Author Topic: ZONATION: "Stop Blaming America for Slavery!"  (Read 2231 times)

Offline quiller

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17781
  • Gender: Male
  • Reinstate dueling for Congress
ZONATION: "Stop Blaming America for Slavery!"
« on: April 08, 2016, 03:01:11 AM »


 :thumbup:

Offline quiller

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17781
  • Gender: Male
  • Reinstate dueling for Congress
Re: ZONATION: "Stop Blaming America for Slavery!"
« Reply #1 on: April 08, 2016, 03:29:32 AM »
Walter Hudson, whose photo indicates he may be of the African-American persuasion, has this blistering comment regarding Bernie Sanders telling a black audience he would apologize for slavery....

Quote
The absurdity of this pledge cannot be overstated. Sanders has nothing to apologize for, and no one to apologize to. The notion that America must "'wipe the slate clean' by acknowledging the truth" suggests widespread institutional denial of the historical record. No such denial exists. We would have to search long and far for a single person, let alone an institution, that fails to acknowledge that slavery happened. An apology today, from a non-slave-owner to a constituency of non-slaves, means precisely nothing.

But that's not the worst of it. Sanders openly advocates slavery. It's his entire platform! His expressed goal is to enslave the American population one to another, putting taxpayers on the hook for every conceivable need a resident might have. There exists no fundamental difference between forcing someone to pay for your college and forcing them to pick your cotton. None. It's the same thing. It is slavery, and Bernie Sanders is for it. Worse than impotent posturing, Sander's commitment to apologize for slavery is a vile expression of hypocrisy.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/04/07/bernie-sanders-says-he-would-apologize-for-slavery-if-elected-president/

Offline Bronx

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4126
  • Gender: Male
Re: ZONATION: "Stop Blaming America for Slavery!"
« Reply #2 on: April 08, 2016, 04:55:43 AM »
How else are they going to get free stuff.
People sleep peacefully at night because there are a few tough men prepared to do violence on their behalf.

Bowtech Experience  70lb, QAD HDX, HHA DS 5519, 400 gr Black Eagle Carnivores, 100gr Grim Reaper, True-Fire Hardcore 4 thumb.

Offline Dori

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3348
  • Gender: Female
Re: ZONATION: "Stop Blaming America for Slavery!"
« Reply #3 on: April 08, 2016, 07:52:09 AM »
I wonder why we never hear about the slavery issues in other countries.  You would think America was the only one, when in fact, America only had 6% of the slave trade.  90% were shipped to the Caribbean and South America.
The danger to America is not Barack Obama but the citizens capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency.

Offline kalash

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 629
  • Gender: Male
Re: ZONATION: "Stop Blaming America for Slavery!"
« Reply #4 on: April 08, 2016, 12:50:37 PM »
I wonder why we never hear about the slavery issues in other countries.
It's easy. No country  in 19 century was talking about freedom and liberty more then USA.
 This and on the other hand    slavery...  No wonder, they have to came up with some exuces for this hypocrisy and invent racial inferiority of blacks "scienсe". This kind of discrepancy between the word and deed, always attract more attention and condemnation. Same thing like in the case of pedophile priests - it is even more disgusting, then regular perverts.  Abe Lincoln mention before Civil war about this, saying, that he would rather move to tzarist Russia, where at least tirany exist in open, frank way, rather than tolerate hypocrisy of US... something like this I heard in TV documentary "Civil war".
So, here you go, the aswer to your question.  Nobody care about slavery in Ottoman empire,or Brasil, for example, but slavery in US always will be condemned.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2016, 12:54:51 PM by kalash »

Online taxed

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23686
  • Gender: Male
  • At some point, the money is due.
Re: ZONATION: "Stop Blaming America for Slavery!"
« Reply #5 on: April 08, 2016, 01:23:56 PM »
It's easy. No country  in 19 century was talking about freedom and liberty more then USA.
 This and on the other hand    slavery...  No wonder, they have to came up with some exuces for this hypocrisy and invent racial inferiority of blacks "scienсe". This kind of discrepancy between the word and deed, always attract more attention and condemnation. Same thing like in the case of pedophile priests - it is even more disgusting, then regular perverts.  Abe Lincoln mention before Civil war about this, saying, that he would rather move to tzarist Russia, where at least tirany exist in open, frank way, rather than tolerate hypocrisy of US... something like this I heard in TV documentary "Civil war".
So, here you go, the aswer to your question.  Nobody care about slavery in Ottoman empire,or Brasil, for example, but slavery in US always will be condemned.

