posted
One of the great lies told and taught by the Albinos, is that they abolished slavery because they are “Good” people. In the United States, they go one step further, and claim that they fought one of the bloodiest wars in history (the Civil War), to free the Black man from Slavery. Aside from the fact that the Albinos and their West African cohorts had taken the old institution of slavery to new depths of depravity never before experienced or imagined in human history, did they really fight a war in the U.S. to end slavery to benefit the slave?
From Wiki: Abolitionism was a movement to end slavery, whether formal or informal. In Western Europe and the Americas, abolitionism was a historical movement to end the African slave trade and set slaves free. The Spanish government enacted the first European law abolishing colonial slavery in 1542, although this law was not widely enforced. Later, in the 17th century, English Quakers and evangelical religious groups condemned slavery (by then applied mostly to Africans) as un-Christian; in the 18th century, abolition was part of the message of the First Great Awakening in the Thirteen Colonies; and in the same period, rationalist thinkers of the Enlightenment criticized it for violating the rights of man. The Somersett's case in 1772, which emancipated a slave in England, helped launch the British movement to abolish slavery. Though anti-slavery sentiments were widespread by the late 18th century, the colonies and emerging nations that used slave labor continued to do so: French and English territories in the West Indies, South America, and the South of the United States.
After the American Revolutionary War established the United States, northern states, beginning with Pennsylvania in 1780, passed legislation during the next two decades abolishing slavery, sometimes by gradual emancipation. Massachusetts ratified a constitution that declared all men equal; freedom suits challenging slavery based on this principle brought an end to slavery in the state. In other states, such as Virginia, similar declarations of rights were interpreted by the courts not applicable to Africans. During the following decades, the abolitionist movement grew in northern states, and Congress limited the expansion of slavery in new states admitted to the union.
Revolutionary France abolished slavery in 1794, but it was restored by Napoleon in the French colonies more than a decade later after his subversion of the French Revolution. Haiti achieved independence from France in 1804 and brought an end to slavery in its territory, establishing the second republic in the western hemisphere. Britain banned the importation of African slaves in its colonies in 1807, and the United States followed in 1808. Britain abolished slavery throughout the British Empire with the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, the French colonies abolished it 15 years later, and slavery in the United States was abolished in 1865, after the American Civil War, with the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
In Eastern Europe, groups organized to abolish the enslavement of the Roma in Wallachia and Moldavia; and to emancipate the serfs in Russia (Emancipation reform of 1861). It was declared illegal in 1948 under the Universal Rights of Man of the United Nations. The last country to abolish legal slavery was Mauritania, where it was officially abolished by presidential decree in 1981. Today, child and adult slavery and forced labor are illegal in most countries, as well as being against international law, but a high rate of human trafficking for labor and for sexual bondage continues, believed to affect millions of adults and children.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the years leading up to the U.S. Civil War (April 12, 1861 – May 10, 1865) Slavery was certainly a hot topic, but it was not “The” topic that boiled the blood of the southern Albino, “States Rights” was. The States Rights to Make Money that is!
In truth, the Cotton Gin as patented by Eli Whitney, was the cause of the U.S. Civil War. Prior to the introduction of the mechanical cotton gin, cotton had required considerable labor to clean and separate the fibers from the seeds. With Eli Whitney’s introduction of “teeth” in his cotton gin to comb out the cotton and separate the seeds, cotton became a tremendously profitable business, creating many fortunes in the Antebellum South. The invention of the cotton gin caused massive growth in the production of cotton in the United States, concentrated mostly in the South. As a result, the South became even more dependent on plantations and slavery, with plantation agriculture becoming the largest sector of the Southern economy. While it was true that the cotton gin reduced the labor of removing seeds, it did not reduce the need for slaves to grow and pick the cotton. In fact, the opposite occurred. Cotton growing became so profitable for the planters that it greatly increased their demand for both land and slave labor. In 1790 there were six slave states; in 1860 there were 15. By 1860, the Southern states were providing two-thirds of the world’s supply of cotton, and up to 80% of the crucial British market. The cotton gin thus “transformed cotton as a crop and the American South into the globe's first agricultural powerhouse
The history and economy of the North were very different from that of the South. Factories developed in the North, while large cotton plantations developed in the South. The Southern plantation owners relied on slave labor for economic success while the northerners relied on paid workers. The Southerners crops were sold to cotton mills in England, and other parts, and the ships returned with cheap manufactured goods produced in Europe. By the early 1800s, Northern factories were producing many of those same goods. To encourage Southerners to sell their cotton to northern factories and buy their “finished” goods from northern factories: Northern politicians were able to pass heavy taxes on imported goods from Europe, so that Southerners would have to buy goods from the North. These taxes angered Southerners, but in a democratic system of government they lacked power. The population of the Free states was 20 million, while the population of the Slave states was only 8 million. Democracy was not useful to the southerners, so they came up with a new concept:
States' Rights
Southerners felt that the Federal government was passing laws, such as the import taxes, that treated them unfairly. They believed that individual states had the right to "nullify", or overturn, any law the Federal government passed. They also believed that individual states had the right to leave the United States and form their own independent country.
Therefore the election of Abraham Lincoln, as President in 1860 sealed the deal. His victory, without a single Southern electoral vote, was a clear signal to the Southern states that they had lost all influence. Feeling excluded from the political system, they turned to the only alternative they believed was left to them: secession, a political decision that led directly to war.
