Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is the American civil war really over??

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Tarek Morgen
    replied
    uh why? We can all agree on that women were not treated equal in ancient and medieval times, and still you can point out several female rulers or influental women. Still nobody would ever dare to claim that women were not discrimenated against in those times.

    Leave a comment:


  • Blue
    replied
    Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
    I haven't read down thread yet, but I think Astralis has begun in on this. My question is this - how many white slaves were there in post revolutionary America & how many black slaveowners owned white slaves?
    I'm still researching that one. Pari has a link that I am trying to read through.

    The racism is in who gets enslaved & in what numbers, not in who owns them.
    On one hand, yes, but if it was truly Racist then I would expect that ALL blacks in the South would be slaves with none being slave or property owners.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bigfella
    replied
    Originally posted by Julie View Post
    I find it fascinating the small number of slaveholders in comparison to the entire population at the time. But at $400.00 as the going rate, that would be understandable. 650,000 lives were lost because 1% of the population owned slaves, and of that 1%, some of them were black slaveowners.
    And? Still not seeing the point of bringing up black slaveowners again.

    Shek has dealt with the deceptive percentages entailed in your figures. More than one third of all people in the Confederacy were slaves and somewhere bewteen one in four & one in three households owned them. Throwing around figures like '1% of the population owned slaves' is not only innacurate, it is deceptive of the scale of the institution.

    650,000 people died because southerners were prepared to break up the union & attack Federal property rather than accept limits on the spread of slavery. Square that with your 1% as you see fit.

    Blame should be spread around to everyone involved in that process, including the slave trade in Africa. Had they not been sold, they would not have been bought. Lincoln even said in one of his addresses, that they were much better off than being sent back to Africa. That I would agree.
    First, you are arguing points not at issue.

    Second, you have provided a compelling argument for manufacturers or sellers of firearms to take responsibility for the deaths they cause, but I don't see what your point has to do with slavery in antebellum America.

    Northern states (and some from the south) would have ended the slave trade at independence had several southern states not threatened the integrity of the new nation over the new issue. Northern states moved to end slavery on their territory in the decades after independence. The south actually entrenched slavery. Manumission became more difficult and abominations like the fugitive slave act were passed. That the south was not only unprepared to act to end slavery, but prepared to split the nation when it refused to extend it cannot be laid at the feet of anyone but those in the south who made those choices & those who supported them.


    After the war, slaveowners came in all colors, not just white. I'm not shifting the responsibility, just placing back where it obviously was.
    OR 'after the war slaveowners were overwhelmingly white. They dominated the south politically & economically & bore a disproportionate responsibility for the secession crisis & its aftermath.' Seems obvious to me.

    There is another point here. You (and others) continually bring up the belief that slavery would have 'died out'. This has been addressed before, but it deserves more attention. This may or may not have been true. We simply cannot know. We do know what lengths slaveowners were prepared to go to to entrench and extend the institution, but his is merely suggestive of what might have happened (though not helpful to your contention). The possible 'death' of slavery is, however, wholly irrelevant here. Like the issue of black slaveowning, it is a red herring. Had the North started a war in order to free slaves then there would at least be some reason to indulge this bit of alternate history. That was not what happened, however. Indeed, there is no evidence that it was going to happen. The farthest the North dared go was to limit the extension of slavery, and even this was too much for most of the slaveowning states.

    As I & others have pointed out, slavery could have been ended without a single death had the Sth chosen to do so. Those deaths are on the heads of those who chose secession & war rather than allow slavery to be limited to the states where it existed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bigfella
    replied
    Originally posted by 7thsfsniper View Post
    I can't speak for everyone, but my reason was to demonstrate that it wasn't a racial thing. If all slave owners where white, then the racial argument could stand. However, the people selling them the slaves in Africa and an actual percentage of owners in the states where black. Blacks owning black slaves.....hardly racially based I think.
    I haven't read down thread yet, but I think Astralis has begun in on this. My question is this - how many white slaves were there in post revolutionary America & how many black slaveowners owned white slaves?

    The racism is in who gets enslaved & in what numbers, not in who owns them.