Have you guys shot down any airliners lately?
Gab  |  Disqus  |  BitChute  |  Minds | Parler

Offline kalash

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 629
  • Gender: Male
Re: ZONATION: "Stop Blaming America for Slavery!"
« Reply #6 on: April 08, 2016, 02:00:29 PM »
Have you guys shot down any airliners lately?
Yes we did, but I believe it was in 1988...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

Online taxed

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23686
  • Gender: Male
  • At some point, the money is due.
Re: ZONATION: "Stop Blaming America for Slavery!"
« Reply #7 on: April 08, 2016, 02:06:12 PM »
Yes we did, but I believe it was in 1988...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

Well, you did a year or so ago, but who's counting.

Anyway, you have a good streak going!
Gab  |  Disqus  |  BitChute  |  Minds | Parler

Offline kit saginaw

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5269
  • Twist the cube.
Re: ZONATION: "Stop Blaming America for Slavery!"
« Reply #8 on: April 08, 2016, 03:27:45 PM »
It's easy. No country  in 19 century was talking about freedom and liberty more then USA.
 This and on the other hand    slavery...  No wonder, they have to came up with some exuces for this hypocrisy and invent racial inferiority of blacks "scienсe". This kind of discrepancy between the word and deed, always attract more attention and condemnation. Same thing like in the case of pedophile priests - it is even more disgusting, then regular perverts.  Abe Lincoln mention before Civil war about this, saying, that he would rather move to tzarist Russia, where at least tirany exist in open, frank way, rather than tolerate hypocrisy of US... something like this I heard in TV documentary "Civil war".
So, here you go, the aswer to your question.  Nobody care about slavery in Ottoman empire,or Brasil, for example, but slavery in US always will be condemned.

Lincoln was referring to Russian-peasants belonging to the land.  They served the landowner, but could move-about freely to another landowner.

American-slaves were owned as objects.  The landowner could sell them to another landowner.  They weren't free to move-about.

Here, in 1865, slave-owning became unlawful.  A majority of them became landowners... given 40-acres and a mule.

In Russia, Nicholas II didn't think of that.  Landowners kept 'their land' in exchange for their obligation to serve in his Military... as officers, of course.  Peasants could join in the lower ranks or remain in serfdom.

Lincoln didn't have too much time to elaborate on his views of the Tsar.

And the Tsar didn't survive much longer, to maybe improve the emancipation-plan for the serfs.

But your final point is a good one.  Americans blaming America for slavery is a money-making 'industry', these days.  -An industry promoted by progressives who are trying to re-write History at the same time.


Offline Billy's bayonet

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6265
  • Gender: Male
  • Fighting Communism since 1969
Re: ZONATION: "Stop Blaming America for Slavery!"
« Reply #9 on: April 08, 2016, 04:49:56 PM »
Funny, everybody gets all knotted up about slavery 150-400 years ago but nobody talks about slavery in Modern day society....ISlamic nations, Africa, parts of Asia....get real, we spent 3 million American lives trying to correct the problem and are still working on the fall out, but Slavery STILL EXISTS, Primarily in ISLAM (Where it is legal) and it is largely ignored.

Evil operates best when under a disguise

TRUST THE PLAN

Offline valley

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 78
  • Gender: Male
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: ZONATION: "Stop Blaming America for Slavery!"
« Reply #10 on: April 30, 2016, 04:37:43 PM »
Just watched the video, good for him.

Father came here in 1915, he saw and he told me this, America, is the best country in this world!

We know that true, Americans are a most generous people who have helped other peoples and countries, fought and died to help.

Good to see the young fellow in the video showing what he thinks, who and he is.

Offline technical_net

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: ZONATION: "Stop Blaming America for Slavery!"
« Reply #11 on: July 10, 2019, 09:07:54 AM »
Slavery
*Many slave owners committed atrocities to maximize their business.
*Many slave owners profited from breeding and selling slaves.
*Both Christians and Muslims have bought and sold slaves.
*Millions of slaves died on ships and of diseases.
*Millions of slaves were forced to work to allow the Western economies to prosper.
*Slaves were often viewed as property and had very few rights.
*Many slaves were separated from their families.