The Civil War officially started on April 10, 1861, when Brig. Gen. Beauregard, in command of the provisional Confederate forces at Charleston, South Carolina, demanded the surrender of the Union garrison of Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor.
Lincoln was NOT the great emancipator; as a matter of fact his position on slavery is quite murky. But there is no doubt that his greatest interest was in saving the union. Accordingly, it was not until over two years after the start of the war that Lincoln signed “The Emancipation Proclamation”.
The Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order issued by President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863, as a war measure during the American Civil War, to all segments of the Executive branch (including the Army and Navy) of the United States. It proclaimed the freedom of slaves in the ten states that were still in rebellion, thus applying to 3.1 million of the 4 million slaves in the U.S. at the time. The Proclamation was based on the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief of the armed forces; it was not a law passed by Congress. The Proclamation also ordered that "suitable" persons among those freed could be enrolled into the paid service of United States' forces, and ordered the Union Army (and all segments of the Executive branch) to "recognize and maintain the freedom of" the ex-slaves. The Proclamation did not compensate the owners, did not itself outlaw slavery, and did not make the ex-slaves (called freedmen) citizens. It made the eradication of slavery an explicit war goal, in addition to the goal of reuniting the Union.
Around 20,000 to 50,000 slaves in regions where rebellion had already been subdued were immediately emancipated. It could not be enforced in areas still under rebellion, but as the Union army took control of Confederate regions, the Proclamation provided the legal framework for freeing more than 3 million more slaves in those regions. Prior to the Proclamation, in accordance with the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, escaped slaves were either returned to their masters or held in camps as contraband for later return. The Proclamation only applied to slaves in Confederate held lands; it did not apply to those in the five slave states that were not in rebellion, nor to most regions already controlled by the Union army. Emancipation in those regions would come after separate state actions and/or the December 1865 ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, which made slavery illegal everywhere in the U.S.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^There was undoubtedly an economic reason for the Europeans (sans Spain) to abolish slavery, what does the latest research say?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike what was the reason Spain abolished slavery? Also the other European nations abolision. You are only talking about the U.S. motives
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
"As early as 1687, the Spanish government had begun to offer asylum to slaves from British colonies. In 1693, the Spanish Crown officially proclaimed that runaways would find freedom in Florida, in return for Catholic conversion and a term of four years of service to the Crown.[5] In effect, Spain created a maroon colony as a front-line defense against English attacks from the north. Spain also intended to destabilize the plantation economy of the British colonies by creating a free black community that would serve as a destination for slaves seeking escape and refuge.[6}"
quote:Originally posted by claus3600: Never knew this
Gracia Real de Santa Teresa de Mosé
"As early as 1687, the Spanish government had begun to offer asylum to slaves from British colonies. In 1693, the Spanish Crown officially proclaimed that runaways would find freedom in Florida, in return for Catholic conversion and a term of four years of service to the Crown.[5] In effect, Spain created a maroon colony as a front-line defense against English attacks from the north. Spain also intended to destabilize the plantation economy of the British colonies by creating a free black community that would serve as a destination for slaves seeking escape and refuge.[6}"
claus3600 - The reason for the thread is because I realized how misinformed we were on the subject.
A word of advice, the above doesn't sound right, so do not accept their explanations of what and why, without secondary confirmations. Surely by now you must realize that Albinos can't help but lie.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Mike what was the reason Spain abolished slavery?
and what was the reason that some of the other European countries like France, Britain, Portugal and the Netherlands abolished slavery?
I was hoping that the thread would spur research into those very same questions. For my own part, I just don't know. But I'm looking for "Common Sense" reasons, as opposed to the normal bullsh1t that Albinos feed the world. I mean, the real reasons for the civil war make perfect sense, and I'm hoping for that type of clarity on the other questions.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Mike what was the reason Spain abolished slavery?
and what was the reason that some of the other European countries like France, Britain, Portugal and the Netherlands abolished slavery?
I was hoping that the thread would spur research into those very same questions. For my own part, I just don't know. But I'm looking for "Common Sense" reasons, as opposed to the normal bullsh1t that Albinos feed the world. I mean, the real reasons for the civil war make perfect sense, and I'm hoping for that type of clarity on the other questions.
well you said
"
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^There was undoubtedly an economic reason for the Europeans (sans Spain) to abolish slavery, what does the latest research say?
you seem to have isolated Spain for some reason
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some Historian states slavery was abolished because of the industrial revolution. Capitalist society no longer need free labor they wanted customer to buy their product. The free slave were their new customer.
There is also a religious explanation after 400 years of slavery black African people like the Jew of the bible were order free by Rome(Church).
quote: Some Historian states slavery was abolished because of the industrial revolution. Capitalist society no longer need free labor they wanted customer to buy their product.
Yes, common sense would state that the slave trade and slavery were abolished because they were no longer lucrative - I'm not convinced moral considerations would trump economic interest.
@mike111
quote: The reason for the thread is because I realized how misinformed we were on the subject.
Yes, I have to admit that it's been years since I read anything on slavery. Despite reading about all the savagery and evil, I never developed a detailed knowledge of why it was abolished.
