the "White Man's Burden") if you choose. However, the slaves that produced cotton existed under exceedingly different social circumstances than poor populations that ultimately worked in textile mills, on railroads, on shipbuilding, or as sailors. While it can be said that poor populations were exploited to work in dangerous or arduous industries, it was their employment that served as a catalyst to escape poverty. No matter how much cotton was picked, a slave remained a slave.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-12-2014, 11:23 PM
 
1,161 posts, read 2,437,998 times
Reputation: 2613
Very good post.

I'd just point out that in terms of sheer volume, far more slaves were imported to South America than to the American colonies and that the Portuguese were the #1 slave traders in numbers of slaves moved across the sea. The British were #2, at half the volume of the Portuguese, and the Spanish were right behind them.

As much as one doesn't want to weigh the morality among the various European powers, the one slight advantage to British North America (not including the Caribbean) is that slaves tended to be treated better, if only because they were scarcer and more expensive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steelers10 View Post
I think you should explore the links about abolitionists a little more. The perspective of the abolitionist has historically been swept under the rug. As long as there has been the Transatlantic Slave Trade there have been people vehemently against it. The presence of abolitionists refutes the whole notion that slavers were "men of their time". As many on this board have already indicated, there were far more people either steadfastedly against or non-complicit in the slave trade then active participants.
I can't say your assertions are incorrect, but those who justify why slavery should have taken place come from multiple, contradictory directions. The most common view I see on forums is the"Africans sold other Africans into slavery" Fox News Talking Point. And the point is limited to that quotation. No motive is given, no mechanism is discussed as to how the slaves ended up in the Western Hemisphere, and no explanation is given as to why Africans would be sold by other Africans without a European (or American) market present. This view is too simplistic and easily dismissed.

On the flip side of that coin, I wish someone like John UK would patrol a forum like this. The English/British were at the top of the global totem pole during the era of the Chattel Slavery. Industry and plantation agriculture were two VERY different economic systems that produced decidedly different social results. The British textile industry relied on cotton grown and picked by slaves. However, at no period of time were the English/British poor permanently consigned to the status of being poor. A great many of the poor migrated to the American colonies and later Southern Africa, Oceania, and all of the far-flung colonies of the British Empire on which the sun never set.

To be slave wasn't merely economic. While "owned" as property, African descent slaves were resigned to a permanent social underclass. I would think a Brit today would argue that their participation in the slave trade and its abhorrent results was short lived. The narrative would be something to the effect that yes, "second sons" of English gentry did go to the Americas and operate plantations using indentured servants but after the 1660s exclusively black slave labor. However, the argument would be that it was necessary to use captives to "fast track" the economy in an effort to assert political and economic control in the Caribbean and North America over the claims of the Spanish and French.

However, the English/British direct complicity in the slave economy would only last roughly 150 years tops in their assertion. During the American Revolution, irrespective of how the British felt about blacks they knew they could cripple the colonial economy by emancipating slaves. Despite British reliance on slave produced exports, certainly the colonies were worth more as possessions than the cotton itself. In roughly the 50 years after the establishment of the U.S. Constitution, Britain would go from banning slavery, to outlawing the Transatlantic Slave Trade, to emancipating slaves in their colonies and actively pursuing countries that trafficked slaves at presumably a great expense:

BBC - History - British History in depth: British Anti-slavery

Despite having a global leading textile industry that was the catalyst for making them a world power, I don't see where the British ever regarded themselves as economically-wedded to slavery and the commodities it produced.

Also why the abolitionists are important is because they are part and parcel of a mischaracterization of the actors within the slave system:

http://www.inmotionaame.org/migratio...topic=5&bhcp=1

As you can see from this article, the traders who actually made a great deal of profit off of capturing and selling slaves are viewed as dregs of society. Between the abolitionists, British government, and slaveholders themselves, I would think more parties would argue against the economic implications of the slave trade and argue that it was a social tour de force (you can even call it the "White Man's Burden") if you choose. However, the slaves that produced cotton existed under exceedingly different social circumstances than poor populations that ultimately worked in textile mills, on railroads, on shipbuilding, or as sailors. While it can be said that poor populations were exploited to work in dangerous or arduous industries, it was their employment that served as a catalyst to escape poverty. No matter how much cotton was picked, a slave remained a slave.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2014, 12:22 AM
 
10,238 posts, read 19,545,817 times
Reputation: 5943
Quote:
=Steelers10;35183936]Enough with the back and forth. If you cannot answer the basic question that I posed, much less answer the question posed to me, you have no business whatsoever on this forum.
Podner? I have been on this forum a heck of a lot longer that you...so perhaps excuse me if I am not suitably impressed nor intimidated by your self-presumed credentials to take the role of a "moderator" and make silly statements about who or who doesn't "belong on this forum."