History
Thousands of records of transactions are available on a CDROM prepared by Harvard University and several comprehensive books have been published recently on the origins of modern slavery (sources are available at the conclusion) that shed new light on centuries of slave trading.
*Slavery has existed throughout most of human history and across almost all cultures.  Just about everybody on this planet can claim to be the descendant of an ancient slave.
*Most, if not all, ancient civilizations practiced this institution and it is described (and defended) in early writings of the Sumerians, Babylonians, and Egyptians.
*Ancient slavery under the Roman empire, did not discriminate. Slaves were both white and black (so were Emperors and Popes).
*700: Zanzibar becomes the main Arab slave trading post in Africa.
*Modern slave trade flourished in the early middle ages, as early as 869, especially between Muslim traders and western African kingdoms.
*Muslims were selling goods to the African kingdoms and the African kingdoms were paying with their own people. Then the Muslim trade of African slaves declined rapidly when Arab domination was reduced by the emerging European powers.
*In the middle ages, all European countries outlawed slavery whereas the African kingdoms continued in their trade.
*1325: Mansa Musa, the king of Mali, makes his pilgrimage to Mecca carrying 500 slaves and 100 camels
*1444: the first public sale of African slaves by Europeans takes place at Lagos, Portugal
*1482: Portugal founds the first European trading post in Africa (Elmira, Gold Coast)
*1500-1600: Portugal enjoys a virtual monopoly in the slave trade to the Americas
*1528: the Spanish government issues "asientos" (contracts) to private companies for the trade of African slaves
*1619: the Dutch begin the slave trade between Africa and North America, but black slaves had already been employed all over the world, including South and Central America.
*1637: Holland captures Portugal's main trading post in Africa, Elmira
*1650: Holland becomes the dominant slave trading country
*1700: Britain becomes the dominant slave trading country
*1761: Portugal becomes the first Western nation to pass legislation prohibiting slavery.
*1776: USA becomes a nation.
*1780: The northern United States begins making advances towards the abolition of slavery.
*1787: The Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade was founded in England: it was the first society anywhere in the world opposed to slavery.
*1789: the English Privy Council concludes that almost 50% of the slaves exported from Africa die before reaching the Americas.
*1790: At the height of the British slave trade, one slave vessel leaves England for Africa every other day
*1792: English prime minister William Pitt called publicly for the end of the slave trade: it was the first time in history (anywhere in the world) that the ruler of a country had called for the abolition of slavery. No African king or emperor had ever done so.
*1807: Britain outlaws’ slavery
*1812: The slave trade was abolished by Britain in 1812, and subsequently by all other European countries.
*1820: The king of the African kingdom of Ashanti inquired why the Christians did not want to trade slaves with him anymore, since they worshipped the same god as the Muslims and the Muslims were continuing the trade like before.
*1840: Slavery had peacefully vanished in most northern states.  Most Northern USA slaves were emancipated on a gradual basis.
*1848: France abolishes slavery
*1851: The population of the USA is 20,067,720 free persons and 2,077,034 slaves
*1865: Slavery is abolished in the USA

Numbers
Number of Africans deported by Arabs to the Middle East: about 17 million.

European slave trade by century
*1500-1600: 328,000 (2.9%)
*1601-1700: 1,348,000 (12.0%)
*1701-1800: 6,090,000 (54.2%)
*1801-1900: 3,466,000 (30.9%), including French and Portuguese contract

European slave trade by destination
*Brazil: 4,000,000 35.4%
*Spanish Empire: 2,500,000 or 22.1%
*British West Indies: 2,000,000 or 17.7%
*French West Indies: 1,600,00 or 14.1%
*British North America: 500,000 or 4.4%
*Dutch West Indies: 500,000 or 4.4%
*Europe: 200,000 or 1.8%
*Danish West Indies: 28,000 or 0.2%
Total 1500-1900: 11,328,000 or 100.0%

Who sold slaves?

The legends of European mercenaries capturing free people in the jungle are mostly just that: legends.  In most instances, no violence was necessary to obtain those slaves. All they needed to do is bring goods that appealed to the kings of those tribes. The kings would gladly sell their own subjects. Even after Europeans began transporting black slaves to America, most trade was just that: "trade".  In most instances, the Europeans did not need to use any force to get those slaves. The slaves were "sold" legally by their (black) owners. 

A few mercenaries certainly stormed peaceful tribes and committed terrible crimes, but that was not the norm. There was no need to risk their lives, so most of them didn't: they simply purchased (black) people.  Many of these Africans had already been enslaved and many otherwise would have been put to death.

Most professional slave traders set up bases along the west African coast where they purchased slaves from Africans in exchange for firearms and other goods. Before the end of the seventeenth century, England, France, Denmark, Holland, and Portugal had all established slave trading posts on the west African coast. 

Slave trade with black Africa was pioneered by the Arabs, its economic mechanism was invented by the Italians and the Portuguese, it was mostly run by western Europeans, and it was conducted with the full cooperation of many African kings.  African-American slavery was not born based on an ancestral hatred of blacks by whites, but simply on the fact that blacks were the only ones selling slaves, and they were selling people of their own race.  This explains why slavery became mostly “black".
Note: Arabs continued to capture and sell slaves, but mostly in the Mediterranean. In fact, Robert Davis estimates that 1.25 million European Christians were enslaved by the "barbary states" of northern Africa.  The rate of mortality of those Christian slaves in the Islamic world was roughly the same as the mortality rate in the Atlantic slave trade of the same period.