About a decade ago I saw a BBC documentary on the slave revolt in Jamaica in the early 1830s, and if I remember correctly, two of the reasons were:
-the fear that another uprising might become a revolution like the one seen in Haiti -exhaustion of the soil due to the over- cultivation of sugar cane
Posts: 838 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Slaves are also profitable in factories. It goes on in China, South East Asia, Mexico, Russia and other places
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do we have anyone with an economics background who can recommend titles, and/or detail the extent to which slavery and the slave trade contributed towards Western global primacy?
Posts: 838 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by claus3600: Never knew this
Gracia Real de Santa Teresa de Mosé
"As early as 1687, the Spanish government had begun to offer asylum to slaves from British colonies. In 1693, the Spanish Crown officially proclaimed that runaways would find freedom in Florida, in return for Catholic conversion and a term of four years of service to the Crown.[5] In effect, Spain created a maroon colony as a front-line defense against English attacks from the north. Spain also intended to destabilize the plantation economy of the British colonies by creating a free black community that would serve as a destination for slaves seeking escape and refuge.[6}"
^^FLorida has a long history of Black Maroons/freedom fighters. See also "Black Society in SPanish FLorida" by Jane Landers, and "The Black Seminoles" by Kenneth Porter re extensive Black-Indian alliances and the black maroon society, independent of the SPanish, before & after they left. Also See "FInding Florida" by TD ALlen- which shows much of the version passed off as fact in historical sites or even offician textbooks is really a sometimes bogus "Disney" version. All these books show that the "Anglo" spin on US history is limited in many areas as far as giving a full accounting.
-the fear that another uprising might become a revolution like the one seen in Haiti -exhaustion of the soil due to the over- cultivation of sugar cane
^^How did they figure the 2nd reason, that over-cultivation of sugar helped spark the revolt?
CLaus said: Do we have anyone with an economics background who can recommend titles, and/or detail the extent to which slavery and the slave trade contributed towards Western global primacy?
^^Not an economist, but I have found the following titles helpful:
The Slave Trade by Hugh Thomas- a good general overview of slavery
Capitalism and SLavery by Eric Williams- classic analysis by the former Trinidad Prime Minister and scholar. Shows how British Empire benefited from slavery and argued that the British abolition of their Atlantic slave trade in 1807 was motivated primarily by economics —rather than by altruism or humanitarianism. COntrast with Adam Hochchild's more recent "Bury The Chains" where Hochchild shows a clear humanitarian component alongside the economics (slave owners were compensated by the empire for their losses by the way- they got paid to the tune of 4-6% of Britain's GNP/GDP- cant remember exact figure or category).
How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, and The Groundings With My Brothers by Walter Rodney. Classic Marxist and Black Power take by the Caribbean historian
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^As we saw with the U.S. civil war, it's always about the money, though Albinos lie to puff themselves up, it's about the money. Thus when Williams says: "British abolition of their Atlantic slave trade in 1807 was motivated primarily by economics — rather than by altruism or humanitarianism" it rings a bell. That's where we need to look.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic States (colonies), including Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, had legally permitted slavery in the 17th, 18th, and even part of the 19th centuries, but in the generation or two before the American Civil War, almost all slaves in such states had been emancipated through a series of statutes.
_____________________________________
why did these free states exist before the Civil war?
and after you free slaves then what do you do with them?
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: How did they figure the 2nd reason, that over-cultivation of sugar helped spark the revolt?
I think this relates to the idea that slavery was no longer so lucrative, so abolition wouldn't have been so wrenching.
@lioness
quote: why did these free states exist before the Civil war?
One might ask why they permitted slavery in the first place.What were the motivations?
quote:and after you free slaves then what do you do with them?
Use them as cheap labour or leave them to rot since you're no longer responsible for them? What would you say?
Posts: 838 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: why did these free states exist before the Civil war?
and after you free slaves then what do you do with them?
He,he,he:
I'm not sure if you're playing Devils Advocate or just stupid lioness:
In Colonial America agriculture was the primary livelihood for 90% of the population; most towns were shipping points for the export of agricultural products. Most farms were geared toward subsistence production for family use.
Before 1720, most colonists in the mid-Atlantic region worked with small-scale farming and paid for imported manufactures by supplying the West Indies with corn and flour. After 1720, mid-Atlantic farming stimulated with the international demand for wheat. A massive population explosion in Europe brought wheat prices up. By 1770, a bushel of wheat cost twice as much as it did in 1720. Farmers also expanded their production of flaxseed and corn since flax was a high demand in the Irish linen industry and a demand for corn existed in the West Indies.
Some Colonial Settlers who just arrived purchased farms and shared in this export wealth, but many poor German immigrants and Scots-Irish settlers were forced to work as agricultural wage laborers. Merchants and artisans hired teen-aged indentured servants as workers for a domestic system for the manufacture of cloth and other goods. Merchants often bought wool and flax from farmers and employed newly arrived immigrants, who had been textile workers in Ireland and Germany, to work in their homes spinning the materials into yarn and cloth. Large farmers and merchants became wealthy, while farmers with smaller farms and artisans only made enough for subsistence.
After 1800, cotton became the chief crop in southern plantations, and the chief American export.
southern farmers made the mule their preferred draft animal in the South during the 1860s-1920s, primarily because it fit better with the region's geography. Mules better withstood the heat of summer, and their smaller size and hooves were well suited for such crops as cotton, tobacco, and sugar. The character of soils and climate in the lower South hindered the creation of pastures, so mule breeding tended to reside in the border states of Missouri, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Transportation costs combined with topography to influence the prices of mules and horses, which in turn affected patterns of mule use. The economic and production advantages associated with mules made their use a progressive step for Southern agriculture that endured until the mechanization brought by tractors.
