Did you know this about slavery?

[Artful]

They came as slaves: human cargo transported on 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. Some 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? We know all too well the atrocities of the African slave trade.


But are we talking about African slavery?

King James VI of Scotland aka James I of England and Charles I also led a continued effort to enslave the Irish. Britain’s Oliver Cromwell furthered this practice of dehumanizing one’s next door neighbour.

The Irish slave trade began when James VI 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, 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 mothers, even with this new found emancipation, would seldom abandon their children and would remain in servitude.

In time, the English thought of a better way to use these women to increase their market share: The settlers began to breed Irish women and girls (many as young as 12) 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 the Irish experienced the horrors of slavery as much (if not more, in the 17th Century) as the Africans did. There is also 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 its 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 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, why is it so seldom discussed? Do the memories of hundreds of thousands of Irish victims not merit more than a mention from an unknown writer?

Or is their story to be the one that their English masters intended: To 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.

http://blackforkblog.blogspot.com/2014/10/you-never-hear-this-story-these-days.html

[trapper9260]

I know that the Irish was slaves of the English but did not know the whole story on it untill now.Thank you

[snowwolfe]

No wonder the Irish like to drink so much:)

[DR Owl Creek]

Artful,

Not to be too picky, but James VI (of Scotland) was James' title when he was king of Scotland. After he became king of England, his title was changed to James I of England. Otherwise, you're spot on.

Dave

[Artful]

Ok, DR Owl Creek (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/member.php?36192-DR-Owl-Creek) aka Dave - I put that in lest I loose my head.

[Harter66]

We probably shouldn't overlook the Coolys either .

[DR Owl Creek]

Ok, DR Owl Creek (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/member.php?36192-DR-Owl-Creek) aka Dave - I put that in lest I loose my head.


I didn't mean any offense. ;) History, and particularly military history, is kinda' my "thing". As it was, if I was grading your thesis, I couldn't have given you an A+ on it... Now I can!!!

Dave

[Char-Gar]

During the Irish potato famine if the 1840's, hundreds of thousands of Irish were allowed to starve to death by their English masters who had plenty of food. Those Irish who could scrape up the passage to American or Australia left.

Is is no wonder the Irish hate the English these many years latter. I once heard it said, that Irish mothers told their children that if they were not good boys and girls, when they died, they would go to England.

Also, let us not forget that Irish indentured servants were brought to the American Colonies and later the United States, where many never were released from their indenture. They lived out their lives as slaves. Folks like to point fingers at the Southern states for having African slaves, but forget the widespread practice of black and white slavery in the Northern states.

[LUBEDUDE]

Thanks Artful

That splains a lot now.

[popper]

Irish, Scots, English 'slaves' were for the lumber & pitch businesses of the Crown. When moved to the south to crop, they got sick and died off too fast to be economically feasible. The African trade was then started although it was very good in Europe at the time. Most of the 'traders' were black, ported in Bermuda & Bahamas. I think Savanna at one time outlawed slaves but changed to get mud slingers that could survive. American Indians were very big in slaves also, most all tribes, as were the South American Indians. Gee, the Gov. owes me 'reparation' $$.

[starnbar]

My mom had a sign that she got from her father when he came to this country and was denied a job as a ship wright the sign above the shop said NO IRISH ALLOWED. Fast forward 20 years Grandfather owned that very shop and that sign hung in my grandfathers garage until he passed and my mom took it down.

[mold maker]

8-5 generations back, my ancestors had "slaves" They had a community with a church/school, graveyard infermery and common house, for the unrelated. Families had a house with a privy and garden space. Younger children were required to attend school with a furnished teacher. They shared in the profits of the farm each year.
I know this wasn't the norm, but the race card sickens me.
I have no shame for the fact that my ancestor bought slaves and gave them such treatment.
All the farm has been sold, and all the "slave" buildings are gone, but the cemetery is still maintained.

[MakeMineA10mm]

While my tiny bit of Irish ancestry sympathizes with your point, let's move on to the bigger picture:

The Romans took slaves 2100 years ago. Before that, barbarians took slaves. Native Americans took "captives" of other tribes during their inter-tribal warfare, before and after pre-Columbian times. Ghengis Khan enslaved conquered people's. Slavery is mentioned far, far back in the Old Testament. White, Christian Europeans even voluntarily sold themselves into a paternalistic form of slavery: indentured servants.

I am am thankful you posted this Artful, because Americans have allowed the term slavery to be co-opted by one ethnic group who is still trying to capitalize on their ethnicities' slavery history (which was also a pre-European-contact inter-tribal warfare reality for the sub-Saharan Africans), like their the only ones it has ever happened to. Of course, the other issue is that whites somehow owe reparations to that race, even though America is 150 years past abolishing slavery, and even though hundreds of thousands of whites died fighting a war to end slavery...