Actually, all it does it demonstrate how desperate you are to regain ground. And, really, you know this just as well as I do...

Quote:
These are the most rudimentary starting points in any discussion of African slavery. I ordinarily abhor the use of Wikipedia as a source, however please read the following:
I did...and I still stand by what I said. Weak argument on your part...

Quote:
f you can manage to interpret that passage, you will see that the European thirst for slaves created African kingdoms whose expressed purpose was declaring war to make prisoners of war, of whom the captives would be sold to Europeans. This isn't even a question. Any basic reading in a 100-level history course would supply you with the motive for selling prisoners. Heck, the American penal system still sells and trades prisoners for profit today:
Please. LOL. I know well the rhetorical ploy you are attempting. And spare the bullshlit about of the American penal system being comparable to the historical slave system. Which has stretched back since the origins of time itself...

Quote:
I'm still waiting for an answer from you; why did Europeans even start a Transatlantic slave trade that they would feel the need to abolish in the future? You do not have to answer the question. I'm through responding to someone (you) who possesses not the slightest iota of knowledge about the Transatlantic slave trade and its root causes. You have clearly demonstrated this with your deflective responses.
I am sure you ARE finished responding to me. I would too if I was getting my arse handed to me like you are getting it handed to you! So answer, and quit trying to flip the question upside down in a pathetic attempt to make it appear it started with Europeans. The Africans sold their fellows into slavery to the Europeans to make money. The northern slave traders (in the colonies...and later in the United States itself) made fortunes off the trade; if they had been so morally opposed to slavery they would have not made so much money off of it. Those hypocrites only objected to slavery once it become unprofitable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2014, 06:33 AM
Status: "108 N/A" (set 29 days ago)
 
12,909 posts, read 13,586,976 times
Reputation: 9629
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
No, it isn't. Let's backtrack a bit and get and garner a difference in the Southern Confederacy and Nazi Germany. And then we can argue it for sure!

Nazi Germany -- under the Third Reich -- was nothing like what had previously existed. On the other hand, the newly formed Confederate States were formulated as a federal republic exactly along the line of the original united States constitution. The Nazi regime was slavery so many years later and nothing else, and exterminated those who the gutter deemed to be "enemies of the state"....

Ok...then what else did the Africans do with their fellow Africans except sell them into slavery (and keep the ones they didn't sell as slaves. Oh yeah, the made them equals, correct?)



So once again...what is your point here? That slavery existed? We ALL know that! Europeans owned slaves...and were slaves sometime, at sometime themselves. So were Africans and the same Africans sold their own into slavery. When free blacks did become free in the Americas, they would enslave their fellow blacks. And when THEY (if they did) become free), they enslaved others.

What I am saying is why in the hell does this stupid morality play keep going on....?
There we go again with "their own." Two people from the continent of Africa have no more in common than any two randomly selected people from any other continent, but you persist in believing that two people who are " black" have a relationship with each other. Recently I heard an African say there are no " black " people in Africa. When the interviewer questioned her she said black in relation to what? I was also at a lecture where a white woman and black women (Americans) traveled to Africa for research. The local tribesmen thought they were sisters.

There is certainly enough blame to go around the globe for slavery over the last 5000 years. The word Slave is said to be derivative of the word Slavs,who were enslaved by the Romans. The oddity of the Atlantic slave trade is that it was an archaic system transported to the new world. It is generally accepted that slavery under the Spanish, Europeans, and in what was to become America varied. In Africa slavery was said to be part of an indoctrination and eventually membership in the tribe.
Perhaps Africans were so eager to sell their captives to white men because none of them made it back to recount the horrors of being a slave of white men.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2014, 09:11 PM
 
1,021 posts, read 2,296,261 times
Reputation: 1478
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
Podner? I have been on this forum a heck of a lot longer that you...so perhaps excuse me if I am not suitably impressed nor intimidated by your self-presumed credentials to take the role of a "moderator" and make silly statements about who or who doesn't "belong on this forum."

Actually, all it does it demonstrate how desperate you are to regain ground. And, really, you know this just as well as I do...