After the Civil War, cotton production expanded to small farms, operated by white and black tenant farmers and sharecroppers. The quantity exported held steady, at 3,000,000 bales, but prices on the world market fell. Although there was some work involved in planting the seeds, and cultivating or holding out the weeds, the critical labor input for cotton was in the picking. How much a cot in a bit operation could produce depended on how many hands (men women and children) were available. Finally in the 1950s, new mechanical harvesters allowed a handful of workers to pick as much as 100 had done before. The result was a large-scale exodus of the white and black cotton farmers from the south.
It is obvious that their lack of adequate melanin would have put them at a SEVERE risk of sun burn.
Of course most so called blacks don't realize this because they are still taught that dark skin is a DISADVANTAGE.
Posts: 108 | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
geeskee55 - As you know, many Negroes were taught, and believed, that Blacks were enslaved because they were "Inferior": when quite the reverse was the case, Blacks were enslaved because they were "Superior".
Albinos and their "Near-White" mulattoes cannot withstand the power of the Sun, therefore they could not work the lands that they had newly conquered. Their only solution was forcing pigmented people to work those lands for them.
Lets go around the World:
Australia:
As you can see, Whites can only be comfortable in the extreme south of the country. And while they always show you pictures of "Rugged" Whites working the land, it should come as no surprise that it was in fact "Aboriginals" who actually did the work.
The 1946 Aboriginal Stockmens Strike In Western Australia
On the 1 st of May, 1946, an estimated 600 Aboriginal stockmen throughout the north of Western Australia refused to work until they had been guaranteed a minimum wage of thirty shillings a week. Some had previously been receiving food and clothing but no pay; others had been paid up to twelve shillings a week.
In the history of strike action, this ranks as one of the most unique and most brilliantly engineered strikes. It was organised by Dooley Bin Bin with his friend Don McLeod acting as consultant. The organisation was a mammoth task. Dooley with no means of communication other than way of mouth, had to organise people scattered over a huge area, people who knew that to follow him would put them outside the law: they would be leaving their place of employment without permission, breaking one of the laws made for them alone in this country. They knew the police and pastoralists could and would arrest them, that they would be brought back chained together by their hands and necks on the back of the station trucks and put to work again, and they would have to leave again and go on until there was some change. Yet upward of 800 people left work that day and 600 refused to return unless their requests were met.
Dooley Bin Bin and some of the striking stockmen were arrested , chained by hands and necks and tried time and time again by local J.P.'s, who McLeod claims were either station owners whose striking stockmen were now brought before them on the bench, or men involved financially or by relationship with forces opposing the payment of wages to Aborigines.
Don McLeod was also tried on seven occasions, sometimes for counselling natives sometimes for being within five chains of two or more natives for which the penalty was a fine of $400 or two years gaol or both.
The numerous arrests, food problems and evictions from tribal land did not break the people's spirit. The strike continued for a year. In the end the Aborigines won their demands.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic States (colonies), including Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, had legally permitted slavery in the 17th, 18th, and even part of the 19th centuries, but in the generation or two before the American Civil War, almost all slaves in such states had been emancipated through a series of statutes.
_____________________________________
why did these free states exist before the Civil war?
and after you free slaves then what do you do with them?
Mike asking you a question is like talking to a piece of wood.
You didn't didn't address the questions.
If blacks were needed because picking was too uncomfortable for whites then why bother freeing slaves? Cotton is not the only agricultural product anyway. Who is going to pick vegetables?
And why did free states exist before the civil war?
Look, if the South was making $2 for every $1 you made and the North hampered them making them go back down to $1 by abolishing slavery they still not making more, then everybody is making $1
And if the North was being economically outdone by Southern slave states then why did they have free states and instead use the free labour of slaves for other purposes, construction projects etc and later factories? Why pay for that work to be done?
And what white supremacist (aka all white people) would free slaves for any reason?
And looking at Britain profits from the slave trade amounted to less than 1% of total domestic investment in Britain.
And why did white abolitionists made speeches appealing to morality even if their motivation was money? That would have no effect on white people since white people by nature hate blacks.
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic States (colonies), including Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, had legally permitted slavery in the 17th, 18th, and even part of the 19th centuries, but in the generation or two before the American Civil War, almost all slaves in such states had been emancipated through a series of statutes.
_____________________________________
why did these free states exist before the Civil war?
and after you free slaves then what do you do with them?
Mike asking you a question is like talking to a piece of wood.
You didn't didn't address the questions.
If blacks were needed because picking was too uncomfortable for whites then why bother freeing slaves? Cotton is not the only agricultural product anyway. Who is going to pick vegetables?
And why did free states exist before the civil war?
Look, if the South was making $2 for every $1 you made and the North hampered them making them go back down to $1 by abolishing slavery they still not making more, then everybody is making $1
And if the North was being economically outdone by Southern slave states then why did they have free states and instead use the free labour of slaves for other purposes, construction projects etc and later factories? Why pay for that work to be done?
And what white supremacist (aka all white people) would free slaves for any reason?
And looking at Britain profits from the slave trade amounted to less than 1% of total domestic investment in Britain.
And why did white abolitionists made speeches appealing to morality even if their motivation was money? That would have no effect on white people since white people by nature hate blacks.
