Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
 
Old 09-10-2007, 03:01 PM
 
106 posts, read 471,341 times
Reputation: 57

Advertisements

Northern cities had slave trading posts in their harbors. Most countries in Europe took part in the slave trade. South America had far more slaves than North America. Why does all the blame go to the Southern States?

 
Old 09-10-2007, 03:14 PM
 
Location: Wellsburg, WV
3,261 posts, read 9,166,262 times
Reputation: 3594
Quote:
Northern cities had slave trading posts in their harbors. Most countries in Europe took part in the slave trade. South America had far more slaves than North America. Why does all the blame go to the Southern States?
Good question.

History of slavery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
Twentieth century and currently

The Arab or Middle Eastern slave trade continued into the early 1900s[48], and by some accounts continues to this day. As recently as the 1950s, Saudi Arabia had an estimated 450 000 slaves, 20% of the population. It is estimated that as many as 200,000 children and women have been taken into slavery in Sudan during the Second Sudanese Civil War. In Mauritania it is estimated that up to 600,000 men, women and children, or 20% of the population, are currently enslaved, many of them used as bonded labour. Slavery in Mauritania was finally criminalized in August 2007.

The Arab trade in slaves continued into the 20th century. Written travelogues and other historical works are replete with references to slaves owned by wealthy traders, nobility and heads of state in the Arabian Peninsula well into the 1920s. Slave owning and slave-like working conditions have been documented up to and including the present, in countries of the Middle East. Though the subject is considered taboo in the affected regions, a leading Saudi government cleric and author of the country's religious curriculum has called for the outright re-legalization of slavery.

Children as young as two years old are used for slavery as child camel jockeys across the Arab countries of the Middle East. Although strict laws have been introduced recently in Qatar and UAE, thanks to better awareness of the issue and lobbying by human rights organisations such as the Ansar Burney Trust, the use of children still continues in outlying areas and during secret night-time races.
Quote:
Slavery in Mauritania was legally abolished by laws passed in 1905, 1961, and 1981, but it has never been criminalised, and several human rights organizations report that the practice continues there. In Niger, slavery is also a current phenomenon; a study has found that more than 800,000 people are still slaves, almost 8% of the population. Descent-based slavery, where generations of the same family are born into bondage, is traditionally practised by at least four of Niger’s eight ethnic groups. It is especially rife among the warlike Tuareg, in the wild deserts of north and west Niger, who roam near the borders with Mali and Algeria.

The trading of children has been reported in modern Nigeria and Benin. In parts of Ghana, a family may be punished for an offense by having to turn over a virgin female to serve as a sex slave within the offended family. In this instance, the woman does not gain the title or status of "wife". In parts of Ghana, Togo, and Benin, shrine slavery persists, despite being illegal in Ghana since 1998. In this system of ritual servitude, sometimes called trokosi (in Ghana) or voodoosi in Togo and Benin, young virgin girls are given as slaves to traditional shrines and are used sexually by the priests in addition to providing free labor for the shrine. Slavery in Sudan continues as part of an ongoing civil war. Evidence emerged in the late 1990s of systematic slavery in cacao plantations in West Africa;
Quote:
# 1642: Massachusetts becomes the first colony to legalize slavery.
# 1650: Connecticut legalizes slavery.
# 1661: Virginia officially recognizes slavery by statute.
# 1662: A Virginia statute declares that children born would have the same status as their mother.
# 1663: Maryland legalizes slavery.
# 1664: Slavery is legalized in New York and New Jersey
Odd that only ONE of those states is a SOUTHERN state.

Liz
 
Old 09-10-2007, 03:23 PM
 
Location: Phoenix metro
20,004 posts, read 77,246,033 times
Reputation: 10370
Things change as times change. Look at the dates! Those all occured 200 years before the Civil War started.
 
Old 09-10-2007, 03:30 PM
 
Location: Wellsburg, WV
3,261 posts, read 9,166,262 times
Reputation: 3594
True, Steve, but to say the north was blameless is to ignore history. Yes, they freed their slaves earlier and by choice. I suspect had the south been left alone we would have eventually...it may have taken another 50 years or so. But the fact is the north also had slaves as well. They are tarred with the similar brush, just a much earlier version. Liz
 
Old 09-10-2007, 03:36 PM
 
Location: Phoenix metro
20,004 posts, read 77,246,033 times
Reputation: 10370
Quote:
Originally Posted by southernlady5464 View Post
True, Steve, but to say the north was blameless is to ignore history.
To be honest, I dont think anyone on here has said the north was blameless. Id be the first to admit that.
 
Old 09-10-2007, 03:38 PM
 
Location: Wellsburg, WV
3,261 posts, read 9,166,262 times
Reputation: 3594
Quote:
To be honest, I dont think anyone on here has said the north was blameless. Id be the first to admit that.
Steve, many on here seem to think that the south has a corner on blame. Liz
 
Old 09-10-2007, 03:57 PM
 
Location: The Big D
14,862 posts, read 42,779,122 times
Reputation: 5787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevedawg View Post
Northern cities had slave trading posts in their harbors. Most countries in Europe took part in the slave trade. South America had far more slaves than North America. Why does all the blame go to the Southern States?
Very, VERY TRUE!
----------------------------------------------------------
Here are a few excerpts from a site called Slavery in the North

Like the black codes of the South and Midwest in the 19th century, enforcement of Northern colonial race laws was selective, and their real value lay in harassment and discouragement of further settlement, and in being a constant reminder to free blacks that their existence was precarious and dependent on white toleration. Across the North, such laws were the sword hung above the heads of a whole black population: Step out of line, make one false move, and you'll be shipped out, or sold into slavery. And you don't even have the right to face your (white) accuser in court (as you would in, say, ante-bellum Louisiana). ............. Many Southern slaves, perhaps the mass of them, lived better than most northern industrial laborers, when you quantify their work requirements, nutrition, and life expectancy.

So the Negro [in the North] is free, but he cannot share the rights, pleasures, labors, griefs, or even the tomb of him whose equal he has been declared; there is nowhere where he can meet him, neither in life nor in death.
In the South, where slavery still exists, less trouble is taken to keep the Negro apart: they sometimes share the labors and the pleasures of the white men; people are prepared to mix with them to some extent; legislation is more harsh against them, but customs are more tolerant and gentle.

Both Indiana (1816) and Illinois (1818) abolished slavery by their constitutions. And both followed the Ohio policy of trying to prevent black immigration by passing laws requiring blacks who moved into the state to produce legal documents verifying that they were free and posting bond to guarantee their good behavior. The bond requirements ranged as high as $1,000, which was prohibitive for a black American in those days. Anti-immigration legislation passed in Illinois in 1819, 1829, and 1853. In Indiana, such laws were enacted in 1831 and 1852. Michigan Territory passed such a law in 1827; Iowa Territory passed one in 1839 and Iowa enacted another in 1851 after it became a state. Oregon Territory passed such a law in 1849.[8] Blacks who violated the law faced punishments that included advertisement and sale at public auction (Illinois, 1853).

Wisconsin was one of the first states to establish black suffrage, but this was accomplished only through a Supreme Court decision after suffrage had been defeated repeatedly at the polls. Like many in the North, Wisconsin residents disliked slavery, but they also felt no desire to integrate with blacks, whom they felt were inferior.

When the Civil War ended, 19 of 24 Northern states did not allow blacks to vote. Nowhere did they serve on juries before 1860. They could not give testimony in 10 states, and were prevented from assembling in two. Several western states had prohibited free blacks from entering the state. Blacks who entered Illinois and stayed more than 10 days were guilty of "high misdemeanor." Even those that didn't exclude blacks debated doing so and had discriminatory ordinances on the local level.

Americans from 1760 to 1790 felt a general consensus “that black slavery was a historical anomaly that could survive for a time only in the plantation societies where it had become the dominant mode of production.”[1] In the Revolutionary generation, Southerners and Northerners alike predicted slavery would whither away throughout the United States once the importing of Africans stopped.