I did...and I still stand by what I said. Weak argument on your part...



Please. LOL. I know well the rhetorical ploy you are attempting. And spare the bullshlit about of the American penal system being comparable to the historical slave system. Which has stretched back since the origins of time itself...



I am sure you ARE finished responding to me. I would too if I was getting my arse handed to me like you are getting it handed to you! So answer, and quit trying to flip the question upside down in a pathetic attempt to make it appear it started with Europeans. The Africans sold their fellows into slavery to the Europeans to make money. The northern slave traders (in the colonies...and later in the United States itself) made fortunes off the trade; if they had been so morally opposed to slavery they would have not made so much money off of it. Those hypocrites only objected to slavery once it become unprofitable.
I dare you to provide an academic source to substantiate anything you have said. So you have been on this forum longer than me? Well Castro has been in power longer than any other head of state in the world at this juncture. That doesn't make him great. Or even good. There's not much in you post to respond to because it is so unsubstantiated, but if memory (and history) serves me correctly, the only entity germane to this forum that has had its "arse" handed to it was the treasonous Confederate States of America. Yup, slavery was real profitable for the "North". I don't think the United States would have been the first country in the history of the world to spend $1 billion (and do so on a war) in which the ultimate outcome would be the end of slavery if said enterprise was so integral to their economy.

http://online.barrons.com/news/artic...786514?tesla=y

In terms of the Africans themselves, prior to European arrival, the Mali Empire was perhaps the wealthiest empire in the world at that time and it is believed that its ruler, Mansa Musa, is the richest person to have ever lived.

Meet Mansa Musa I of Mali

This wealth was made largely off of gold and salt:

http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/suic/Refe...d9472333103f82

If you bother to read the articles, certainly no one was voluntarily going to carry salt and gold across the Sahara on camels so yes, slaves were employed. However, I can tell you have not read any of the previously posted materials (or read anything for that matter) because you would know this was not chattel slavery. The form of "slavery" employed in the Mali Empire created an income that was used to invest in an infrastructure, universities, mosques, global trade networks, libraries, merchant fleets, etc. Unlike feudal Europe or East Asia, Mali would not have the internal population to make this possible otherwise through serfdom (as if that was lucrative anyway).

The Transatlantic slave trade was different. Europeans started out using their own nationals as indentured servants; why start purchasing African slaves outside of greed? And how beneficial was using African slavery? The record is clear in the United States that those states that ultimately outlawed slavery became wealthier and more developed than slave states. How essential were "slave produced" commodities to "Northern" economies? When Britain decided to stop dealing with "Southern" shenanigans, they simply got their cotton from Egypt and India.

And if the North needed and profited so much from the institution of slavery, well it seems the North didn't suffer too much after slavery's demise and the North developed unprecedented wealth from industrialization using paid immigrant labor while the South remained an underdeveloped backwater liability for 100 years, save the contributions of Northern "carpetbaggers" to the Southern economy. And for those "Africans" that became "wealthy" from the slave trade like the Ashanti? Well their ultimate reward was to end up colonies of largely the British and French. Congratulations. Seems as if they would have been better off coastal provinces of the Mali and Songhay. Trading with Europeans doesn't appear to advanced them very far; but it did manage to sink the whole continent though. So once again, in the specter of a system of human trafficking, how are you rationalizing that the party who did the actual trafficking across the Atlantic is somehow justified?


Last edited by Steelers10; 06-15-2014 at 09:26 PM.. Reason: Addition of source
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2014, 09:19 PM
 
1,021 posts, read 2,296,261 times
Reputation: 1478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallybalt View Post
Very good post.

I'd just point out that in terms of sheer volume, far more slaves were imported to South America than to the American colonies and that the Portuguese were the #1 slave traders in numbers of slaves moved across the sea. The British were #2, at half the volume of the Portuguese, and the Spanish were right behind them.

As much as one doesn't want to weigh the morality among the various European powers, the one slight advantage to British North America (not including the Caribbean) is that slaves tended to be treated better, if only because they were scarcer and more expensive.
I think it is only about 5% of Africans transported in the Transatlantic slave trade actually ended up in British North America (present-day U.S.). The French were also no slouch in the number of slaves imported. I think even moreso than British North American slaves being treated better (you are correct, they were the "wealth" in the system as property, not the commodities they produced), slavery in the tropics was absolutely brutal. Slaves died in exponentially greater numbers in the tropics due to tropical diseases and just the sheer terroristic nature of the sugar plantation. Coupled with far fewer women being imported and high infant mortality rates, there just wasn't a shot in hell that the tropical plantation society was ever going to amount to much of anything after the soils were depleted and the locus of high-intensity plantation agriculture simply shifted to virgin territories.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2014, 05:16 AM
 
10,238 posts, read 19,545,817 times
Reputation: 5943
LMAO. I thought you were going to stop replying to me? You should have, really...