Lioness, an absolute necessity is being able to add 2+2 and getting 4. As with any venue like this forum, a certain amount intelligence is absolutely necessary.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike there are answers to these questions. You just don't have a handle on the economics, can't explain these things in detail yet. fail
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: And why did white abolitionists made speeches appealing to morality even if their motivation was money? That would have no effect on white people since white people by nature hate blacks.
I don't think anyone is saying that morality motivated the white abolitionists - the suspicion is that aboliton itself was achieved because the slave trade and slavery were no longer lucrative.
Do you think the slave trade and slavery would have been abolished if they were still lucrative?
quote:And looking at Britain profits from the slave trade amounted to less than 1% of total domestic investment in Britain.
That's interesting, do you have a source for that?
Posts: 838 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote: And why did white abolitionists made speeches appealing to morality even if their motivation was money? That would have no effect on white people since white people by nature hate blacks.
I don't think anyone is saying that morality motivated the white abolitionists - the suspicion is that aboliton itself was achieved because the slave trade and slavery were no longer lucrative.
statements and speeches made by abolishonists were moral appelals, read some. You may think they were phoney. But I'm saying why even have such a pretense? Some protest of slave trading by the Spanish came from the church. Other Christians groups such as the Quakers had problesm with it. I don't know much about the subject but it seems they had mixed motives including self interest also
quote:Originally posted by claus3600: Do you think the slave trade and slavery would have been abolished if they were still lucrative?
compared to what?
The people don't all disappear. They have to be provided for and paid wages. Is that more lucrative? China and other places have slave labor factories. Picking cotton and cutting sugar cane are not the only uses for slaves.
quote:And looking at Britain profits from the slave trade amounted to less than 1% of total domestic investment in Britain.
That's interesting, do you have a source for that? [/QB][/QUOTE]
David Richardson, "The British Empire and the Atlantic Slave Trade, 1660–1807," in P. J. Marshall (ed.), The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume II: The Eighteenth Century (1998), pp. 440–64.
To My Old Master, Colonel P.H. Anderson, Big Spring, Tennessee
Sir: I got your letter, and was glad to find that you had not forgotten Jourdon, and that you wanted me to come back and live with you again, promising to do better for me than anybody else can. I have often felt uneasy about you. I thought the Yankees would have hung you long before this, for harboring Rebs they found at your house. I suppose they never heard about your going to Colonel Martin's to kill the Union soldier that was left by his company in their stable. Although you shot at me twice before I left you, I did not want to hear of your being hurt, and am glad you are still living. It would do me good to go back to the dear old home again, and see Miss Mary and Miss Martha and Allen, Esther, Green, and Lee. Give my love to them all, and tell them I hope we will meet in the better world, if not in this. I would have gone back to see you all when I was working in the Nashville Hospital, but one of the neighbors told me that Henry intended to shoot me if he ever got a chance.
I want to know particularly what the good chance is you propose to give me. I am doing tolerably well here. I get twenty-five dollars a month, with victuals and clothing; have a comfortable home for Mandy,—the folks call her Mrs. Anderson,—and the children—Milly, Jane, and Grundy—go to school and are learning well. The teacher says Grundy has a head for a preacher. They go to Sunday school, and Mandy and me attend church regularly. We are kindly treated. Sometimes we overhear others saying, "Them colored people were slaves" down in Tennessee. The children feel hurt when they hear such remarks; but I tell them it was no disgrace in Tennessee to belong to Colonel Anderson. Many darkeys would have been proud, as I used to be, to call you master. Now if you will write and say what wages you will give me, I will be better able to decide whether it would be to my advantage to move back again.
As to my freedom, which you say I can have, there is nothing to be gained on that score, as I got my free papers in 1864 from the Provost-Marshal-General of the Department of Nashville. Mandy says she would be afraid to go back without some proof that you were disposed to treat us justly and kindly; and we have concluded to test your sincerity by asking you to send us our wages for the time we served you. This will make us forget and forgive old scores, and rely on your justice and friendship in the future. I served you faithfully for thirty-two years, and Mandy twenty years. At twenty-five dollars a month for me, and two dollars a week for Mandy, our earnings would amount to eleven thousand six hundred and eighty dollars. Add to this the interest for the time our wages have been kept back, and deduct what you paid for our clothing, and three doctor's visits to me, and pulling a tooth for Mandy, and the balance will show what we are in justice entitled to. Please send the money by Adams's Express, in care of V. Winters, Esq., Dayton, Ohio. If you fail to pay us for faithful labors in the past, we can have little faith in your promises in the future. We trust the good Maker has opened your eyes to the wrongs which you and your fathers have done to me and my fathers, in making us toil for you for generations without recompense. Here I draw my wages every Saturday night; but in Tennessee there was never any pay-day for the negroes any more than for the horses and cows. Surely there will be a day of reckoning for those who defraud the laborer of his hire.
In answering this letter, please state if there would be any safety for my Milly and Jane, who are now grown up, and both good-looking girls. You know how it was with poor Matilda and Catherine. I would rather stay here and starve—and die, if it come to that—than have my girls brought to shame by the violence and wickedness of their young masters. You will also please state if there has been any schools opened for the colored children in your neighborhood. The great desire of my life now is to give my children an education, and have them form virtuous habits.
Say howdy to George Carter, and thank him for taking the pistol from you when you were shooting at me.