Scholars estimate that about 12,000,000 Africans were sold by Africans to Europeans (most of them before 1776, when the USA wasn't yet born) and 17,000,000 were sold to Arabs.

Neither the Christians of Europe nor the Muslims of Africa and the Middle East were selling their own people.

Also, it is worth noting that the death rate among the white crews of the slave ships (20-25%) was higher than the rate among black slaves (15%) because slaves were more valuable than sailors, which were often unwillingly enrolled or even kidnapped in ports around Europe.

Who owned slaves?
Most slaveholders, white and black, owned only one to five slaves.  According to the U.S. census report for that last year before the Civil War (1860) there were 4.5 million Negroes.  There were 27 million whites in the USA.  Fewer than 385,000 owned slaves.   Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves).  That percentage was zero in the states that did not allow slavery (only 8 million of the 27 million whites lived in states that allowed slavery).   Thus, slave owners were a tiny minority (1.4%) and it was not only whites: it was just about anybody who could, including blacks themselves.

Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves.  Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans.  The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.  To return to the census figures quoted above, this 28 percent is certainly impressive when compared to less than 1.4 percent of all-American whites and less than 4.8 percent of southern whites. The statistics show that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters.

Anthony Johnson was according to historians, among the first to have his lifetime ownership of a servant legally sanctioned by a court. He was a “free negro” who owned a 250-acre farm in Virginia during the 1650s.

Free black slave holders could be found at one time or another “in each of the thirteen original states and later in every state that countenanced slavery,”
The fact is large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves; and in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large. 

Black and white masters worked and ate alongside their charges; be it in house, field or workshop. The few individuals who owned 50 or more slaves were confined to the top one percent and have been defined as slave magnates.

Incidentally, in 1830 about 25% of South Carolina's free Negro slave masters (blacks who had been freed and owned black slaves) owned 10 or more slaves; eight owning 30 or more.  This is a much higher percentage (ten times more) than the number of white slave owners.  Justus Angel and Mistress L. Horry, of Colleton District, South Carolina each owned 84 slaves in 1830.

In Charleston, South Carolina in 1860 125 free Negroes owned slaves; six of them owning 10 or more. Of the $1.5 million in taxable property owned by free Negroes in Charleston, more than $300,000 represented slave holdings. In North Carolina 69 free Negroes were slave owners. 

There were approximately 319,599 free blacks in the United States in 1830. Approximately 13.7 per cent of the total black population was free. A significant number of these free blacks were the owners of slaves. The census of 1830 lists 3,775 free Negroes who owned a total of 12,760 slaves.

In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves.  The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation.

Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000. That year, the mean wealth of southern white men was $3,978.

American Indians owned thousands of black slaves.  Historian Tiya Miles provided this snapshot of the Native American ownership of black slaves at the turn of the 19th century for Slate magazine in January 2016:  Miles places the number of enslaved people held by Cherokees at around 600 at the start of the 19th century and around 1,500 at the time of westward removal in 1838-9. (Creeks, Choctaws, and Chickasaws, she said, held around 3,500 slaves, across the three nations, as the 19th century began.)

William Ellison

In 1860 William Ellison was South Carolina's largest Negro slaveowner.  In 1860 South Carolina had only 21 gin makers; Ellison, his three sons and a grandson account for five of the total.

William Ellison was a very wealthy black plantation owner and cotton gin manufacturer who lived in South Carolina.  According to the 1860 census (in which his surname was listed as “Ellerson”), he owned 63 black slaves, making him the largest of the 171 black slaveholders in South Carolina. 

Ellison was so successful, due to his utilization of cheap slave labor, that many white competitors went out of business. Such situations discredit impressions that whites dealt only with other whites.  It was apparent that neither Ellison's race nor former status were considerations.  Approximately 169 free blacks owned 145,976 acres in the counties of Amelia, Amherst, Isle of Wight, Nansemond, Prince William and Surry, averaging 870 acres each. Twenty-rune Petersburg blacks each owned property worth $1,000 and continued to purchase more despite the war."

The general practice of the period was that plantation owners would buy seed and equipment on credit and settle their outstanding accounts when the annual cotton crop was sold. Ellison, like all free Negroes, could resort to the courts for enforcement of the terms of contract agreements. Several times Ellison successfully sued white men for money owed him.