Quote:
=Steelers10;35251193]I dare you to provide an academic source to substantiate anything you have said. So you have been on this forum longer than me?
Well Castro has been in power longer than any other head of state in the world at this juncture. That doesn't make him great. Or even good.
Talk about a non-sequitur, this one really takes the cake! Uhhhh, you are entitled to your opinion and no problem. However, just backtrack a minute (or into posts), and read your own. I agree that someone being on a forum longer than other bestows any special knowledge However, Castro has nothing to do with it in terms of the "point" you are, seemingly, trying to make. What I was replying to was your assertion that if I didn't agree with your retort, then I had no business on the forum. And I replied by saying -- in effect -- that I wasn't in the least impressed with your didactic lecture as to who does or doesn't belong here.

Quote:
There's not much in you post to respond to because it is so unsubstantiated, but if memory (and history) serves me correctly, the only entity germane to this forum that has had its "arse" handed to it was the treasonous Confederate States of America. Yup, slavery was real profitable for the "North". I don't think the United States would have been the first country in the history of the world to spend $1 billion (and do so on a war) in which the ultimate outcome would be the end of slavery if said enterprise was so integral to their economy.
Oh lord! Here, just read this (and the sources are substantiated whether or not you want to believe them or not (actually, the supporting links are below) .

Quote:
In terms of the Africans themselves, prior to European arrival, the Mali Empire was perhaps the wealthiest empire in the world at that time and it is believed that its ruler, Mansa Musa, is the richest person to have ever lived.
I am talking about slavery and the trade in Sub-Sahran" Africa, not northern Africa which qualifies as part of the Middle East. I mean where tribal wars meant the capture of their fellows, and sold into slavery. And? Where it still exists today in fact! How do you explain that?? And in the same countries where the worst human rights violations are consistently a fact, and always have been. No amount of spinning is going to change that that.

Quote:
This wealth was made largely off of gold and salt:
And slaves and getting rum from the triangle trade! But ok, why didn't the African slave use it to their own advantage. Given all the potential resource wealth of the continent, why is it still today the most backward and poorest in the world?

And if you think that it gives me any satisfaction to point this out, then you are completely wrong. But I am not going to pretend that history and facts are some way they aren't. .

Quote:
If you bother to read the articles, certainly no one was voluntarily going to carry salt and gold across the Sahara on camels so yes, slaves were employed. However, I can tell you have not read any of the previously posted materials (or read anything for that matter) because you would know this was not chattel slavery. The form of "slavery" employed in the Mali Empire created an income that was used to invest in an infrastructure, universities, mosques, global trade networks, libraries, merchant fleets, etc. Unlike feudal Europe or East Asia, Mali would not have the internal population to make this possible otherwise through serfdom (as if that was lucrative anyway).
Hell, you can fool yourself all you want to. I read them, but they are largely just a spin designed to accommodate a vision of history which conforms to the popular chic version that makes Europeans -- particularly American Southerners -- become the villians. But I think it is fairly clear, assuming one wants to objectively look at history (the non-politically correct version) what the truth really is.

Quote:
The Transatlantic slave trade was different. Europeans started out using their own nationals as indentured servants; why start purchasing African slaves outside of greed? And how beneficial was using African slavery? The record is clear in the United States that those states that ultimately outlawed slavery became wealthier and more developed than slave states. How essential were "slave produced" commodities to "Northern" economies? When Britain decided to stop dealing with "Southern" shenanigans, they simply got their cotton from Egypt and India.
It is simple, as I mentioned earlier. It was profitable and yes, I agree about the "intentured servant" aspect. But read this (if you haven't already)...but you still haven't (because you can't) flip this into a morality play. And I will repeat it til, hell freezes over that, ok, if there had been so much moral objection in Africa to sell them to the Europeans (after capturing them and enslaving themselves those they needed)then why didn't they simply refuse to do so? And why does it still exist today on the African continent? Please read the main link and the sub-ones.

Slavery in the North

Especially the sub ones that speaks about Pennsylvania (which it sounds as if you are from going by your screen name):

Slavery in Pennsylvania

Emancipation in Pennsylvania

So bottom line is that you northern apologists have no platform to presume moral authority at all.


Quote:
And if the North needed and profited so much from the institution of slavery, well it seems the North didn't suffer too much after slavery's demise and the North developed unprecedented wealth from industrialization using paid immigrant labor while the South remained an underdeveloped backwater liability for 100 years, save the contributions of Northern "carpetbaggers" to the Southern economy. And for those "Africans" that became "wealthy" from the slave trade like the Ashanti? Well their ultimate reward was to end up colonies of largely the British and French. Congratulations. Seems as if they would have been better off coastal provinces of the Mali and Songhay. Trading with Europeans doesn't appear to advanced them very far; but it did manage to sink the whole continent though.
Another easy question. It was easier to hire and fire workers in northern factories according to need than to take on the obligation to provide any security at all. And if you think this truth amounts to "defending slavery" then that is ridiculous.

Also, LOL You are wrong on several counts, one being that the Southern states were actually the wealthiest part of the country at that time...but the northern states (because of their numerical superiority in the House of Representatives (where budget bills are decided) used that power to impose unfair taxes on the South. As in that the Southern states contained 25% of the population but paid around 75% of the taxes...which where in turn spent on Northern interests. In direct parlance? The north used the South as its "cash-cow." And those in the Lincoln administration later said as much.

And too, it is kind of strange, don't you think, that most of the abolitionists came from families and were heirs to fortunes made off the slave trade. Heck, it is easy as hell to become moralistic when one is not directly going to suffer any financial inconvenience themselves. And the slave trade was firmly in northern hands.

Quote:
So once again, in the specter of a system of human trafficking, how are you rationalizing that the party who did the actual trafficking across the Atlantic is somehow justified?
What the hell are you even talking about? I will actually concede that we might just be talking past each other. That happens sometime. But this (bolded part) about being "justified" is just flat stupid. All I am saying is that (to repeat in case in plain language), is that no race, people, ethnic group, etc, has any moral high ground to lecture another as concerns "blame" for slavery, as every single one has been both slaves and slave owners. And certainly not the self-righteous Yankees that don't want to face and accept their own history....

Last edited by TexasReb; 06-19-2014 at 05:47 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2014, 11:02 AM
 
1,021 posts, read 2,296,261 times
Reputation: 1478
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
LMAO. I thought you were going to stop replying to me? You should have, really...



Talk about a non-sequitur, this one really takes the cake! Uhhhh, you are entitled to your opinion and no problem. However, just backtrack a minute (or into posts), and read your own. I agree that someone being on a forum longer than other bestows any special knowledge However, Castro has nothing to do with it in terms of the "point" you are, seemingly, trying to make. What I was replying to was your assertion that if I didn't agree with your retort, then I had no business on the forum. And I replied by saying -- in effect -- that I wasn't in the least impressed with your didactic lecture as to who does or doesn't belong here.



Oh lord! Here, just read this (and the sources are substantiated whether or not you want to believe them or not (actually, the supporting links are below) .



I am talking about slavery and the trade in Sub-Sahran" Africa, not northern Africa which qualifies as part of the Middle East. I mean where tribal wars meant the capture of their fellows, and sold into slavery. And? Where it still exists today in fact! How do you explain that?? And in the same countries where the worst human rights violations are consistently a fact, and always have been. No amount of spinning is going to change that that.



And slaves and getting rum from the triangle trade! But ok, why didn't the African slave use it to their own advantage. Given all the potential resource wealth of the continent, why is it still today the most backward and poorest in the world?

And if you think that it gives me any satisfaction to point this out, then you are completely wrong. But I am not going to pretend that history and facts are some way they aren't. .



Hell, you can fool yourself all you want to. I read them, but they are largely just a spin designed to accommodate a vision of history which conforms to the popular chic version that makes Europeans -- particularly American Southerners -- become the villians. But I think it is fairly clear, assuming one wants to objectively look at history (the non-politically correct version) what the truth really is.



It is simple, as I mentioned earlier. It was profitable and yes, I agree about the "intentured servant" aspect. But read this (if you haven't already)...but you still haven't (because you can't) flip this into a morality play. And I will repeat it til, hell freezes over that, ok, if there had been so much moral objection in Africa to sell them to the Europeans (after capturing them and enslaving themselves those they needed)then why didn't they simply refuse to do so? And why does it still exist today on the African continent? Please read the main link and the sub-ones.