Unfortunately few of you bothered to analyze the true meaning of the letter if it's genuine.
1) It's after the civil war, hundreds of thousands of White men are returning home with no way of supporting themselves. Jobs are at a premium, so why is this old White man begging a Black man to come back to work, instead of offering work to a former confederate soldier? Seems to me that the only reason for not offering work to former soldiers is because it was understood that they couldn't do the work.
2) The letter demonstrates writing knowledge and skills still uncommon to many in the south. How would a slave acquire that much education?Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by white nubian: Originally posted by the lioness,: Mike is under the impression that all Africans farm bare back with grass skirts on
white nubian and Liones:
Pigmented people has a CHOICE as to how to dress in the fields.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Aside from the fact that the Albinos and their West African cohorts had taken the old institution of slavery to new depths of depravity never before experienced or imagined in human history,
Mike you say that African Americans are derived from Black Euroepan nobles. Why would West Africans have anything to do with it?
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't think anyone is saying that morality motivated the white abolitionists
Oops, that should read:
'I don't think anyone is saying that the white abolitionists weren't motivated by morality.'
But again, the fact that they were successful doesn't mean that morality trumped economic considerations. It may simply have been that with the decline in the value of slavery, they were pushing at an open door.
The slave trade and slavery lasted for some 300 years - are you really implying that it wasn't economically valuable?
Slave trading was at its height between 1600 and 1800, with the abolition of the trade happening in the early 1800's. Do you think that even if the slave trade and slavery had retained their economic value, that they would have still been abolished?
quote: The people don't all disappear. They have to be provided for and paid wages. Is that more lucrative?
What was the American Colonization Society all about? From John Reader's 'Africa: Biography of the Continent' -
'In the northern states many slaves had already been freed by the 1800s and although white sentiment was inclining towards the view that the abolition was a just and proper thing, white prejudice nonetheless regarded the presence of so many free blacks in their communities as a problem. At a meeting of concerned citizens held in Washington tavern in December 1816 Henry Clay proposed a solution: send them back to Africa.'
Likewise the British previously with Sierra Leone.
Posts: 838 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't think anyone is saying that morality motivated the white abolitionists
Oops, that should read:
'I don't think anyone is saying that the white abolitionists weren't motivated by morality.'
You had it right the first time. Mike is saying just that, white abolishonists were motivated by money not morality. It may be true of some of them
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Mike111 Sounds like you've misinterpreted.
@Lioness
quote: Mike is saying just that, white abolishonists were motivated by money not morality. It may be true of some of them
From what I read decades ago, there certainly were white abolitionists who pursued abolition as a moral cause. It's why I regard the argument that we shouldn't judge that period from our modern viewpoint as bullshit.
Posts: 838 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by claus3600: From what I read decades ago, there certainly were white abolitionists who pursued abolition as a moral cause. It's why I regard the argument that we shouldn't judge that period from our modern viewpoint as bullshit.
Nowhere have I said that there weren't White abolitionist or that the weren't motivated by morality.
The issue at hand is why were abolitionist laws passed: laws are passed by politicians, they are rarely motivated by morality.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: many laws are moral codes. laws against murder, rape, assault, theft etc.
Stupid Cow;
laws against murder, rape, assault, theft etc. are self serving, self survival laws. Moral stands are where you are not directly impacted; though you may be later impacted.
As an example, I suspect that abolitionist Whites understood that the institution of slavery was a revolving door, just as they had been slaves before, sooner or later, they would be slaves again.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The issue at hand is why were abolitionist laws passed: laws are passed by politicians, they are rarely motivated by morality.
I agree.
@lioness
quote:many laws are moral codes. laws against murder, rape, assault, theft etc.
You still need to explain why the slave trade and slavery lasted some 300 years if there was no real economic value.
If indeed it wasn't particularly profitable, then the fact that it was retained for so long is even worse.
Posts: 838 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by claus3600: You still need to explain why the slave trade and slavery lasted some 300 years if there was no real economic value.
If indeed it wasn't particularly profitable, then the fact that it was retained for so long is even worse. [/QB]
I never said it wasn't profitable. I was just saying David Richardson in his 1998 book "The British Empire and the Atlantic Slave Trade, say that the profits were not to the degree that Eric Williams in his 1944 book Capitalism and Slavery claimed they were and which would contribute to his theory more if they were.
This explanation of the rise of Caribbean slavery was pioneered by Eric Williams in his 1943 work, Capitalism and Slavery. Williams outlined the shifts from enslavement of the local Indian populations, to the use of white convict or indentured labour to black slavery. In Williams' words, the origin of black slavery lay with economic, not racial motives: "It had to do not with the colour of the labourer, but the cheapness of the labour"
" Blackburn argues that the most recent research tends to support the 'Williams thesis'. For example, a number of historians have revised down the growth rate of the British economy during the industrial revolution. Blackburn suggests that this would strengthen the role of colonial trade in funding industrialisation. Working on figures for 1770, Blackburn argues that triangular trade profits may have provided anything between 20.9% and 55% of Britain's gross fixed capital formation. CENTRAL TO ERIC Williams' work was the hypothesis that the profits of the 'triangular trade' between Europe, Africa and the New World had "made an enormous contribution to Britain's industrial development".3
However, this view has been controversial among historians, including Marxists. Firstly, slavery has tended to be seen as a backward and unproductive system which could not therefore have produced sufficient profits to assist capitalist accumulation. Secondly, the debate on the transition to capitalism has tended to focus on the internal economic and social changes which were necessary for capitalist development. This debate has tended to ignore or minimise the role of external factors.