One reason for slavery’s tenacity, of course, was that the importing of Africans to the South was going on more vigorously than it had before. In fact, the slave trade totals were higher in the U.S. in the period 1790-1810 than during any other 20-year period. And the trade at this time was entirely in the hands of Northern merchants. States that had banned the import of slaves into their own borders, for reasons of economics and morality, had no qualms about flooding them into other states.

Even without an immediate political need, the North rarely matched its anti-slavery words with deeds. In 1800, still years before "slave power" was whispered in the halls of Congress or there was a political party of Southern sectional interest, free blacks in Philadelphia petitioned Congress to provide for gradual abolition of slavery, among other things. But the House voted 85-1 to not even accept the petition. Only a lone Massachusetts representative opposed the movement to give “no encouragement or countenance” to these petitions and to refuse to even consider them, because of their “tendency to create disquiet and jealousy.”[5] Oliver Wolcott, a Connecticut Federalist, wrote to his son in 1790 that he favored "the white people of this country to the black," and after Congress "have taken care of the former they may amuse themselves with the other people."

Then in 1793 came the cotton gin, which brought a 50-fold increase in the average daily output of short-staple cotton, promoted the rapid expansion of a "cotton kingdom" across the Deep South, and made large-scale slavery profitable again. U.S. cotton production had been 3,000 bales in 1790; in 1810, it was 178,000 bales. “Slavery would remain a national problem, not a southern problem,” historian Gary Nash wrote, “but northerners, with few exceptions, acknowledged no responsibility for solving the problem.” In such a nation, disunion or civil war was inevitable. Jefferson, by the end, realized it. He wrote that, “if something is not done, and done soon, we shall be the murderers of our own children.” But they rested, and hoped for the long-term death of American slavery by natural causes, and did nothing. It was a grand missed opportunity. And much of the responsibility for missing it can be laid to the blame of the Northern leadership.

-------------------------------------------------


There really is a LOT of ignorance by MANY that do not know the REAL truth behind the Civil War in the United States Yet they continue to spew forth some 100+ years later their total lack of knowledge of such and hand it down from one generation to the next. May my children and their childrens children never forget the REAL reasons for the Civil War and may they continue to stand up and speak up for the truth.
 
Old 09-10-2007, 04:12 PM
 
Location: Perth, Western Australia
9,589 posts, read 27,748,755 times
Reputation: 3647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-o View Post
To be honest, I dont think anyone on here has said the north was blameless. Id be the first to admit that.
I'm not sure why you keep posting on this particular thread, though you're free to.


From what I've gathered, the jist of what people who don't think the flag is in itself bad is that this flag is not a flag FOR slavery, segregation etc.

Just as someone could be proud of all things from New England and not be looked at as someone who wishes modern New England still had witch trials, slaves and where most people are Puritans with funny hats.

I think it's safe to believe that at least 99% of Americans, southern or not, have no interest in being like those modern Arab nations with an underground slave trade still happening.


*To the people who hate it, would it make any difference to people against the Confederate flag if supporters started calling it a "slave flag?"...
(which is what you might have in the modern Middle East)

Somehow, sadly, I feel that it really wouldn't change their opinion much and they might really think that lowly of their fellow Americans.
 
Old 09-10-2007, 04:21 PM
 
Location: Phoenix metro
20,004 posts, read 77,246,033 times
Reputation: 10370
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdCanadian View Post
I'm not sure why you keep posting on this particular thread, though you're free to.
What does it matter to you? I was being nice and having a legit discussion, why roll your eyes?
 
Old 09-10-2007, 04:32 PM
 
Location: North Texas
382 posts, read 952,779 times
Reputation: 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by southernlady5464 View Post
Steve, many on here seem to think that the south has a corner on blame. Liz
Let's also not forget that Southern slave owners were not exclusively white.
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.



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:51 PM.

© 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