In 1838 Ellison purchased on time 54.5 acres adjoining his original acreage from one Stephen D. Miller. He moved into a large home on the property. What made the acquisition notable was that Miller had served in the South Carolina legislature, both in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate, and while a resident of Stateburg had been governor of the state. Ellison's next-door neighbor was Dr. W.W. Anderson, master of "Borough House, a magnificent 18th Century mansion.

By 1847 Ellison owned over 350 acres, and more than 900 by 1860. He raised mostly cotton, with a small acreage set aside for cultivating foodstuffs to feed his family and slaves. In 1840 he owned 30 slaves, and by 1860 he owned 63. His sons, who lived in homes on the property, owned an additional nine slaves.

His wealth outdistanced 90 percent of his white neighbors in Sumter District. In the entire state, only five percent owned as much real estate as Ellison. His wealth was 15 times greater than that of the state's average for whites. And Ellison owned more slaves than 99 percent of the South's slaveholders.

Although a successful businessman and cotton farmer, Ellison's major source of income derived from being a "slave breeder." Slave breeding was looked upon with disgust throughout the South, and the laws of most southern states forbade the sale of slaves under the age of 12. In several states it was illegal to sell inherited slaves (9). Nevertheless, in 1840 Ellison secretly began slave breeding.
While there was subsequent investment return in raising and keeping young males, females were not productive workers in his factory or his cotton fields. As a result, except for a few females he raised to become "breeders," Ellison sold the female and many of the male children born to his female slaves at an average price of $400. Ellison had a reputation as a harsh master. His slaves were said to be the district's worst fed and clothed. On his property was located a small, windowless building where he would chain his problem slaves.

As with the slaves of his white counterparts, occasionally Ellison's slaves ran away. The historians of Sumter District reported that from time to time Ellison advertised for the return of his runaways. On at least one occasion Ellison hired the services of a slave catcher. According to an account by Robert N. Andrews, a white man who had purchased a small hotel in Stateburg in the 1820s, Ellison hired him to run down "a valuable slave. Andrews caught the slave in Belleville, Virginia. He stated: "I was paid on returning home $77.50 and $74 for expenses.

Following in their father's footsteps, the Ellison family actively supported the Confederacy throughout the war. They converted nearly their entire plantation to the production of corn, fodder, bacon, corn shucks and cotton for the Confederate armies. They paid $5,000 in taxes during the war. They also invested more than $9,000 in Confederate bonds, treasury notes and certificates in addition to the Confederate currency they held. At the end, all this valuable paper became worthless.

The younger Ellisons contributed more than farm produce, labor and money to the Confederate cause. On March 27, 1863 John Wilson Buckner, William Ellison's oldest grandson, enlisted in the 1st South Carolina Artillery. Buckner served in the company of Captains P.P. Galliard and A.H. Boykin, local white men who knew that Buckner was a Negro. Although it was illegal at the time for a Negro to formally join the Confederate forces, the Ellison family's prestige nullified the law in the minds of Buckner's comrades. Buckner was wounded in action on July 12, 1863. At his funeral in Stateburg in August 1895 he was praised by his former Confederate officers as being a "faithful soldier."

Opposition to slavery in USA

Moral opposition to slavery in America was widespread even before Lincoln, and throughout Europe.  It wasn’t until Westerners, guided by Christianity and the “Enlightenment”, began to oppose slavery in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, that the “peculiar institution,” as it was later called, was seriously challenged on a moral level.

It's in the USA that large sectors of the population would start condemning slavery, contrary to the indifference that Muslims and most Europeans showed towards it.  As Dinesh D'Souza wrote, "What is uniquely Western is not slavery but the movement to abolish slavery".

Opposition to slavery in Africa

Sub-Saharan Africans never felt like they were one people, they felt (and still feel) that they belonged to different tribes.  The distinctions of tribe were far stronger than the distinctions of race.

Opposition to slavery was never particularly strong in Africa itself, where slavery is slowly being eradicated only in our times.

One can suspect that slavery would have remained common in most African kingdoms until this day:  what crushed slavery in Africa was that all those African kingdoms became colonies of western European countries that (for one reason or another) eventually decided to outlaw slavery.   

In the 1960s, those African colonies regained their independence and numerous cases of slavery resurfaced.  Countless African dictators behaved in a way that makes a slave owner look like a saint.

How to end slavery in 1800’s

As economist Thomas Sowell observed, once slavery was established in a culture, there was no perfect solution to bringing about its end.  There was also complications and repercussions that they feared and could not foresee.  Even in hindsight we cannot say what the best way may have been. 

There was concern for the wellbeing of the freed slave, and for the wellbeing of the society as a whole.  For example, there were already laws concerning freeing unruly slaves of "bad or depraved" character and those who "from age or infirmity" were incapacitated, the state required that an owner testify under oath to the good character of the slave he sought to free.  Also required was evidence of the slave's "ability to gain a livelihood in an honest way." 

Interestingly, considering today's accounts of life under slavery, authors Johnson and Roak report instances where free Negroes petitioned to be allowed to become slaves; this because they were unable to support themselves.

Most southerners did not own slaves and wanted an end to slavery (see articles in “cotton is king”).  Even many slaveowners preferred a world without slaves but felt like they could not compete with cotton growers in other parts of the world that had slaves.

Many also believed an immediate release would have many problems.  In an 1856 letter to his wife Mary Custis Lee, Robert E. Lee called slavery "a moral and political evil." Yet he concluded that black slaves were immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially and physically.
 
Peaceful emancipation or war?

Many countries had already successful ended slavery with peaceful Emancipation.  In most of the cases emancipation was the result of largely-peaceful, gradual processes of legislation, compensation and persuasion.  Most of the south favored that compared to a full immediate abolishment.   However, the pressure from the Abolitionist and the North did not allow for the time they felt they needed.

In Greatest Emancipations, historian Jim Powell surveyed the history and heroes of the abolitionist movements in the West and contrasted the countries where emancipation was peaceful to those where it was brought about by war.

Powell believed that there were two important facets of abolitionism, emancipation itself and securing equal rights for the freed slaves. Powell convincingly argued that peaceful emancipation was a superior alternative to war because in countries where slavery was ended by armed conflict, “the savage violence of war and the inevitable backlash among losing slaveholders, made it much harder to arrive at a point where former slaveholders, former slaves and their descendants could live together peacefully in the same society.” Because of this, Powell argued that “multiple strategies had to be pursued,” including slave rebellions, compensation to slaveholders who freed their slaves and encouraging slaves to run away.

One of these ideas, compensated emancipation, was – and is – controversial.  The idea that someone who claims ownership over another human being should be compensated for giving up that claim offends moral sensibilities, and rightfully so. Several American abolitionists reached this conclusion and strongly opposed the idea.  While it’s hard to disagree with the moral argument against compensated emancipation, the historical truth is that it was a viable, if imperfect, option that was an important component of emancipation in many countries. It was certainly no worse a solution than the violence and destruction of war.

Secession

When the South was pressured, they chose Secession over war.  The US was still a young country, and many of the southern states had only joined the union for a short time.  Florida, Texas and Arkansas had all been in the union for less than 30 years.  Historians believe that if the lower South had been left alone, secession would have led to a gradual abolishment, or otherwise doomed it.

In Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men, Hummel observed that abolitionists had already recognized the dangers of secession to slavery before the Civil War. He wrote that “letting the lower South secede in peace was a viable antislavery option. Radical abolitionists, such as William Lloyd Garrison, had traditionally advocated northern secession from the South.  They felt that this best hastened the destruction of slavery…”

The modern reader naturally wonders how this could be. The answer lies in understanding how crucial the federal fugitive slave laws were to maintaining slavery in the South.  Released from their legal obligations under the Constitution to return slaves to their southern owners, northern states would have become destinations of irrevocable freedom for fugitive slaves.

It’s easy to see how this would have undermined southern slavery. Since the states in the Upper South did not secede until after President Lincoln prepared to invade the southern states that had already left the Union, it is likely that the Upper South would never have seceded if Lincoln had not pursued war with the Lower South. Absent the political clout of the Lower South, political forces in the federal government could have quickly brought about emancipation in Upper South states like Virginia and North Carolina.

Furthermore, if slaves escaping to the Union, a Union that included Upper South states, could not be reclaimed by slaveholders in the Lower South, the cost of enforcing slavery would have increased and would have burdened the slaveholders themselves.

Additionally, without the political protection of the federal government, the Lower South states, where slaves made up a larger percentage of the population, would have faced an increasing probability of large-scale slave revolts, thus further destabilizing the “peculiar institution.”

These threats were well understood by some Southerners. The Confederacy’s Vice-President, Alexander Stephens, believed that “slavery [is] much more secure in the Union than out of it.” Kentucky Congressman Joseph Rogers Underwood told Southerners in 1842 that “the dissolution of the Union was the dissolution of slavery” because of the ease with which slaves could escape to freedom in the North.

What’s more, this is not a purely theoretical scenario. The process that southern slaveholders feared took place in Brazil, where gradual emancipation had begun, but was proceeding at a pace too slow for Brazilian abolitionists. In 1884 a single state, Ceara, completely outlawed slavery and was eventually joined by other regions of Brazil, creating havens to which slaves in other parts of the country could escape. The impact of this, according to Hummel, was that “Slavery rapidly disintegrated in the coffee growing region of Sao Paulo. The value of slaves fell by 80 percent even though none was slated to be liberated through gradual emancipation. Finally, in 1888 the government accepted a fait accompli and decreed immediate and uncompensated emancipation.”