[waksupi]

Slavery of Mexicans and Indians continued in the southwest until the 1890's.

[JSnover]

Even the Vikings took Irish slaves, in the ninth century I think.

[SharpsShooter]

Also, let us not forget that Irish indentured servants were brought to the American Colonies and later the United States, where many never were released from their indenture. They lived out their lives as slaves. Folks like to point fingers at the Southern states for having African slaves, but forget the widespread practice of black and white slavery in the Northern states.

That's what I thought the article was about when he first started.

SS

[Blacksmith]

I have Irish ancestors. Reparations for Irish Slaves!

I also had indentured servants and slave owners, some of whom freed their slaves long before the civil war.

[9w1911]

I'm 4th generation Irish. I know the day, boat and location where we came ashore. We fought on both sides of the Civil War, 4 on the Yankees and 2 on the Confederates. I have always said Irish were the first slaves and no, no one knows of this type of treatment. But I ll be honest, we, I dont like the Brits and what colonial Britain represents.

[Char-Gar]

While my tiny bit of Irish ancestry sympathizes with your point, let's move on to the bigger picture:

The Romans took slaves 2100 years ago. Before that, barbarians took slaves. Native Americans took "captives" of other tribes during their inter-tribal warfare, before and after pre-Columbian times. Ghengis Khan enslaved conquered people's. Slavery is mentioned far, far back in the Old Testament. White, Christian Europeans even voluntarily sold themselves into a paternalistic form of slavery: indentured servants.

I am am thankful you posted this Artful, because Americans have allowed the term slavery to be co-opted by one ethnic group who is still trying to capitalize on their ethnicities' slavery history (which was also a pre-European-contact inter-tribal warfare reality for the sub-Saharan Africans), like their the only ones it has ever happened to. Of course, the other issue is that whites somehow owe reparations to that race, even though America is 150 years past abolishing slavery, and even though hundreds of thousands of whites died fighting a war to end slavery...

This has been a very good and thoughtful thread, but I can't let the last clause of your last sentence pass unchallenged, because it is totally inaccurate. I understand that is what you, your parents and your grandparents were taught in history class, but that does not make it true. It was a lie from the start and being passed from generation to generation does not make it the truth by the passing.

When the southern states seceded from the Union, Lincoln invaded the south with an army of several million to prevent it from establishing itself as an independent country. It was not about freeing slaves, but about the economic viability of the northern states without cheap southern cotton for the New England mills and free access up and down the Mississippi river without paying tariffs for good imported and exported that way.

Make no mistake about it, slavery was immoral and evil whether white or black. The "Civil War" only became about freeing slaves when the north soured on Lincoln's war and he needed a great moral crusade to keep them involved. Also do not make the mistake that Lincoln invaded the South to free slaves. That was not and never was what drove the man. That awful way was all about greed and money and very little else.

I do apologize and hope this does not cause this thread to take a tangent, but the false statement cannot be left to stand without challenge.

[MaryB]

And my Sioux ancestors took Ojibwa slaves and slaves from other parts of the Sioux tribes, along with white slaves from settlers. That ended with the Sioux Uprising where one part of the lower Sioux(one of my ancient ancestors is related to them) helped the white settlers and saved many lives in the region. They were given the Lower Sioux reservation as deeded land in perpetuity for their help during the uprising.

Every race on the planet held slaves at one point or another and reparations are owed to no one. We are not responsible for what our ancestors did!

[Jr.]

This has been a very good and thoughtful thread, but I can't let the last clause of your last sentence pass unchallenged, because it is totally inaccurate. I understand that is what you, your parents and your grandparents were taught in history class, but that does not make it true. It was a lie from the start and being passed from generation to generation does not make it the truth by the passing.

When the southern states seceded from the Union, Lincoln invaded the south with an army of several million to prevent it from establishing itself as an independent country. It was not about freeing slaves, but about the economic viability of the northern states without cheap southern cotton for the New England mills and free access up and down the Mississippi river without paying tariffs for good imported and exported that way.

Make no mistake about it, slavery was immoral and evil whether white or black. The "Civil War" only became about freeing slaves when the north soured on Lincoln's war and he needed a great moral crusade to keep them involved. Also do not make the mistake that Lincoln invaded the South to free slaves. That was not and never was what drove the man. That awful way was all about greed and money and very little else.

I do apologize and hope this does not cause this thread to take a tangent, but the false statement cannot be left to stand without challenge.

This ^^^^^ and the fact he violated the constitution claiming slaves as war property to get extra boots on the geound, and hinder the economy of the south.

[Col4570]

I'm 4th generation Irish. I know the day, boat and location where we came ashore. We fought on both sides of the Civil War, 4 on the Yankees and 2 on the Confederates. I have always said Irish were the first slaves and no, no one knows of this type of treatment. But I ll be honest, we, I dont like the Brits and what colonial Britain represents.