Slavery and the rise of capitalism
The Making of New World Slavery: from the Baroque to the Modern, 1492-1800. By Robin Blackburn, Verso, 1997 (Pbk, 1998). Reviewed by Matt Wrack
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is an interesting quote from the review of Eric Williams book:
British Prime Minister William Pitt wanted to revert the loss of the European market to San Domingo by an international abolition of the slave trade which would ruin the still expanding foreign West Indian sugar islands, which would pave the way for the domination of the sugar market by British East Indian sugar. When the San Domingo planters, out of fear of Jacobinism, white and black, offered the island to Britain, Pitt’s zeal for abolition dried up and abolitionists could avail nothing.
The Jacobite Risings were a series of uprisings, rebellions, and wars in Great Britain and Ireland occurring between 1688 and 1746. The uprisings were aimed at returning James VII of Scotland and II of England, and later his descendants of the House of Stuart, to the throne after he was deposed by Parliament during the Glorious Revolution. The series of conflicts takes its name from Jacobus, the Latin form of James. (The house of Stuart were Black and mulatto rulers of Britain).
Does anyone know if that pertains to White and Black Jacobite's or White and Black San Domingo planters?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
: a member of any of various Monophysite Eastern churches; especially : a member of the Monophysite Syrian church Origin of JACOBITE
Middle English, from Medieval Latin Jacobita, from Jacobus Baradaeus (Jacob Baradai) †578 Syrian monk First Known Use: 15th century _______________________________________________________
Jacobitism refers to the political movement in Great Britain and Ireland to restore the Roman Catholic Stuart King James II of England and his heirs to the thrones of England, Scotland and Ireland. The movement took its name from Jacobus, the Latinised form of James, and refers to a long series of Jacobite risings between 1688 and 1746. After James II was deposed in 1688 and replaced by his daughter Mary II, ruling jointly with her husband and first cousin (James's nephew) William III, the Stuarts lived in exile, occasionally attempting to regain the throne. The strongholds of Jacobitism were the Scottish Highlands, Ireland and Northern England. Some support also existed in Wales.
James II and VII The name of the movement derives from deposed Stuart monarch, James II and VII
The capitulation to profit over principle demoralized the assembly, especially the Jacobins, the left wing of the revolution, and their supporters among the Parisian masses. The capitulation also gave the green light to reaction. Royalist forces won the day, repressed the masses, and scattered the Jacobin radicals who fled or went into hiding.
But as James argues, “phases of revolution are not decided in parliaments, they are only registered there”(81). Amid the tide of reaction, the Jacobins sharpened their ideas and cultivated their leadership of the French artisans and peasants. In San Domingue, James writes, the Black slaves “had heard of the revolution and had construed it in their own image: the white slaves in France had risen, and killed their masters, and were now enjoying the fruits of the earth. It was gravely inaccurate in fact, but they had caught the spirit of thing. Liberty. Equality. Fraternity”
Toussaint Breda, then using a last name borrowed from the plantation on which he labored, watched the rising from a distance, protecting the plantation and its mistress from harm. He was not a slave; he had been freed for quite some time. He was educated, literate, and had acquired at least one plantation and slaves of his own.5 He had achieved as much as any free Black man could in San Domingue. He certainly had more to lose than his chains.
The Black Jacobins
Yet Toussaint, Jean Francois, and Biassou did not rally to Sonthanax and the French Republic. Instead they allied themselves with monarchist and pro-slavery Spain, which hoped to use them as proxies bought with promises of individual liberty to conquer the colony. Toussaint was not fooled by the Spanish, and his decision was certainly not the result of some African allegiance to kingship. It was a rational calculation. He knew that Sonthanax had no power to abolish slavery; that lay in the hands of the assembly, which had yet to prove itself an ally of the slaves.
The Black Jacobins: Toussaint L'Ouverture and the San Domingo Revolution (1938), by Afro-Trinidadian writer C. L. R. James (4 January 1901–19 May 1989), is a history of the 1791-1804 Haitian Revolution. The text places the revolution in the context of the French Revolution, and focuses on the leadership of Toussaint L'Ouverture, who was born a slave but rose to prominence espousing the French Revolutionary ideals of liberty and equality. These ideals, which many French revolutionaries did not maintain consistently with regard to the black humanity of their colonial possessions, were embraced, according to James, with a greater purity by the persecuted blacks of Haiti; such ideals "meant far more to them than to any Frenchman."[1]
The Black Jacobin (Florisuga fusca), previously placed in the monotypic Melanotrochilus, is a species of hummingbird in the Trochilidae family. It is found in or near Atlantic Forest of eastern Brazil,
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Jacobitism refers to the political movement in Great Britain and Ireland to restore the Roman Catholic Stuart King James II of England and his heirs to the thrones of England, Scotland and Ireland. The movement took its name from Jacobus, the Latinised form of James, and refers to a long series of Jacobite risings between 1688 and 1746. After James II was deposed in 1688 and replaced by his daughter Mary II, ruling jointly with her husband and first cousin (James's nephew) William III, the Stuarts lived in exile, occasionally attempting to regain the throne. The strongholds of Jacobitism were the Scottish Highlands, Ireland and Northern England. Some support also existed in Wales.