Powell believed that this same process would have occurred in the United States had the South been permitted to secede, writing, “…there would have come a time, much sooner than most people might expect, when the combined effects of multiple antislavery strategies would have brought about the fairly peaceful collapse of Confederate slavery.  If this seems doubtful, just recall how a combination of pressures led the mighty Soviet Union to collapse and vanish from the map – without a [nuclear] war.”

After abolishment

Between the beginning of the nineteenth century and the outbreak of the Civil War, at least 15 countries in Europe and Central and South America abolished slavery or put it on the path to extinction.

When Brazil abolished slavery in 1888, slavery in the Western Hemisphere was effectively ended. In all but two of these countries, the United States and Haiti, the end of slavery occurred without widespread violence. Peaceful emancipation, then, was not only possible, but was the norm.

While Americans are accustomed to thinking of emancipation in the context of war, careful consideration of the alternatives may lead to conclude that war was ultimately unnecessary to end slavery. Importantly, war may have also significantly delayed the ability of the freed slaves to attain political and social equality. 

The changing of hearts and minds that war could not accomplish, and indeed never can, was ultimately essential to real freedom. Without this process, emancipated slaves and their descendants faced another century of legal oppression which, while better than slavery, was not freedom in a meaningful sense of the word.

Contained within Hummel’s statement is the ultimate issue. We know how slavery was ended, but it is impossible to know exactly how else it could have been ended. There is compelling evidence that suggests that ending slavery was not only possible without war but was inescapable for even the most dedicated slaveholder. Slavery was ended in the West by 1888 and there’s no reason to believe that the southern United States could have resisted this trend. Economic, political and moral forces were all aligning against slavery. Any society that sought to preserve slavery would have been isolated on all these grounds.

Powell wrote that “The choice wasn’t to fight the Civil War or do nothing meaningful about slavery. We should stop viewing the Civil War as the only way or the best way freedom could have been achieved.” Powell is on to something. Not only did the war decrease the amount of political freedom that all Americans have, but it also contributed to the post-war environment that denied full freedom and equality to the emancipated slaves.

Peaceful emancipation, the path not taken, remains a controversial topic. But it may have been a better long-term solution than the violent conflict that occurred.

A truer picture of the Old South, one never presented by the nation's mind molders, emerges from this account. The American South had been undergoing structural evolutionary changes far, far greater than generations of Americans have been led to believe.

In time, within a relatively short time, the obsolete and economically nonviable institution of slavery would have disappeared. The nation would have been spared awesome traumas from which it would never fully recover.

Not just slaves

The millions of slaves were just one of the many instances of mass exploitation: the industrial revolution was exported to the USA by entrepreneurs exploiting millions of poor immigrants from Europe. The fate of those immigrants was not much better than the fate of the slaves in the South.  As a matter of fact, many slaves enjoyed far better living conditions in the southern plantations than European immigrants in the industrial cities (which were sometimes comparable to concentration camps).

It is not a coincidence that slavery was abolished at a time when millions of European and Chinese immigrants provided the same kind of cheap labor.

Slavery conclusion

In the sale/purchase of an unethical or immoral product, who is more guilty, the seller, the buyer or both?  Is the producer of cigarettes, drugs, junk foods, etc. guilty for producing a bad product that ultimately hurts purchasers, or is the market that creates the demand and uses the product more guilty? 

Many slaveowners argued that the people purchasing and using slave cotton had their part in slavery.  If the purchasers have their part in the blame, then the list of the guilty is endless, but if the sellers are at fault, then where does that put the ones that sold slaves?  Or should they both share the blame?   

*African chiefs/kings gladly sold their own subjects.
*Slavery was practiced by Africans before it was practiced by North Americans.
*Slavery was abolished by all white nations but not all Africans.
*Some Africans resumed it the moment they could.
*By the time the slave trade was abolished in the West, there were many more slaves in Africa (black slaves of black owners) than in the Americas.

Although slaves were never common in Great Britain, the British did profit both from participation in the trans-Atlantic slave trade and from slavery in their colonies.  Nevertheless, due to the influence of abolitionists like William Wilberforce, Henry John Temple and Thomas Buxton, Britain banned the slave trade in 1807 and slavery itself in 1833.  In addition to this, Britain became a force for anti-slavery sentiment and policies throughout the world, negotiating anti-slave trade agreements with other countries and policing the seas with their own navy to enforce these agreements.