Slavery in the North

Especially the sub ones that speaks about Pennsylvania (which it sounds as if you are from going by your screen name):

Slavery in Pennsylvania

Emancipation in Pennsylvania

So bottom line is that you northern apologists have no platform to presume moral authority at all.




Another easy question. It was easier to hire and fire workers in northern factories according to need than to take on the obligation to provide any security at all. And if you think this truth amounts to "defending slavery" then that is ridiculous.

Also, LOL You are wrong on several counts, one being that the Southern states were actually the wealthiest part of the country at that time...but the northern states (because of their numerical superiority in the House of Representatives (where budget bills are decided) used that power to impose unfair taxes on the South. As in that the Southern states contained 25% of the population but paid around 75% of the taxes...which where in turn spent on Northern interests. In direct parlance? The north used the South as its "cash-cow." And those in the Lincoln administration later said as much.

And too, it is kind of strange, don't you think, that most of the abolitionists came from families and were heirs to fortunes made off the slave trade. Heck, it is easy as hell to become moralistic when one is not directly going to suffer any financial inconvenience themselves. And the slave trade was firmly in northern hands.



What the hell are you even talking about? I will actually concede that we might just be talking past each other. That happens sometime. But this (bolded part) about being "justified" is just flat stupid. All I am saying is that (to repeat in case in plain language), is that no race, people, ethnic group, etc, has any moral high ground to lecture another as concerns "blame" for slavery, as every single one has been both slaves and slave owners. And certainly not the self-righteous Yankees that don't want to face and accept their own history....
Whoa! That's a lot of drivel for points easily refuted by some basic research:

Economic history: Did slavery make economic sense? | The Economist

Was there any profit garnered within the realm of possibilities in the entire Transatlantic Slave Trade? Sure. Did it make slaveholding areas comparatively wealthy be any means? Absolutely not. And I guess the fact that the former Northern colonies had all outlawed slavery by the turn of the 19th century except for New Jersey that banned it 1804 means absolutely nothing? Ok. I hope you read the article (which you won't) but I think this paragraph below succinctly sums up my viewpoint on slavery which has been consistent in these forums (key in on the last sentence for the issue of "morality"):

Slavery hindered the development of Southern capitalism in other ways. Eugene Genovese, writing in 1961, reckoned that the antebellum South was not profit-seeking. In fact, slavery was not even meant to be profitable. Slaveowners were keener on flaunting their vast plantations and huge reserves of slaves than they were about profits and investment. Rational economic decisions were sacrificed for pomp and circumstance.

Why are you not being taken seriously? The fact that you will not read and everything you are spewing is completely unsubstantiated. You are on a computer and won't even take the time to do a basic search on Wikipedia (which Kindergarteners do at this point) to not only learn what constitutes Sub-Saharan Africa:

Sub-Saharan Africa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But then not even seek to know that at any point was the Mali Empire never part of any past or present definition of North Africa and has always been considered Sub-Saharan African:




So if you don't know jack about the Confederacy, jack about the British Empire, and jack about Africa which served as the source of the slaves imprisoned on American plantations, what exactly is the basis on which anyone should believe anything you say on this forum?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2014, 02:03 PM
 
10,238 posts, read 19,545,817 times
Reputation: 5943
Quote:
Was there any profit garnered within the realm of possibilities in the entire Transatlantic Slave Trade? Sure. Did it make slaveholding areas comparatively wealthy be any means? Absolutely not. And I guess the fact that the former Northern colonies had all outlawed slavery by the turn of the 19th century except for New Jersey that banned it 1804 means absolutely nothing? Ok. I hope you read the article (which you won't) but I think this paragraph below succinctly sums up my viewpoint on slavery which has been consistent in these forums (key in on the last sentence for the issue of "morality"):
More deflection, all of your repetitive questions have been answered. You don't have to agree with my replies, of course, but they are still answered and you keep ignoring them.

The fallacy in this latest of yours proceeds from the assertion that somehow when the northern states abolished slavery that should be the time-line that other states should do the same. Sorry, but that is a lame duck argument. And, once again , they did so only because it wasn't profitable, not because of any altruistic concern for blacks.

No, it was because they found it was more profitable to hire "free" laborers whom they could bind to labor contracts and pay (in lots of cases) with script only good in the "company stores". Then, toss them out on the street when they got sick, injured, or old. They were free in name only, and that is one reason why labor unions have always been more popular in the North than the South (laws and certain ethics prohibited deliberate mistreatment and cruelty to slaves, and also an obligation to care for the sick, injured, and old, for life).

And by the way, if you try and present this as a "defense of slavery", then you are really desperate. (see article below)

Quote:
Why are you not being taken seriously? The fact that you will not read and everything you are spewing is completely unsubstantiated. You are on a computer and won't even take the time to do a basic search on Wikipedia (which Kindergarteners do at this point) to not only learn what constitutes Sub-Saharan Africa:
I have perused a lot of things in Wikipedia (and written quite a bit on it myself), and anyone can write anything on it and find some source to back them up. The more important question is the biases of the source itself. The Economist, for example, is a leftist leaning publication. Nothing wrong with that, but it must also figure in to how they will present the viewpoint of the author.

Quote:
But then not even seek to know that at any point was the Mali Empire never part of any past or present definition of North Africa and has always been considered Sub-Saharan African:
Fine, maybe it was or wasn't. BUT...that is not and never has been the central point. Rather, it is that sub-Saharan Africa was the prime source of the slave-trade itself, and it still exists in many of those countries; not to mention those southwestern African countries has the most consistent and appalling human-rights record in human history. The various tribes attacked their neighboring tribes and the surplice (i.e. those they didn't enslave for their own use), they eagerly sold to the Western world slave-merchants, which were exclusively in the hand of northern shipping merchants, who profited from slavery -- in one form or fashion -- right up to the eve of the War Between the States.

Here is a great article by Thomas Sowell (a black conservative, in fact) who is not afraid to speak the truth (although often vilified by those who don't want to hear it). Also, one which discusses something else we are not supposed to acknowledge. That is, slave-owning free blacks.

Alex Haley's "Roots": Fact or Fiction? | Capitalism MagazineCapitalism Magazine

Black Slave Owners Civil War Article by Robert M Grooms

Quote:
So if you don't know jack about the Confederacy, jack about the British Empire, and jack about Africa which served as the source of the slaves imprisoned on American plantations, what exactly is the basis on which anyone should believe anything you say on this forum?
I don't know, why should they? But I am content to let others decide for themselves as to which of us makes a better case. I realize it is difficult for some rabidly northern apologists such as yourself to deal with facts which they have never heard before, and to grasp that the War was not a morality play between a virtuous and righteous north who rallied to come down and selflessly free the slaves in a horrid, netherworld, South. Hell, just read those links about slavery and emancipation in the north, and how blacks were actually banned from residency in some of them.

But to move on, I have probably forgotten more about the Confederacy than you ever knew. On a related tangent, you spoke earlier (and I forgot to address it), about a "traitorous" CSA? I think it is you who needs to do their homework. You are grasping at straws the way a drowning man grabs at a fallen branch. LOL

Traitor is defined by the Constitution as one who wages war upon their own country and/or gives aid and comfort to the enemies of the same country. The Southern states which seceded were a separate nation and never had any plans at all to overthrow the United States government (northern states which kept the name only by default). In fact, made it clear they wanted peaceful separation and just be left alone. And, even offered to negotiate an economic and defensive alliance with the North. Instead Lincoln chose to invade a people who had done them no wrong, and all for the purpose of keeping the Southern states tax money (with 25% of the population was paying roughly 75% into the federal coffers, which in turn was spent on northern interests).

But anyway, unfortunately for your position and accusation of being "traitors, the northern powers that be did not agree. Chief Justice Salmon Chase said that Lincoln told him he really wished that Jefferson Davis had escaped capture and said. "He was right. His capture was a mistake, and his trial will be a greater one. We cannot convict him of treason. Secession is settled. Let it stay settled.”

In the same vein he told Sec. of War Edwin Stanton: "If you bring these leaders to trial, it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion...His (Jeff Davis') capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one. We cannot convict him of treason."

Now, I don't know any better source than that as to why the north chose not to make the case about "treason." They knew full well they would be made fools of in front of the whole world.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2014, 07:28 PM
 
1,021 posts, read 2,296,261 times
Reputation: 1478
When a thread becomes just two people going back and forth, that is a sure sign no one else is interested and about to shut down. I appreciate all of the time you took to research support for your points, but the most succinctly I can sum this up is to inform you (like so many other posters on threads about slavery and the Confederacy) that you are practicing revisionist history (no country ever recognized the sovereignty of the CSA so yes, the Confederates were traitors, end of discussion).

First and foremost, the "blacks" who owned other "blacks" in the United States were only defined as "Negroes" themselves after the fact. As the sources within your article can attest to, the vast majority of these "blacks" were Creoles. In an early-20th century lens of eugenics and the one-drop rule, these slaveowners were designated "black" socially. However, during the time in which they actually owned the slaves, most of these "blacks" were only fractionally of African ancestry. In their societies of origin (notably Haiti in the case of the "free blacks" who arrived in New Orleans, Charleston, and other American port cities), these Creoles were already slaveowners who came from a patrilineal society. To make a long story short, "black" children of white males in the Caribbean and Brazil could inherit property and had the rights of citizenship just like any white with no discernible African ancestry. This absolutely was not the case in what would be the U.S. after 1680. Native born "blacks" were not extended these freedoms. So these slaveowning "blacks" were not regarded as "black" in there time. The presence of Creoles was so pervasive in the Louisiana Territory that when Louisiana was admitted as a state, the first "English as an official language" law in the U.S. was passed in an attempt to mitigate the economic and social influence of Creoles of African ancestry who essentially lived as white men. It didn't really work. You should read "The Black Jacobins". These "black" slaveowners certainly did not perceive themselves as black. Renowned Confederate General P.G.T. Beauregard was referred to as "the little Black Frenchman" by his troops and was noted in his post-Civil War career as an activist for the civil rights for African Americans if for nothing else than to undermine the Republican Reconstructionists:

P.G.T. Beauregard | Entries | KnowLA, Encyclopedia of Louisiana

It is also believed the accusations of the whole Denmark Vesey Affair was fabricated in an effort just to have an excuse to limit the economic clout of these free "blacks" in Charleston.

You have spent a great deal of time attempting to augment your "blacks sold themselves" into slavery argument. I believe Tallybalt already addressed you on this several replies ago. As has been expressed to you numerous times on this thread, you are not grasping how large Africa is a continent and how diverse its population was and is. Look at this map of Europe superimposed onto Africa:

By implying that "blacks" sold themselves into slavery if the Malians captured the Kano in war is like saying the "whites" slaughtered themselves in WWII when the British invaded Italy. I'll let you decide the level of kinship between Anglos and Italians either in Europe itself or even the U.S.

There are way too many threads on the Confederacy in this forum to even begin to wade into your Jefferson Davis trope. Confederate sympathizers will discuss to the Nth Degree the Civil War being about State's rights and not Slavery, Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, etc. but no one ever mentions Alexander H. Stephens. Hmmm...I wonder why he's never mentioned? Because when you start talking about Alexander Stephens you start talking about what the philosophy of the Confederacy was really about, why "he" would be in a serious movie about the Civil War like "Lincoln" and NOT Jefferson Davis, and why it was not worth the trouble to put a Jefferson Davis on trial for treason. Stephens was the true brain trust and embodiment of the Confederacy and he WOULD have been put on trial for treason if not pardoned by Andrew Johnson. We all know what happened to Andrew Johnson and the "North" would not let Stephens assume his Senate seat due to the miscarriage of justice.

Jefferson Davis was persona non grata among ex-Confederates for 20 years after the Civil War. The "North" smartly let Davis go on bail and not try him for treason. His incompetence was instrumental in helping the Union defeat the rebels as well as instrumental in helping the Union nominally reconcile with the South while moving on to more international aims of expansion (Jeff actually served as a statesman in this capacity) and an economy firmly based on industrial capacity produced by cheap immigrant labor.

As you identified yourself in your previous post, European immigrants weren't treated so hot in the industries in which they worked. But this was largely after the Civil War and they came to the U.S. on their own free will. We are talking about two different social, economic, and political systems entirely. Accordingly, your choice of highlighting slavery in Pennsylvania is interesting. There is a reason why Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Ohio contributed so many troops to the Union cause. They were fighting to eradicate slavery as border states such as Maryland and Kentucky with essentially identical climate and topography were growing the same crops as these Northern states but using slave labor, thus undermining the free, middle-class family farm. You say that this was solely out of economic interest, however I would assert signing up to lay your life on the line for the cause of your farm knowing slaves would be liberated certainly has moral implications.

Last edited by Steelers10; 06-19-2014 at 07:44 PM.. Reason: added link
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:30 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top