    (I have read down thread now). Also be aware that indentured servitude, nasty though it was, was not chattel slavery of the type practiced on Africans. Being a slave for 7 years was appalling. Being a slave for life with the knowledge that your children (and most likely grandchildren) will suffer the same fate is not even on the same planet.
    Last edited by Bigfella; 15 Dec 09,, 10:17.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shek
    replied
    Originally posted by Julie View Post
    It existed everywhere was my point.
    Okay. No one's ever claimed anything different.

    Leave a comment:


  • Julie
    replied
    Originally posted by Shek View Post
    This is a complete red herring. Point out where someone has claimed that slavery didn't exist at one point in the Northern states or didn't exist in the border states as the Civil War was raging. You won't find it.

    However, the fact that slavery existed was not sufficient to start a Civil War. The GOP and Northern Democrats participated in the peace conferences post-secession/pre-Sumter where the compromises would have resulted in the 13th Amendment explicitly allowing slavery to remain where it existed, removing any potential doubt about the status of slavery in the United States.

    However, because the South wanted to remove the restrictions on the expansion of slavery that had existed since even before the Constitution, they didn't accept the compromise solutions. Jefferson Davis then ordered that Fort Sumter be fired on, despite the objection of Toombs in his cabinet that it would mark the start of a bloody civil war.

    George Washington's ownership of slaves didn't force the South to secede, and it didn't force Davis/Beauregard to fire on Fort Sumter and start the Civil War. Yet, that's the argument you're making. There simply isn't a causal connection there.
    It existed everywhere was my point.

    Leave a comment:


  • Parihaka
    replied
    Originally posted by astralis View Post
    pari,

    how many of the irish indentured servants/slaves were sent to the 13 colonies vice the Caribbeans?*

    similarly, the issue of mulattos in the US did not arise from breeding programs between irish and blacks, but from plantation owner rape.
    *I can never find accurate figures for that other than it did happen.

    As regards the Mulattos the rape of southern black slaves gained in frequency after the original stocks of Irish women died out. Remember in the early plantations the black slaves were expensive and mostly male: breeding them with the Irish women was an economic decision and required more than just a plantation owner to act as stud with African women to keep up numbers.
    The whole idea was to keep the gene pool at least partly black, the rape of Irish women by white owners was for pleasure, not profit as white or near white slaves were more difficult to justify as time went on.

    Leave a comment:


  • Parihaka
    replied
    Originally posted by Julie View Post
    That is above and beyond barbaric and disgusting.
    Well, slavery eh. William Wlberforce is one of my all-time hero's, and call me a softy but I can never sing Amazing Grace without getting teary-eyed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shek
    replied
    Originally posted by Julie View Post
    The reason the Civil War can not be put to rest is because of the blame game. 100% responsibility for slavery should not be placed upon the South.
    This is a complete red herring. Point out where someone has claimed that slavery didn't exist at one point in the Northern states or didn't exist in the border states as the Civil War was raging. You won't find it.

    However, the fact that slavery existed was not sufficient to start a Civil War. The GOP and Northern Democrats participated in the peace conferences post-secession/pre-Sumter where the compromises would have resulted in the 13th Amendment explicitly allowing slavery to remain where it existed, removing any potential doubt about the status of slavery in the United States.

    However, because the South wanted to remove the restrictions on the expansion of slavery that had existed since even before the Constitution, they didn't accept the compromise solutions. Jefferson Davis then ordered that Fort Sumter be fired on, despite the objection of Toombs in his cabinet that it would mark the start of a bloody civil war.

    George Washington's ownership of slaves didn't force the South to secede, and it didn't force Davis/Beauregard to fire on Fort Sumter and start the Civil War. Yet, that's the argument you're making. There simply isn't a causal connection there.

    Leave a comment:


  • astralis
    replied
    pari,

    how many of the irish indentured servants/slaves were sent to the 13 colonies vice the Caribbeans?

    similarly, the issue of mulattos in the US did not arise from breeding programs between irish and blacks, but from plantation owner rape.

    Leave a comment:


  • Julie
    replied
    That is above and beyond barbaric and disgusting.

    Leave a comment:


  • Parihaka
    replied
    Originally posted by 7thsfsniper View Post
    I was looking from time to time trying to find something on that as well as Asian slaves. Not having much luck though.
    Here's another link with better references/quotes


    http://www.ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/SLAVES.TXT

    Leave a comment:


  • Parihaka
    replied
    Originally posted by astralis View Post
    pari,



    actually, for whites it was indentured servantry, which was a different kettle of fish from slavery. indentured servants were let go with land, tools, and some money to call their own after their time was up.

    however, this ended due to the carribean economy, which was the TRUE cash cow of the new world (not the backwater 13 colonies). small sugar plantations don't pay, and it became far less attractive once indentured servants figured that out. plantation owners turned to black slavery shortly thereafter, and economies of scale soon meant that black slaves became cheaper and cheaper, which led to a boom in the slave trade by the early 19th century.
    Your'e mistaking time periods. From James II to Cromwell it's estimated over 300,000 Irish alone were sold as slaves in the West indies and America.


    Oddly enough this is from a Rastafarian web site, but it outlines pretty much what I've read elsewhere


    The Slaves That Time Forgot

    By John Martin

    They came as slaves; vast human cargo transported on tall British ships bound for the Americas. They were shipped by the hundreds of thousands and included men, women, and even the youngest of children.

    Whenever they rebelled or even disobeyed an order, they were punished in the harshest ways. Slave owners would hang their human property by their hands and set their hands or feet on fire as one form of punishment. They were burned alive and had their heads placed on pikes in the marketplace as a warning to other captives.

    We don’t really need to go through all of the gory details, do we? After all, we know all too well the atrocities of the African slave trade. But, are we talking about African slavery?

    King James II and Charles I led a continued effort to enslave the Irish. Britain’s famed Oliver Cromwell furthered this practice of dehumanizing one’s next door neighbor.

    The Irish slave trade began when James II sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.

    Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.

    From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade. Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to auction them off as well.

    During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers.

    Many people today will avoid calling the Irish slaves what they truly were: Slaves. They’ll come up with terms like “Indentured Servants” to describe what occurred to the Irish. However, in most cases from the 17th and 18th centuries, Irish slaves were nothing more than human cattle.

    As an example, the African slave trade was just beginning during this same period. It is well recorded that African slaves, not tainted with the stain of the hated Catholic theology and more expensive to purchase, were often treated far better than their Irish counterparts.

    African slaves were very expensive during the late 1600s (50 Sterling). Irish slaves came cheap (no more than 5 Sterling). If a planter whipped or branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than killing a more expensive African.

    The English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, which increased the size of the master’s free workforce. Even if an Irish woman somehow obtained her freedom, her kids would remain slaves of her master. Thus, Irish moms, even with this new found emancipation, would seldom abandon their kids and would remain in servitude.

    In time, the English thought of a better way to use these women (in many cases, girls as young as 12) to increase their market share: The settlers began to breed Irish women and girls with African men to produce slaves with a distinct complexion. These new “mulatto” slaves brought a higher price than Irish livestock and, likewise, enabled the settlers to save money rather than purchase new African slaves.

    This practice of interbreeding Irish females with African men went on for several decades and was so widespread that, in 1681, legislation was passed “forbidding the practice of mating Irish slave women to African slave men for the purpose of producing slaves for sale.” In short, it was stopped only because it interfered with the profits of a large slave transport company.

    England continued to ship tens of thousands of Irish slaves for more than a century. Records state that, after the 1798 Irish Rebellion, thousands of Irish slaves were sold to both America and Australia.

    There were horrible abuses of both African and Irish captives. One British ship even dumped 1,302 slaves into the Atlantic Ocean so that the crew would have plenty of food to eat.

    There is little question that the Irish experienced the horrors of slavery as much (if not more in the 17th Century) as the Africans did. There is, also, very little question that those brown, tanned faces you witness in your travels to the West Indies are very likely a combination of African and Irish ancestry.

    In 1839, Britain finally decided on it’s own to end it’s participation in Satan’s highway to hell and stopped transporting slaves. While their decision did not stop pirates from doing what they desired, the new law slowly concluded THIS chapter of nightmarish Irish misery.

    But, if anyone, black or white, believes that slavery was only an African experience, then they’ve got it completely wrong.

    Irish slavery is a subject worth remembering, not erasing from our memories. But, where are our public (and PRIVATE) schools???? Where are the history books? Why is it so seldom discussed?