Oh thanks for that,your generalisation does,nt do anything to enhance your image.I detect an anti British air around many comments here by those unable to apply an historical aspect to a discussion.

[Col4570]

in 1807 William Wilberforce( British Parlimentarian) submitted and had accepted a bill to abolish Slavery in the British Colonies.1833 The Bill was accepted and applied banning slavery in the colonies and Britain.
1865 Slavery abolished in the USA at the end the Civil War.
Slavery continued in the undeveloped countries for many years and in fact has been found during present times.
Exploitation of workers although obnoxious cannot be described as slavery since victims have the ability to leave,although constrained by financial considerations.

[dakotashooter2]

Don't for get about the Aztec and Inca civilizations......or Egypt...... Every race has been subject to slavery at one time or another and risen above it...but one seems to be still crying in their milk about it.

[robg]

theres a book ,white gold, about the cosaiers that took whole villages from around the uk coast into slavery in north africa.didnt stop till us brits burnt their ships in the 1700s .

[gwpercle]

We are all slaves, the only thing that changes is your master.
" You may be a business man or some high degree thief
They may call you Doctor or they may call you Chief
But you're gonna have to serve somebody" Robert Zimmerman

My wife and kids are slaves to electronic devices that they carry everywhere and look at constantly...they serve the electronic master.

[Char-Gar]

I know nothing about how non-black slaves were treated but I suspect it was similar to black slaves. When we read material on slaves, we read about the horrible mistreatment by their master. This did occur for some sadistic Esso Bees did buy slaves, but on the main, they were treated fairly well. Slavery was a way of converting capital into labor and profit. Black slaves in America were very costly and people that had them didn't want them crippled or missing work. You would not buy an expensive piece of farm equipment and then beat it into uselessness with a club unless you had a screw loose.

Abuse of children and women continue today in record numbers because some men are just cruel and terrible people. These were the same men 150 years ago who abused slaves.

[MUSTANG]

In my youth I was taught (indoctrinated) to hold Lincoln in high esteem; but as I became older and started to educate myself through reading, research, and an open mind I came to realize that Lincoln is the great destroyer of the Republic. Examples include:

1. The forced conscription of Irish in the North East into the Union Army for cannon fodder who were impoverished, newly immigrated into the country, and despised by the locals.

2. Issuance of the "Emancipation Proclamation" which most today believe was the freeing of all slaves, but it actually only applied to the "Rebellious States"; and it specifically did not apply to Maryland whom the Union feared could also secede and join the Confederates.

3. The Union Army held and utilized slaves. The first I became aware of this was about 30 years ago when I was touring a Museum in Georgia. On display were some of the records of the Union Army, including Quarter Master records documenting about 20,000 Slaves (Black) that were used to mine Gold in Georgia for the Union in order to help pay for the war effort.

Many other examples available, but it does go to show how the issue of "Slavery" is massaged to achieve political objectives throughout time. Slavery is a terrible condition that persists and exists to this day in this old world. It inevitably is about the desire of some men (and women) to control the lives and outcome of others for personal gain and power.

[ErikO]

Even the Vikings took Irish slaves, in the ninth century I think.

Sort of. Vikings tended to bathe daily. Many of their slaves were women who did not wear fetters for some strange reason. Also, many ended up in Scandinavian families... ;)

[Char-Gar]

In my youth I was taught (indoctrinated) to hold Lincoln in high esteem; but as I became older and started to educate myself through reading, research, and an open mind I came to realize that Lincoln is the great destroyer of the Republic. Examples include:

1. The forced conscription of Irish in the North East into the Union Army for cannon fodder who were impoverished, newly immigrated into the country, and despised by the locals.

2. Issuance of the "Emancipation Proclamation" which most today believe was the freeing of all slaves, but it actually only applied to the "Rebellious States"; and it specifically did not apply to Maryland whom the Union feared could also secede and join the Confederates.

3. The Union Army held and utilized slaves. The first I became aware of this was about 30 years ago when I was touring a Museum in Georgia. On display were some of the records of the Union Army, including Quarter Master records documenting about 20,000 Slaves (Black) that were used to mine Gold in Georgia for the Union in order to help pay for the war effort.

Many other examples available, but it does go to show hoe the issue of "Slavery" is massaged to achieve political objectives throughout time. Slavery is a terrible condition that persists and exists to this day in this old world. It inevitably is about the desire of some men (and women) to control the lives and outcome of others for personal gain and power.

You are not alone, as every child in this country since 1865 was taught in public schools a white washed and twisted version of Lincoln and the Civil War. 150 years later, this fable is accepted as true and folks will fight you tooth and nail if you try and dispute the myth. It has a hold on the minds in this country that seems unbreakable. It is true that if you tell a lie often enough and long enough it becomes the truth. The fact that one half of the country invaded and made war on the other half for economic interests of the rich and powerful in the top half, and that hundreds of thousands would be killed and many more crippled for life, is just not acceptable to the American mind. Much better to think it a great moral crusade to free slaves, for that is acceptable and seems worth the sacrifice.

We look askance at the countries of the Middle East who are taught a twisted version of their history. We do the same with Japan who still does not teach the truth about the war crimes of the Japanese Imperial Army. The people in Russia are not taught about the millions killed by Stalin, they know nothing of it. It is easy for us to see the lies and twisted histories that other countries tell to their people, but it is darn near impossible for us to see out own twisted history. We just can't consider the fact that we might have done and supported the doing of bad and evil things. The notion that the man on Mount Rushmore was nothing more than a venal and corrupt politician just can't be tolerated much less accepted.

To be fair, the people in the south were no more stricken with morals and altruism that the folks in the north. For all the talk about "States Rights" and such, the south seceded because they thought it was in their economic best interest. Jeff Davis is not on Mount Rushmore, but he doesn't belong their either.

Unbeknownst to both of them, Johnny Reb and Billy Yank were fighting for the same thing. They were killing each other to keep the rich and powerful...well...rich and powerful. If there was any difference, it was because the Confederate solider had "skin in the game". There was a foreign army coming down the pike toward his home, farm, wife and family. That is a big motivator.

[flyingmonkey35]

Fascinating

[thxmrgarand]

According to histories written at the time, when the US purchased Alaska from Russia the Americans exploring southeastern Alaska for the first time estimated that 60% of the Native population was slaves. The local Natives collected slaves from as far south as what is now California.

The last conventional slavery court case in the US was in 1926. It was an aboriginal slavery case in Sitka, AK.

[waynem34]

If I was born rich back then and I had a "slave".If i treated that slave half as well as I treat other tools.The slave would be kept well,Is what I'm thinking. After all they are human so don't think they won't cut you throat.

[Char-Gar]

After all they are human so don't think they won't cut you throat.

Do a little reading on Nate Turner for some black on white butchery. Although my best bet was he was mentally ill.

My Wife's GGGGrandfather was killed by his slaves. He had moved west into the frontier (Kentucky) as was clearing land, working along side of them. The blacks were afraid of Indians so they killed him, so they could move back to civilization. They claimed Indians had carried him off, but his dog lead them to his shallow grave. We don't know what happened to the blacks, but I expect they were done in pretty darn quick. Nobody would want them around. In addition to being murderous, they were not overly burdened with brains.

[dagger dog]

Some thoughts on the Brit's, they have stood beside their American cousins through 2 World wars and many of our police actions right up to the scuffle in the sand box, always by our right hand, right along with the Aussies, they have never failed to watch our backs !

[Char-Gar]

Some thoughts on the Brit's, they have stood beside their American cousins through 2 World wars and many of our police actions right up to the scuffle in the sand box, always by our right hand, right along with the Aussies, they have never failed to watch our backs !

Did they do so because they truly loved us or was it because of economic and security ties. Also, as I remember how that worked, we saved the Brits asses in those two aforementioned world wars. We went to help them, it was not they who came to our aid. The only two times they came over here, they were trying to kill us and make us subjects of the British Crown.

During the Civil War, the English favored the Confederate states and gave us all kinds of aid in the dark. They allowed the CSA Alabama the Confederate Raider to be built there and allowed us to buy many thousands of weapons including the 3 band Enfield musket. They wanted Confederate cotton and were playing both the black and the red.

[dagger dog]

"Did they do so because they truly loved us or was it because of economic and security ties"

No doubt the economies are so dependent on each other, if one falters the other will suffer. I think love is the wrong word for the mutual dependency, but rather they should be looked at as relatives.

Sorry that I left out the Canadians on the first post.

[peter72]

From an Australian's pov, a very interesting read. Particularly about Lincoln. If you asked some Aussies about Lincoln chances are theyve never heard of him but If they had they associate him with freeing of slaves.

Oh and I think it's only the yanks that think they saved Britains **** in the 2nd WW, Anyone else would agree the result was a forgone conclusion just the date brought forward. Not that I doubt the help wasnt needed nor appreciated.

Edit: the term Yank is applied to all citizens of the US , by us folk down Under in a non derogatory way.
Pete

[10x]

Even the Vikings took Irish slaves, in the ninth century I think.

The Vikings were the first tourists. They toured cathedrals and villages and took home souvieners. They even settled some areas they thought were especially charming.
They brought trade and commerce to many areas of Ireland and England and even left England with an early form of democracy.

.
The folks in Britain liked the Viking so much they would make yearly payments to them.
Even the monestaries gave subsidies and gifts to these new tourists... And there was great excitement and aticipation when Vikings were discovered to be landing on the coast.

Of course women would be enamoured with the strapping and handsome Vikings and the excitement of a new life in the North would be very attractive

[waksupi]

I had found quite a few accounts from slaves in the Smithsonian pages, recounting antebellum slavery. For the most part, they were treated very well, many receiving a portion of the money made on the work, and were treated as family.

[shooter93]

At the time of our first Revolution it has been estimated that up to 70% of the population were descendants of Indentured Servants. Life as an indentured servant was BARELY above that of a slave. There terms could be extended without their consent. They could not testify against their "patrons" so any and all cruelties went untouched. Their children could be indentured until the age of 21. The English government passed a law that anyone who did not have on their person the equivalent of 50 dollars was a vagrant and could be indentured then started rounding up the poor and shipping them here as the demand for free labor was so great. If you owned property however you could not be indentured. So as soon as they got the chance they moved West and homesteaded. This of course upset the "natives" in the area and all manners of troubles arose.
It's age old....the history of mankind and will always be so. Lincoln did not free the slaves and in the "respectable" North people who thought they should be freed didn't think they should be quite so equal as rights and should certainly should never be allowed to vote. The Civil War had to be fought...and the North had to win. There was never going to be a vast CSA we would be a number of small countries like Europe. I believe the Republic had to stand and Lincoln did whatever he had to to win. Davis wanted those same things and the same powers as Lincoln but couldn't get them. The South never really had a chance of winning. Help from Europe went out the door after Antietam and several states were threatening to secede from the South. Still....the war needed to be fought and may very well need to be again. The Founders knew this would happen and some expected it to happen every so often. It may very well be our destiny to sort these things out violently. Virtually every minority in the country was bitterly discriminated against here when they first came....often because of fear.

[gds45]

The Vikings were the first tourists. They toured cathedrals and villages and took home souvieners. They even settled some areas they thought were especially charming.
They brought trade and commerce to many areas of Ireland and England and even left England with an early form of democracy.

.
The folks in Britain liked the Viking so much they would make yearly payments to them.
Even the monestaries gave subsidies and gifts to these new tourists... And there was great excitement and aticipation when Vikings were discovered to be landing on the coast.

Of course women would be enamoured with the strapping and handsome Vikings and the excitement of a new life in the North would be very attractive
A unique way of looking at my ancestors history! I was not aware of how much the Brits loved the Vikings.:bigsmyl2:

[Dale in Louisiana]

The reason why Scandinavian women look so good is that the Vikings didn't bring ugly women home.

dale in Louisiana

[Plate plinker]

I have Irish ancestors. Reparations for Irish Slaves!

I also had indentured servants and slave owners, some of whom freed their slaves long before the civil war.

Yeah buddy! We probably gots more slave cred than obozo.

[Blacksmith]

Examples include:
2. Issuance of the "Emancipation Proclamation" which most today believe was the freeing of all slaves, but it actually only applied to the "Rebellious States"; and it specifically did not apply to Maryland whom the Union feared could also secede and join the Confederates.


Maryland was a slave state and never seceded so remained a part of the union thus the Emancipation Proclamation did not apply. So when slavery was abolished in effect the property rights of law abiding citizens was taken taken by the Government with no compensation whatsoever. So what will happen if sometime in the future they decide to ban all cars with poor gas mileage or any other legally owned item? Oh I know that can't happen in modern times, right? Maryland in 2013 banned magazines with more than a 10 round capacity; they banned the manufacture, sale, transfer, even offering them for sale and although possession is not against the law the only legal way you can dispose of that class of property is to physically take it across state lines and then sell or transfer it. Legally someone in Maryland can not post a normal capacity magazine over 10 rounds in the for sale section of this forum.

Back to the discussion of slavery. In many areas in colonial America a slave holder could not free a slave without the permission of the local authorities. This was usually obtained by proving the freed slaves could provide for them selves without becoming a burden on the community. Almost certainly this was done to prevent elderly and infirm slaves from being "freed" rather than than the slaveholder continue to provide for them.

[MakeMineA10mm]

This has been a very good and thoughtful thread, but I can't let the last clause of your last sentence pass unchallenged, because it is totally inaccurate. I understand that is what you, your parents and your grandparents were taught in history class, but that does not make it true. It was a lie from the start and being passed from generation to generation does not make it the truth by the passing.

When the southern states seceded from the Union, Lincoln invaded the south with an army of several million to prevent it from establishing itself as an independent country. It was not about freeing slaves, but about the economic viability of the northern states without cheap southern cotton for the New England mills and free access up and down the Mississippi river without paying tariffs for good imported and exported that way.

Make no mistake about it, slavery was immoral and evil whether white or black. The "Civil War" only became about freeing slaves when the north soured on Lincoln's war and he needed a great moral crusade to keep them involved. Also do not make the mistake that Lincoln invaded the South to free slaves. That was not and never was what drove the man. That awful way was all about greed and money and very little else.

I do apologize and hope this does not cause this thread to take a tangent, but the false statement cannot be left to stand without challenge.

No problem Char-Gar; I knew someone intelligent would pipe up and make this argument. The real truth, if we want to get down to it, is this:

The Antebellum causes of the War of the Rebellion (it's legal name according to the U.S. [Union]) are actually very complex and multi-faceted. The FINAL/ultimate cause came down to an argument between state's rights (anti-federalism) and what can be called "union sovereignty" (the idea that the South/states did not have the authority to secede from the nation). But these were the fine points of principle being argued. The context of these fine points was slavery.

However to say that these principles were the only cause of the Civil War is too myopic or even a reverse distortion of the truth. The fact is, slavery was a heated argument all the way back to colonial times. The Three-Fifths Compromise was both sides "holding their nose" at things they didn't like (about slavery) in order to assure the other side had a reason to vote for the Constitution. -- This was the first time American legislators "kicked the can" down the road to let future generations deal with the mess... Slavery was THE issue of several national elections, especially the 1860, and it was an anti-slavery platform Lincoln was elected upon, which caused South Carolina to secede, even before he took the oath of office... And I'm leaving a LOT out here, Copperheads, etc...

So, I think it's quite fair for you to say the Civil War was about states rights vs. Lincoln's federal bullying, but it's at least equally fair to say the Civil War was about slavery.

Looking at it another way: If slavery wasn't an issue (let's say the South agreed during the Constitutional Convention that slavery was anathema to the American principles in the Declaration of Independence and instead of the Three-Fifths Compromise, the South agreed to a system to phase out slavery over 25 years, for example), there wouldn't have been a Civil War.

For the present day, the fact that the Civil War was about slavery (as well as other issues) undermines the African-American argument that they are "owed" something due to slavery. The truth is, African-American and other academics concur, that about 450,000 to 500,000 African slaves were brought to America before the slave trade ended. In the Civil War, 680,000 (almost all of them white) soldiers died to settle the issue. Can arguments be made that post-Reconstruction through, allegedly modern day, racism, bigotry, and prejudice have still existed? Indeed, but I might disagree the percepted levels and question to what extent the rejection of assimilation has caused this, but I've already pulled this thread pretty far off the OP's point, I fear.

[NavyVet1959]

Edit: the term Yank is applied to all citizens of the US , by us folk down Under in a non derogatory way.
Pete

Understood... We have an equally affectionate name for those from Australia and New Zealand -- "sheep-shaggers". :)

[jaysouth]

To point you in a different direction, the muslem turks kidnapped and sold over a million white Europeans into slavery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_Ottoman_Empire

[LynC2]

The Vikings were the first tourists. They toured cathedrals and villages and took home souvieners. They even settled some areas they thought were especially charming.
They brought trade and commerce to many areas of Ireland and England and even left England with an early form of democracy.

.
The folks in Britain liked the Viking so much they would make yearly payments to them.
Even the monestaries gave subsidies and gifts to these new tourists... And there was great excitement and aticipation when Vikings were discovered to be landing on the coast.

Of course women would be enamoured with the strapping and handsome Vikings and the excitement of a new life in the North would be very attractive

Yes they liked the Vikings so much they invited some French speaking ones over in 1066 who over stayed their welcome I heard. ;) It seems a Norman overlord in my family tree was involved in that affair too.

There are many very interesting facts here concerning slavery; much of which I have read before and some new additions I hadn't heard before.

[Col4570]

Did they do so because they truly loved us or was it because of economic and security ties. Also, as I remember how that worked, we saved the Brits asses in those two aforementioned world wars. We went to help them, it was not they who came to our aid. The only two times they came over here, they were trying to kill us and make us subjects of the British Crown.

During the Civil War, the English favored the Confederate states and gave us all kinds of aid in the dark. They allowed the CSA Alabama the Confederate Raider to be built there and allowed us to buy many thousands of weapons including the 3 band Enfield musket. They wanted Confederate cotton and were playing both the black and the red.

your way out comments regarding WW1 and WW2 about saving our asses demeans the souls of those who died in the actions that brought the USA into those wars.In both cases Germany attacked US shiping that was neutral at the time.I doubt if those Guys out in the sandbox at this time share your views.

[Char-Gar]

your way out comments regarding WW1 and WW2 about saving our asses demeans the souls of those who died in the actions that brought the USA into those wars.In both cases Germany attacked US shiping that was neutral at the time.I doubt if those Guys out in the sandbox at this time share your views.

The sun has set on the British Empire, so it is time you accepted the reduced status of Britain in the world. The only thing left is British pride, which is understandable considering what that place once was. I fear the US is not that far behind, running in the same tracks.

I assure you that my thinking about the US and it's rescue of "Fortress Britain" is quite common on this side of the pond and is not demeaning to dead souls of any stripe. I would not expect British people to have the same point of view, so am not offended if you think my comments are "way out". "Way out" is a relative term, but it always begins with the question "Way out from where?".

I do think I should point out what got the US in WWII was Germany declaring war on us after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and we declared war on the Japs. Before that we were trying to supply Fortress Britain with goods on the down low via the Lend Lease and other subterfuges.

[Harter66]

Col, Char,
you both know that the only thing that separates our mutual cousins across the pond is a language. If not for the men and machines buzz bombs would have been the least of London's worries. For what it's worth the French are still cranky about their bail out as well. I guess we left too many pot holes and drank too much wine .

Americans are all over,
over paid ,
over sexed,
and over here.

Or perhaps you prefer "I fear we have only awakened a slumbering giant."

[MT Gianni]

I always felt the Civil War was about the Federal Gov't enslaving the Southern States and all subsequent joiners into an agreement from which they could never be released.

[DR Owl Creek]

... Vikings tended to bathe daily. Many of their slaves were women who did not wear fetters for some strange reason. ... ;)

..."women who did not wear 'fetters' "... ???

Scandinavian women not wearing fetters?!? ... I'd like to hear more about that! ... Pix too!!!

Dave

[Char-Gar]

Col, Char,
you both know that the only thing that separates our mutual cousins across the pond is a language. If not for the men and machines buzz bombs would have been the least of London's worries. For what it's worth the French are still cranky about their bail out as well. I guess we left too many pot holes and drank too much wine .

Americans are all over,
over paid ,
over sexed,
and over here.

Or perhaps you prefer "I fear we have only awakened a slumbering giant."

Yep, dat be the case. Hitler made two terrible mistakes of hubris. He declared war on the US and invaded Russia. Up until then he had everything going his way. He ate France's lunch and shoved the British back into the sea at Dunkirk. If Adolph had not bitten off more than he could chew, Britain and most of Europe would be a German colonies today. The notion that Britain and Europe would have done Hitler in without the intervention of the US and Russia is whistling in the dark and ludicrous at best. Hubris is not just a German trait!

[perotter]

"Did they do so because they truly loved us or was it because of economic and security ties" No doubt the economies are so dependent on each other, if one falters the other will suffer. I think love is the wrong word for the mutual dependency, but rather they should be looked at as relatives. ..... There is no mutual dependency between England and the US that is a benefit to the American people. The only economic connection is international finance and that is not to our benefit. They aren't our relatives and they're our historic long term enemy for a reason. Tigers don't change their stripes.

[perotter]

your way out comments regarding WW1 and WW2 about saving our asses demeans the souls of those who died in the actions that brought the USA into those wars.In both cases Germany attacked US shiping that was neutral at the time.I doubt if those Guys out in the sandbox at this time share your views. In WW1 England attacked US shipping. There are whole books written on that and what to do keep England from being able to ever do it again.

[perotter]

...., Britain and most of Europe would be a German colonies today.... Given the power that Germany has in the EU, England and most of Europe are German colonies today. I don't think the Germans like to talk about it, as many in Europe aren't ready to admit that their grandparents(etc) were wrong for opposing the inevitable.

[perotter]

One thing about the English selling the Irish into slavery, at least it wasn't the normal killing them. I don't know which is worse.

[Char-Gar]

I will cop to the fact 1/2 of my DNA has it's origins in England and Wales. The other half is split even between Germany and Norway. The English-Welch half came to Virginia in 1619 and we have been Americans ever since, well sorta because I am a 6th generation Texas and that may trump everything else.

But at any rate my ancestors fought the British twice, the Germans twice and the Mexicans twice. The Japs, Comanche and the rest only got a single dose. So in my thinking England, Germany and Mexico are equal in my affections. I don't consider any of them to be cousins or any other kind of relative. They are all OK, as long as they stay in their own pastures and don't try and cross my fences. As long as they stay put, I bear them no animus or ill will.

[ABLE]

I am am thankful you posted this Artful, because Americans have allowed the term slavery to be co-opted by one ethnic group who is still trying to capitalize on their ethnicities' slavery history (which was also a pre-European-contact inter-tribal warfare reality for the sub-Saharan Africans), like their the only ones it has ever happened to. Of course, the other issue is that whites somehow owe reparations to that race, even though America is 150 years past abolishing slavery, and even though hundreds of thousands of whites died fighting a war to end slavery...


What really makes me sick to puke chunks is some Loud mouth going on about how his race suffered when his descendents were brought over from AFRICA. This simply shows the stupidity and ignorance of playing the race card. Today they are entitled to welfare substidies, foodstamps, housing,ETC<ETC<ETC. ASK ME HOW IT REALLY FEELS TO GET PASSED OVER FOR MED SCHOOL AND LAW SCHOOL BECAUSE OF BEING NON BLACK!!!!!!!!! EXCUSE ME I NEED TO GO PUKE!!!!!!!
ABLE

[MakeMineA10mm]

I am am thankful you posted this Artful, because Americans have allowed the term slavery to be co-opted by one ethnic group who is still trying to capitalize on their ethnicities' slavery history (which was also a pre-European-contact inter-tribal warfare reality for the sub-Saharan Africans), like their the only ones it has ever happened to. Of course, the other issue is that whites somehow owe reparations to that race, even though America is 150 years past abolishing slavery, and even though hundreds of thousands of whites died fighting a war to end slavery...


What really makes me sick to puke chunks is some Loud mouth going on about how his race suffered when his descendents were brought over from AFRICA. This simply shows the stupidity and ignorance of playing the race card. Today they are entitled to welfare substidies, foodstamps, housing,ETC<ETC<ETC. ASK ME HOW IT REALLY FEELS TO GET PASSED OVER FOR MED SCHOOL AND LAW SCHOOL BECAUSE OF BEING NON BLACK!!!!!!!!! EXCUSE ME I NEED TO GO PUKE!!!!!!!
ABLE

Oh yes, and you did not just make the point that the poorest American blacks are better off than most African blacks, did you?!? Racist!

[Col4570]

Getting back to slavery after viewing off beat throw a way remarks about WW1 and WW2.Slavery was a fact and many countries benefited from the trade that treated human beings like cattle.The tales of kindly slave owners and those who abused them echo down the ages to this time.Weather Kind or abusive the two cannot be separated when considering the holding of persons against their will to feed expanding industrial requirements.From the Arab,European , American and indigenous slave Traders to those who purchased them,they all share the same guilt.
There is no doubt that nations where built on the trade from the Cotton fields to the Sugar producing Caribbean.The fact that some nations continued this exploitation longer than others indicates the gradual shift in the perceived morality of the trade culminating in the USA with a civil war that if not due entirely to slavery it played a major part in the conflagration and the death of thousands in a war that eclipsed any other to that date.

[NavyVet1959]

The tales of kindly slave owners and those who abused them echo down the ages to this time.Weather Kind or abusive the two cannot be separated when considering the holding of persons against their will to feed expanding industrial requirements.From the Arab,European , American and indigenous slave Traders to those who purchased them,they all share the same guilt.

What we need to remember is that we should not be so quick to judge the actions of our ancestors by the morals of today. Judge them by morals of the society that they lived in at that time instead. Who knows... One of these days, the PETA kooks might brainwash everyone into thinking that animals are just as good as humans and they have rights also. Those of us today that have pets might be considered to be the slave owners because we *owned* animals.

The Founding Fathers did not see fit to give women or blacks the right to vote. Considering some of the people that they tend to vote for, I have to wonder if perhaps the Founding Fathers might have actually known what they were doing.

[10x]

Sadly there are still forms of slavery in some parts of Africa, Asia, and the Middle east. Some of the servants who work for room and board, plus what they can sort out from the household garbage are slaves without a certificate of title.

[MakeMineA10mm]

10x is right. There is a modern day slave trade. Google "human trafficking" and you can learn all about it. That's why the phrase was changed from runaways to missing-and-exploited children.

[popper]

Americans (s.i.c - press & politicians) have allowed the term slavery to be co-opted by one ethnic group who is still trying to capitalize on their ethnicities' slavery history
Actually it was the 2nd wave of Irish that were outcast, mostly by the first wave who had finally established themselves in financial society. In reality, Lincoln was using the Fed to unify the mechanized North with the Ag. South, both which needed each other. His biggest problem was greed of powerful persons on BOTH sides. Same song ' I want what you got'. Mexican pickers were needed for 'cheap' labor until mechanization arrived in the field. Chaves fought the machines, but didn't really care a whit about the people, just like Sharpton and his buddies.

[perotter]

Looks like there is still slavery going on in England today. They even get Slavs from Poland as salves. Nothing much has changed in the world. Some times we just like to pretend it has. http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/modern-slavery-united-kingdom

[perotter]

Just to be clear it also still exists in the US.

[OBIII]

Just a couple of asides:

Reparations are in order. They were promised 40 acres and a mule. It was never specified where those 40 acres would be located.

Wasn't it recently decided by an Argentinian court that an Orangutan was a Non-Human person and therefore had rights?

OB

[Harter66]

It would seem the bit about a free ride to a nation of their choice to build has been forgotten also . Jamaica and Niger were originally set up just for the freed *****s. Those that chose to go went those that stayed ,well many of them chose to stay where they had been most of their lives.

Slavery does still exist but the vast majority are there by free will at least in the states . Some of them just don't know any better and some are scared to make the leap. We are all slaves in a way .......or addicts perhaps.

[nekshot]

hey, up here in ferguson we got slaves also, they are owned by the dems and news media. Some are so illiterate they cannot understand simple english testaments from a jury But they understand HIKE the football! Wow things don't change do they?

[Harter66]

I wonder what got spell check censored?