After slaves are freed

Take 500 babies from a given culture (say China) and place them throughout a country (say America).  When those children grow up, they will have adapted to the new culture.  And although they may get some attention if they look different, they would be treated fairly and equally by almost everyone.  The few exceptions would be racist. 

However, take a million grownups from a given culture (say America) and place them in a given country (say China) and it would take many years for the cultures to adapt, especially if the introduction to each other was on harsh conditions.  It would probably take several generations for adjustment. 

During this time, it would be normal (not racist) for the original culture to try to limit the influence of the new culture.  Especially if the old culture had paid dearly to establish a valued civilization, and even more so if the new comers were from a barbaric culture or while they did not obey the laws of the country.   

During this time, it would be normal for the new culture to have bitterness for being forced into their minority situation and would feel discriminated against in many ways.

When the slaves were freed, it caused at least a century of hardship.  A lot of work has been needed to get us where we are today.  The forces that try to separate and divide us due to the past, or due to the colors of our skin are tearing us apart.  We should try to get to the place that Martin Luther King Jr. dreamed about.  A place where we can look at one another, not based on the color of our skin.

Current

The USA is blamed for slavery, Hollywood movies and novels keep blaming the USA but never blame, say, Ghana or the Congo.  For a long time, no such criticism was allowed in the nations that started trading goods for slaves.

Today it is politically correct to blame European empires and the USA for slavery (forgetting that it was practiced by everybody since prehistoric times). But the first to develop a repulsion for slavery and eventually abolish slavery were precisely those countries (especially Britain and the USA).

To this day, too many Africans, Arabs and Europeans believe that the African slave trade was an aberration of the white USA, not their own invention.

________________________________________
NOTES
The American Negro: Old World Background and New World Experience, Raymond Logan and Irving Cohen New York: Houghton and Mifflin, 1970), p.72.
Black Masters: A Free Family of Color in the Old South, Michael P. Johnson and James L. Roak New York: Norton, 1984), p.64.
The Forgotten People: Cane River's Creoles of Color, Gary Mills (Baton Rouge, 1977); Black Masters, p.128.
Male inheritance expectations in the United States in 1870, 1850-1870, Lee Soltow (New Haven, 1975), p.85.
Black Masters, Appendix, Table 7; p.280.
Black Masters, p. 62.
Information on the Ellison family was obtained from Black Masters; the number of slaves they owned was gained from U.S. Census Reports.
Neither Black Nor White: Slavery and Race Relations in Brazil and the United States, Carl N. Degler (New York, Macmillan, 1971), p.39;
Negro Slavery in Louisiana, Joe Gray Taylor (Baton Rouge, 1963), pp. 4041.
Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877, Eric Foner (New York; Harper & Row, 1988), p. 47; pp. 353-355
"Transformations in Slavery", Paul Lovejoy, 2000
"Slave Trade", Hugh Thomas, 1977
Bernard Lewis Race and Slavery in the Middle East: An Historical Enquiry, Chapter 1 -- Slavery, Oxford Univ Press 1994.
"The Slave Trade", Hugh Thomas, 1997
African-American Voices: A Documentary Reader, 1619-1877:
Hugh Thomas' The Slave Trade
Robin Blackburn's The Making of New World Slavery

Online Sick Of Silence

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1347
  • Militant Libertarian
Re: ZONATION: "Stop Blaming America for Slavery!"
« Reply #12 on: July 10, 2019, 09:49:48 AM »
America isn't to blame for slavery. Blame the country of origin of the settlers.

Quote
Christopher Columbus was an Italian explorer, navigator, and colonist who completed four voyages across the Atlantic Ocean under the auspices of the Catholic Monarchs of Spain.

Columbus was an Italian guy sailing under Spanish rule. America doesn't exist yet.
Social Media are multi-national billion dollar corporations with foreign investors that are going unchecked with the power to effect our election process.

"Book burnings" have evolved into "de-plat forming". Its the same principles behind both: to eliminate accessible knowledge.

Offline fayec

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: ZONATION: "Stop Blaming America for Slavery!"
« Reply #13 on: July 21, 2019, 09:12:11 AM »
America isn't to blame for slavery. Blame the country of origin of the settlers.

The blame should be put on the Africans themselves for selling their own into slavery. Rarely, if ever, do we hear the blacks utter a word about that. It profits them more by placing the blame on the Whites.

Considering all they've achieved in America, I sometimes wonder if  African Americans are really all that upset about past slavery. Do they really and truly wish that their ancestors had never been brought to America as slaves?  Where would they be today if there had been no slavery? Will they ever forgive white Americans for past slavery? What does the Bible say about those who will not forgive? 

 

Powered by EzPortal