    Do the memories of hundreds of thousands of Irish victims merit more than a mention from an unknown writer? Or is their story to be one that their English pirates intended: To (unlike the African book) have the Irish story utterly and completely disappear as if it never happened.

    None of the Irish victims ever made it back to their homeland to describe their ordeal. These are the lost slaves; the ones that time and biased history books conveniently forgot.
    Some of my own ancestors who came the NZ were indentured servants, my great great great granmother being one.
    Last edited by Parihaka; 14 Dec 09,, 22:47.

    Leave a comment:


  • Julie
    replied
    Indentured Servants' Experiences 1600-1700

    Indentured Servants' Experiences 1600-1700
    BEFORE THE JOURNEY: "Many of the spirits [people who recruited indentured servants] haunted the London slums and those of Bristol and other seaports. It was not difficult to find hungry and thirsty victims who, over a dinner and much liquor, would sign anything before them. The spirit would then hustle his prey to his headquarters to be added to a waiting company of others, safely kept where they could not escape until a ship was ready for them. An easier way was to pick up a sleeping drunk from the gutter and put him aboard a vessel for America, where, with no indenture, he could be sold to his own disadvantage and with the American planter's gain. Children were valuable and could be enticed with candy to come along with a spirit. Sometimes they, and older people too, were seized by force."

    THE JOURNEY: The ocean journey to America usually took eight to twelve weeks. Indentured servants were packed into the ships tightly, often being held in the hold without a chance to get fresh air. "Every two weeks at sea the[indentured servant] passengers received an allowance of bread. One man and his wife, having eaten their bread in eight days, staggered before the captain and begged him to throw them overboard, for they would otherwise starve before the next bread day. The captain laughed in their faces, while the ship's mate, even more of a brute, gave them a bag of sand and told them to eat that. The couple did die before the next ration of bread, but the captain charged the other passengers for the bread the two would have eaten if they had survived."

    UPON ARRIVAL IN AMERICA: Some indentured servants had their contract of service worked out with waiting American colonists who would be their masters for four to seven years. Others, upon arrival, were bought and sold much in the same manner as slaves. An announcement in the Virginia Gazette read, "Just arrived at Leedstown, the Ship Justitia, with about one Hundred Healthy Servants, Men Women and Boys. . . . The Sale will commence on Tuesday the 2nd of April."

    TREATMENT BY THEIR MASTERS: Indentured servants had few rights. They could not vote. Without the permission of their masters, they were not allowed to marry, to leave their houses or travel, nor buy or sell anything. Female indentured servants were often raped without legal recourse. Masters often whipped and beat their indentured servants. One man testified: "I have seen an Overseer beat a Servant with a cane about the head till the blood has followed, for a fault that is not worth the speaking of...."

    WORK IN AMERICA: In the 1600s, most indentured servants were put to work in the tobacco fields of Virginia and Maryland. This was hard manual labor under the grueling hot summer sun, under which Europeans were not accustomed to working. Overseers were often cruel, beating the servants to make them work faster and harder.

    AFTER CONTRACT WAS COMPLETED: Although many masters craftily figure out ways to extend an indentured servant's bondage (through accusing the servant of stealing, impregnating a female indenture servant, etc.), most indentured servants who survived the frrst four to seven years in America were freed. The master was required (depending upon the rules of the colony) to provide his former servant with the following: clothing, two hoes, three barrels of corn, and fifty acres of land.

    Full Sail - TeacherVision.com

    Leave a comment:


  • astralis
    replied
    pari,

    It was only when the economies of buying Africans from their kin in Africa became more economically viable that the number of black slaves overtook and surpassed whites.
    actually, for whites it was indentured servantry, which was a different kettle of fish from slavery. indentured servants were let go with land, tools, and some money to call their own after their time was up.

    however, this ended due to the carribean economy, which was the TRUE cash cow of the new world (not the backwater 13 colonies). small sugar plantations don't pay, and it became far less attractive once indentured servants figured that out. plantation owners turned to black slavery shortly thereafter, and economies of scale soon meant that black slaves became cheaper and cheaper, which led to a boom in the slave trade by the early 19th century.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X