The name of the movement derives from deposed Stuart monarch, James II and VII
The capitulation to profit over principle demoralized the assembly, especially the Jacobins, the left wing of the revolution, and their supporters among the Parisian masses. The capitulation also gave the green light to reaction. Royalist forces won the day, repressed the masses, and scattered the Jacobin radicals who fled or went into hiding.
But as James argues, “phases of revolution are not decided in parliaments, they are only registered there”(81). Amid the tide of reaction, the Jacobins sharpened their ideas and cultivated their leadership of the French artisans and peasants. In San Domingue, James writes, the Black slaves “had heard of the revolution and had construed it in their own image: the white slaves in France had risen, and killed their masters, and were now enjoying the fruits of the earth. It was gravely inaccurate in fact, but they had caught the spirit of thing. Liberty. Equality. Fraternity”
Toussaint Breda, then using a last name borrowed from the plantation on which he labored, watched the rising from a distance, protecting the plantation and its mistress from harm. He was not a slave; he had been freed for quite some time. He was educated, literate, and had acquired at least one plantation and slaves of his own.5 He had achieved as much as any free Black man could in San Domingue. He certainly had more to lose than his chains.
The Black Jacobins
Yet Toussaint, Jean Francois, and Biassou did not rally to Sonthanax and the French Republic. Instead they allied themselves with monarchist and pro-slavery Spain, which hoped to use them as proxies bought with promises of individual liberty to conquer the colony. Toussaint was not fooled by the Spanish, and his decision was certainly not the result of some African allegiance to kingship. It was a rational calculation. He knew that Sonthanax had no power to abolish slavery; that lay in the hands of the assembly, which had yet to prove itself an ally of the slaves.
The Black Jacobins: Toussaint L'Ouverture and the San Domingo Revolution (1938), by Afro-Trinidadian writer C. L. R. James (4 January 1901–19 May 1989), is a history of the 1791-1804 Haitian Revolution. The text places the revolution in the context of the French Revolution, and focuses on the leadership of Toussaint L'Ouverture, who was born a slave but rose to prominence espousing the French Revolutionary ideals of liberty and equality. These ideals, which many French revolutionaries did not maintain consistently with regard to the black humanity of their colonial possessions, were embraced, according to James, with a greater purity by the persecuted blacks of Haiti; such ideals "meant far more to them than to any Frenchman."[1]
The Black Jacobin (Florisuga fusca), previously placed in the monotypic Melanotrochilus, is a species of hummingbird in the Trochilidae family. It is found in or near Atlantic Forest of eastern Brazil,
Damn! The Albinos truly DO have a lie for every incident and situation, and sometimes they even turn the words of a Black man around to suit their lies. WOW!
In this case, one of the greatest Albino liars of all time - our very own lioness - has managed to turn words and phrases of a Black man talking about Haiti into comment about Blacks in Britain. Albinos are truly great at lying!
The Black Jacobins C. L. R. James's classic account of Haiti's slave revolt.
Cyril Lionel Robert James (4 January 1901 – 19 May 1989)
In Mike's version of history the sugar plantaion owners in Haiti before the revolution were Black, that's how nutty he he is
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Slavery is defined as the buying and selling of people as commodities. Slaves had no rights, being the property of their owners. The British trade in slaves was mainly from West Africa to North America and the West Indies.
The ships that took slaves from West Africa could conveniently return to Britain loaded with tobacco, sugar, cotton and other American commodities. The trade in slaves was abolished by a British Act of Parliament in 1807, but the condition of slavery itself wasn’t outlawed in Britain till 1838.
After the 1745 Rebellion many defeated Scots Jacobites fled the country to the West Indies to become slave masters on plantations. They were also attracted to the American South, where states such as Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia were developing plantation economies. The Lowlander Robert Burns was one of many others tempted by such prospects: in 1786 the author of ‘A man’s a man for a’ that’ almost emigrated to Jamaica.
Glasgow’s ‘Tobacco Lords’ and merchants profited from the slave trade, as did the merchants of London, Liverpool and Bristol.
Robert Wedderburn (1762-1835) was the son of a Scottish slave owner in Jamaica and his slave mistress Rosanna; he became one of the first black activists in Britain. Joseph Knight was another slave, born in Africa but sold in Jamaica to a Scottish ‘owner’. In 1769 his master took him to Britain, where he ran away from him. When his ‘owner’ then had him arrested, the sheriff of Perth set him free because ‘the regulations in Jamaica, concerning slaves, do not extend to this kingdom’. This view was upheld by the Court of Session in Edinburgh.
The Act of Union in 1707 gave Scottish merchants access to the slave trade. Scots travelled out to the colonies and generated great wealth for Scotland based on slave labour. In 1817 Scots owned almost a third of all the slaves in Jamaica. The 'Tobacco Lords' made their fortunes in the colonies before returning to Scotland, many building large mansions.
Scotland also played a leading role in abolishing the slave trade. On 25 March 1807 the UK Parliament passed the Bill that abolished the trading of slaves in the British Empire. The Abolition of the Slave Trade Act meant that it became illegal to trade in slaves throughout the British Empire and that British ships were banned from being involved in the trade.
_______________________________________________
without me around some people could easily be mislead by Mike's insanity
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting there were black European slave owners in the Carribean. Many black Carribean are light skin since colonial time. The black European were mostly light skin.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic