PDA

View Full Version : When was Irish slavery in the New World illegalized?


Sampiro
03-01-2010, 06:17 PM
For those not familiar, in the 17th century tens of thousands Irish prisoners (estimates range from a conservative ~30,000 to well over 100,000) were sent to the New World as slaves. The vast majority were sent during the Cromwell regime (1651-1660) but the practice of deporting and selling them for life to New World colonists began at least as early as 1625 and occurred on a smaller scale afterwards, usually due to small scale revolts.

By the 18th century the Irish and the Scots-Irish who were deported to the New World came as indentured servants: their servitude was involuntary but would expire after a set number of years. In the 17th century they were slaves- the word slave was in fact used- meaning they would not be free and any children born to them would be enslaved as well. The majority of them were sent to the plantations in the Caribbean, but many were sold in North America as well.

Irish slaves were cheaper than African slaves and their treatment often reflected it. Most of the Caribbean Irish slaves died within a few years of their transport. At least a few were actually owned by freed African slaves (or their descendants) who became free planters. Others participated in slave uprisings in the Caribbean, and while Bacon's Rebellion wasn't a slave revolt there were a couple of Irish freedman among the farmers who had been slaves (as well as some black freedmen).

For those who are familiar:

While this chapter of history is fairly well documented, what I haven't been able to find is when the slavery of white Irish people in the New World was outlawed. I have found laws from various islands illegalizing aspects of their slavery- most have to do with miscegenation (it was illegal for Irish women to either voluntarily have relations with black slaves or to be required to have relations with black slaves by their masters who wished for mulattoes- I found no such laws, not surprisingly, prohibiting sexual relations between Irish men/African women or for white masters/Irish women).

Obviously at some point at least the descendants of Irish slaves if not the slaves themselves were freed. If they hadn't been then there'd have been third and fourth generation Irish slaves being sold at the time of George Washington. I can't find a date or an act though, nor do I know if it was done by the British crown or island by island. (I would guess that it was passed by Charles II as part of his "digup that bastard Cromwell and hang him for killing my daddy" Restoration reforms, but I don't know this. (Plus, as mentioned, the deportations/selling of Irish rebels still went on under him though on a minute scale of the Cromwell era.)

Anybody have any info?

Really Not All That Bright
03-01-2010, 06:53 PM
Great Britain banned the trading of slaves more or less throughout the Empire* in 1807 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_Trade_Act), and slavery itself in 1833 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833). Since Ireland was a British possession at the time, there wouldn't be anybody else poaching slaves from Ireland, and of course the slaves on British New World plantations were all (supposedly) freed in 1833.

In fact, adult slaves were basically kept as indentured workers by their former owners, since they had no money to pay for passage, and slavery would basically have continued in the colonies until the last of the pre-1833-born slaves died off, escaped or was freed.

ETA: The governor of Trinidad banned the indenture practice on Trinidad and Tobago in 1838, but I doubt there were many Irish there, if any.

*With the notable exception of much of India and Ceylon/Sri Lanka.

Lumpy
03-01-2010, 10:43 PM
I'd never heard that the descendents of Irish slaves and indentured servants became a hereditary class of slaves like Africans. Cite?

Sampiro
03-01-2010, 11:11 PM
I'd never heard that the descendents of Irish slaves and indentured servants became a hereditary class of slaves like Africans. Cite?

That's what I'm trying to deduce actually. As I mentioned it's clear there weren't white-slave auctions by the late colonial era, but I'm wondering how long it did last.
This site (http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=396) contains an excerpt from the book TO HELL OR BARBADOS: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ireland (http://www.amazon.com/Hell-Barbados-Ethnic-Cleansing-Ireland/dp/0863222870) (a book I haven't read) that mentions the hereditary nature of the slavery and the rape of Irish female slaves in part to produce offspring.

ratatoskK
03-02-2010, 07:37 AM
Slight tangent -- you might be interested in reading "Bound for America" by Ekirch.

Captain Amazing
03-02-2010, 09:50 AM
By the 18th century the Irish and the Scots-Irish who were deported to the New World came as indentured servants: their servitude was involuntary but would expire after a set number of years. In the 17th century they were slaves- the word slave was in fact used- meaning they would not be free and any children born to them would be enslaved as well. The majority of them were sent to the plantations in the Caribbean, but many were sold in North America as well.

I'm not sure if that's true. I'm looking at Don Kirkland and Michael Walsh's "White Cargo: The Forgotten History of Britain's White Slaves in America", which suggests that there was a limited term of indenture, 7 years, for those transported. It wasn't perpetual, nor were their children enslaved.

WreckingCrew
03-02-2010, 10:23 AM
The Irish slavery was also a key plot point of the noted documentary, Captain Blood

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Blood_(1935_film)

septimus
03-02-2010, 10:50 AM
This topic was very new to me! References found Googling all call this "little known" and that does seem to be the case.

OP's answer might be 1705. From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States):
The Virginia Slave codes of 1705 further defined as slaves those people imported from nations that were not Christian, as well as Native Americans who were sold to colonists by other Native Americans.

That article is vague about white slaves before 1705. I realize "indentured servants" might be worse off than chattel slaves, but there is a difference.

One of my Scots ancestors was arrested in the Monmouth Rebellion of 1685 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monmouth_Rebellion) and sent to Pennsylvania as an indentured servant. He eventually became a successful Philadephia businessman. Now I wonder if he was just very lucky to be sent to the North rather than the South or Caribbean. (Monmouth Rebellion was also cause of Capt. Blood's slavery (Errol Flynn) -- see previous post.)

Tapioca Dextrin
03-02-2010, 11:45 AM
I just dug out the Slave Code of South Carolina (http://www.teachingushistory.org/tTrove/1740slavecode.htm) from 1740

WHEREAS, in his Majesty’s plantations in America, slavery has been introduced and allowed, and the people commonly called Negroes, Indians, mulattoes and mustizoes, have been deemed absolute slaves

That implies that there were no white slaves.

Really Not All That Bright
03-02-2010, 11:48 AM
No, it implies that white people were not automatically qualified to be slaves.

An Gadaí
03-02-2010, 01:07 PM
Fascinating OP, I just wanted to chime in with a slight hijack but Damien Dempsey released an album called To Hell Or Barbados (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLLH1i5_LlQ) (after the book) a few years back.

Sampiro
03-02-2010, 02:58 PM
One of my Scots ancestors was arrested in the Monmouth Rebellion of 1685 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monmouth_Rebellion) and sent to Pennsylvania as an indentured servant. He eventually became a successful Philadephia businessman. Now I wonder if he was just very lucky to be sent to the North rather than the South or Caribbean. (Monmouth Rebellion was also cause of Capt. Blood's slavery (Errol Flynn) -- see previous post.)

Cool. I have ancestors (well, one ancestor and his brothers) who were sent as involuntary indentured servants to Pennsylvania as well due to their participation in the 1715 uprising. From my research into them I learned that the reason most Scots Irish went to Pennsylvania (whether voluntarily or in-) was the simple but practical reason that PA was where most ships leaving Ulster for the New World were headed. English and Irish mills imported flax from Pennsylvania warehouses, refined it into linen and sent it back, and since linen takes up a lot less cargo room than raw material they subsidized the voyage over by taking passengers.

Sampiro
03-02-2010, 03:48 PM
Here's a better synopsis (http://www.rhettaakamatsu.com/irishslaves.htm)than the first one I linked to. Some [pre-Salem] witch trials trivia from that site:

n 1688, the first woman killed in Cotton Mather's witch trials in Massachusetts was an old Irish woman named Anne Glover, who had been captured and sold as a slave in 1650. She spoke no English. She could recite The Lord's Prayer in Gaelic and Latin, but without English, Mather decided her Gaelic was discourse with the devil, and hung her.

Tapioca Dextrin
03-03-2010, 10:51 AM
No, it implies that white people were not automatically qualified to be slaves.


If you carry on reading to article V, that's not the case

If any slave who shall be out of the house or plantation where such slave shall live or shall be usually employed, or without some white person in company with such slave, shall refuse to submit or to undergo the examination of any white person, it shall be lawful for any such white Person to pursue

It's pretty clear (at least in my addled head) that there are two distinct classes of people:- slaves and whites. I'll admit that's it's logically possible for there to be overlap, but I doubt it.

Tapioca Dextrin
03-03-2010, 11:44 AM
Some info on Ann Glover:

Here's her memorial plaque (http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM10T4_Goodwife_Ann_Glover)

"Not far from here on 16 November 1688, Goodwife Ann Glover, an elderly Irish widow, was hanged as a witch because she had refused to renounce her Catholic faith. Having been deported from her native Ireland to the Barbados with her husband, who died there because of his own loyalty to the Catholic faith, she came to Boston where she was living for at least six years before she was unjustly condemned to death. This memorial is erected to commemorate 'Goody' Glover as the first Catholic martyr in Massachusetts."

And I tracked down this historical record (http://www.archive.org/details/historicalrecor05socigoog)

(http://www.archive.org/stream/historicalrecor05socigoog/historicalrecor05socigoog_djvu.txt)In Boston town, at this period, lived Ann Glover and her daugh-
ter Mary, who had arrived about the year 1680 from the Barba-
does. They had been deported, like so many others, from Ireland
to the West Indies in the time of Cromwell.

Harold Dijon, in a sketch in the Ave Maria (1905), states "that
Ann Glover had been living in Boston for some years previous
to her execution in 1688. It is not known what part of Ireland
she came from. She herself has stated that she and her husband
were sold to the Barbadoes in the time of Cromwell. She also
related, that, shortly after the birth of her daughter, her husband
was 'scored to death and did not give up his religion, which same
I will hold to/ It is possible that Mrs. Glover (Goody Glover
she was called in Boston) came in that train of servants and
Indian slaves, brought to the Puritan colony from the Barbadoes,
some of whom fell to the Rev. Mr. Parris of Salem fame."

During their first years in Boston, Goody Glover and her
daughter Mary were forced to do the most menial work because
of their "Papistical inclinations" and washed the clothes and
ironed the linen of Puritan families near the water front. At
times, Goody Glover was called in to help as laundress to the
better-class families who lived near the province house. In these
homes, the brave old Irishwoman, firm in her faith, was not in-
timidated by the prosel)rting tactics of her employers. Mrs. Glover
and her daughter acted also as nurse and maid to the children
of certain families, among which was that of John Goodwin, a
mason, in Boston.

and for the truly nerdy, here's a first hand account (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/salem/ASA_MATH.HTM) of her trial.

So definitely a slave in Barbados in 1680. No definite word on her status in Boston (other than poor, Catholic and eventually dead) :(.

Sampiro
03-03-2010, 02:01 PM
Counting the moments til I can use "Papistical inclinations" in a conversation with one of my Catholic friends.

Tituba of Salem Witch Trials fame was also from Barbados. Her race is not exactly clear from documents- black, American Indian, or some combination- but it's not inconceivable she had Irish blood as well.

Sampiro
03-03-2010, 03:17 PM
and for the truly nerdy, here's a first hand account (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/salem/ASA_MATH.HTM) of her trial.


It's always amazing reading things like that and remembering that men like Cotton Mather were not stupid nor were they like an ancestor of Glenn Beck worshiping tinfoil hat conspiracists, but rather were among the most intellectual and well educated men of their time. They spoke and read and wrote in several languages and even kept up with the scientific discoveries and debates of the day, yet a half crazy "Hag" (their word) getting revenge on people who had been mean to her by changing herself into "a black thing with a blue Cap" and entering her employer's home where she "tryed to pull out the boyes Bowels" spectrally is completely feasible.

You would think even then they'd wonder "If she's in league with Satan and can change her shape and fly away to dance the hoochy koo in the forest, then how in the world did we ever get her into custody?" I wonder to what degree the Puritans of Massachusetts applauded fellow Puritan Cromwell's attempted genocide of the Irish.

APB
03-04-2010, 12:23 PM
I'm looking at Don Kirkland and Michael Walsh's "White Cargo: The Forgotten History of Britain's White Slaves in America", which suggests that there was a limited term of indenture, 7 years, for those transported. It wasn't perpetual, nor were their children enslaved.

This is the crucial point. While involuntary indentured servitude might involve banishment abroad for life, the period of actual servitude was usually limited.

The other crucial point to grasp is that the legal status of the Irish involuntary indentured servants was exactly the same as that of their English counterparts. The English government had in recent decades regularly used this as a method for reprieving those convicted of capital crimes and as a punishment for vagrancy. All that was different about Ireland in the 1650s was the vast scale on which the policy was being applied. Under the conditions of military conquest and occupation, there were many more people who could be convicted of the relevant offences and, even more importantly, a much greater enthusiasm by some within the English government to apply this as a punishment.

What also needs to be remembered is that there were large numbers of voluntary indentured servants. In fact, one of the big problems in calculating the size of the Cromwellian deportations to the West Indies is that there had been significant numbers of Irish who had earlier chosen to emigrate there, also as indentured servants. Not every Irishman in Barbados or Montserrat was sent there by Cromwell.

Given all this, there was no particular reason for the restored monarchy to abandon the practice after 1660. As septimus notes, the transported Monmouth rebels are the obvious case in point. All that then happens is that it evolves into the more familar practice of transportation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_transportation). Which wasn't abolished - in England no less than in Ireland - until 1868.

Johanna
03-04-2010, 05:55 PM
One of my ancestors immigrated from Ireland before 1740, and was an indentured servant in Pennsylvania and Delaware. There were notices in the newspaper three times when he ran away, in 1749, 1750, and 1751. Some years later he served in the French and Indian War. I think the third time he ran away, he stayed free. He moved out west. Of course, his kids were born free. I'd never heard of indentured servitude being inherited. Although in places like rural India and Pakistan, debt slavery because of exorbitant interest rates keeps some families in debt, and hence de facto enslaved, for generations. Kind of like sharecropping in the southern United States during and after Reconstruction.

Sampiro
03-04-2010, 07:43 PM
An interesting fact about African slavery is that the first ones to America were treated as indentured servants. Obviously it didn't last long, but there was a small window where some Africans were guaranteed freedom and there were some free black families much later who descended from these.

The exact origins of African slavery are a bit hazy. We know that there were Africans, or at least people of African descent (their birth may have been in South America, the Caribbean or even Europe) who were present in James Town before the first slave ship. We're not sure how many (other than very few- maybe as few as a couple- there's just a reference to a man's Negroes being counted in a provisioning) but they were among the 2,500 or so people who had come to James Town by 1619 (the vast majority of whom had died or gone back to England; for anyone not that familiar with James Town, it was a non stop disaster for its first few years with a mortality rate that would literally probably exceed most concentration camps).

In 1619 a slave ship, probably called "The White Lion" (though I'm not sure if that was its name or the English translation of its name) came up the James River due to a series of mishaps. The Dutch were fighting their wars of independence with the Spanish and their privateers (along with English privateers [though secretly by this point due to an English-Spanish non-aggression pact under James I]) were blasting away at any Spanish ships in the Caribbean that looked like they might be hauling valuable cargo. (The sought after grail of course was gold or silver or silk from the mines in South America or the Asia trade, but pretty much anything- even just capturing a ship itself- was worth the cost of the battle if it could be won fairly easily.) The White Lion captured a slave ship, probably en route to Cuba (but again the records are hazy) and were probably disappointed since while slaves were valuable they weren't nearly as valuable as a hull full of precious metal, but, anyway...
The ships were damaged during the battle. The Dutch set sail to their own port in Guyana for repairs and to sell the cargo; records are unclear as to whether they were towing the captive Spanish vessel, or whether it had sunk, or whether they had possibly boarded it and renamed it White Lion, but in any case they had the slaves. And they sailed pretty much straight into a horrible storm- possibly a hurricane- that battered the hell out of their ship (this is possibly when the other ship was sunk) and blew them hopelessly off course. Since they were nowhere near a Dutch port and everything on North America south of Virginia was under Spanish control they limped into James Town to sell their cargo- their captured "negars" as they were referred to in records- for supplies and repairs.
The English really weren't accustomed enough to slavery to much know how to handle them. In England African slaves were a luxury item more than anything else- about like having a butler or a limo and chauffeur- since there were so many poor people willing to work very cheaply. OTOH, Jamestown had a desperate need for labor, so the "let's make a deal" thing worked out for the English and for the Dutch- not so much for the slaves.

At first, as mentioned, it was agreed that they would keep the slaves as indentured servants, albeit for 10 years as opposed to the usual 7, the extra 3 being because they were a bit more expensive and they had to be taught English and to be good Christians. By 1625 it's known there were mulattoes in James Towne and slave ships were coming not only there but to Massachusetts (where the first slave is believed to have arrived around 1624). Even for those "lucky" first few who had survived captivity and enslavement in Africa, the 'middle passage' literal shitholes, a battle at sea, a tropical storm or hurricane, and being sold (lucky bastards) pretty much any offense real or imagined would extend their indenture, in some cases to life, but there were some in the first few ships who did get their freedom and the usual indentured servant severance (50 acres plus a specified amount of supplies or clothing or tools) at the end of their term.

By the time the first few got their freedom this way the indentures for the new ones coming it had already risen to 14-20 years standard and again often as not they died before the indenture was up due to it being extended or just the harsh working conditions, disease, Indian attacks (numerous small skirmishes and major offensives in 1622 and 1644- both of which had black victims) and other horrors of 17th century Virginia. By the time the second big batch of African indentured servants were freed the rules had changed completely and the new arrivals were just flat out slaves for life.

However, there were a few Africans who survived all of this and got their freedom and even were relatively respected free men and women for a time. The children or descendants of some of these were involved in Bacon's Rebellion as free farmers, by which time the children or descendants of others had migrated north into other colonies. Some also had descendants who were ultimately re-enslaved for debt or other reasons (including probably "not being able to prove you were born free").

The 17th century is so seldom taught in survey courses with any depth. Maybe they do Jamestown (a brief treatment), certainly Plymouth Rock, possibly a little of New Amsterdam beyond the $24 worth of beads, but very little between any of these and the Salem witch trials, yet to me it's about the most fascinating period of our history. I'm surprised there aren't more historical novels about it at very least.

Lumpy
03-04-2010, 08:51 PM
The 17th century is so seldom taught in survey courses with any depth. Maybe they do Jamestown (a brief treatment), certainly Plymouth Rock, possibly a little of New Amsterdam beyond the $24 worth of beads, but very little between any of these and the Salem witch trials, yet to me it's about the most fascinating period of our history. I'm surprised there aren't more historical novels about it at very least.For that matter, a comprehensive American history could devote at least an entire chapter to the Sixteenth century, to explain the background of European and Caribbean history behind why English speaking people began to colonize North America beginning in the Seventeenth century. There's a heck of a lot more to it than "the Western hemisphere was Spanish for a century, until the English, Dutch and French got into the act".

Sampiro
03-04-2010, 08:56 PM
For that matter, a comprehensive American history could devote at least an entire chapter to the Sixteenth century, to explain the background of European and Caribbean history behind why English speaking people began to colonize North America beginning in the Seventeenth century. There's a heck of a lot more to it than "the Western hemisphere was Spanish for a century, until the English, Dutch and French got into the act".

The Dutch wars for independence from Spain and their Constitution/religious tolerance would profoundly influence the American Revolution and state building well over a century later, yet they're never mentioned.

runcible spoon
03-05-2010, 10:39 AM
Not to completely hijack, but your ideas interest me and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter. What did set off the colonization of (present-day) New England? I know the French colonies were largely set up to export goods, but I don't know anything about why the timing ended up as it did.

Tapioca Dextrin
03-05-2010, 12:21 PM
The British came into North America with three feet. The right foot went up into Canada and started the Hudson's Bay Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson%27s_Bay_Company) to provide furs (cheaper than Russians and the accursed French)

The left foot landed in Virginia and the Carolinas (and also the Caribbean). That provided novelty goods such as sugar and tobacco.

The middle foot set up in New England, but unlike the the land was not so generous. There were no easy pickings. There were not enormous profits. This lack of profits did encourage another group of people: prophets.

The Pilgrims Fathers were English, but they left England due the hostile religious environment. They didn't head west though, the went to Holland, first to Amsterdam and then to Leiden. They didn't get on well there either and it was then decided to give America a go. They chose New England precisely because no one else wanted to go there. It was somewhere where they would be left alone.

Sampiro
03-05-2010, 01:44 PM
Charles V was the all time high water mark of dynastic marriages. Through his mother (Joanna the Mad/Juanna de Loco) he was the grandson of Ferdinand and Isabella of Columbus fame; through his father (Philip the Fair) he was the grandson of Maximilian (Habsburg), Archduke (for all practical purposes king) of Austria and by election Holy Roman Emperor, and of Mary, the Duchess of Burgundy (died young but was the richest woman in Europe). He inherited Spain, Austria, overlordship of Portugal, Burgundy, bits and pieces of Italy and Sicily and even little bites of France and Switzerland, and he was elected (through lots and lots of politicial machinations and bribery [including New World gold and silver]) Holy Roman Emperor, which gave him most of what's now Germany and Poland and other bits and pieces of Europe. His wife brought Sicily and even more chunks of Italy to the picture. A map works better- everything in orange or yellow (http://faculty.cua.edu/Pennington/ChurchHistory220/Lecture14/CharlesVEmpire2Sm.JPG)was inherited or controlled by Charles V. Europe wouldn't see a man that powerful again until Napoleon.

He also ruled the Spanish colonies in what's now South and Central America, which would become increasingly important. He'd already inherited a good bit of Aztec gold and the Incan gold (and even more importantly the Incan silver) would make him the richest monarch in European history in terms of revenue. Of course he needed it: he was fighting wars on all fronts- with the Turks who were constantly breathing on his neck in Austria, with rebels everywhere, Martin Luther and the Reformation happened on his watch which was pretty bloody, with Francis II of France and (his one-time uncle-in-law) Henry VIII of England and others (though he also fought alongside those men- alliances were constantly changing), but he was the reason that France and England were salivating for a piece of the New World, but at the same time he kept them so busy on the continent that they didn't have the time or men or resources to invest in trying to take it. (He's also the reason that Henry VIII didn't get the divorce; annulling a marriage to a wife who'd borne no sons was almost a formality- the Pope probably kept a blank template in his desk drawer- but when the most powerful man in Europe doesn't want his favorite Aunt Katherine to be divorced and happens to have you not just surrounded but even forced out of the Vatican, it's not a good idea to stand on tradition.)

Anyway, Charles V eventually got old and was very tired. Juggling that many wars and that many different peoples and language groups and religions, even with that constant influx of New World and later Asian revenue, wore him out, plus his old pals/enemies Francis II and Henry VIII were dead and it just wasn't fun anymore so he became a monk (kinda-sorta- it was really just a super luxurious retirement but he took holy orders) and split his empire between his son, Philip II, and his brother, Ferdinand. Philip's big inheritances were Spain, the Netherlands, and the New World, while his brother got Italy and Austria and the Holy Roman Empire (which wasn't Charlie's to leave but he helped his brother secure the election).

The Netherlands had never particularly liked being ruled by Charles V (who made no bones about the fact he much preferred Spain and Italy to any province where the people sounded remotely German as the Dutch of course did- he hated the German language) and they found they liked being ruled by his son Philip even less. This became very important.

Also important were the Atlantic currents (http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/McGrawHill/Encyclopedia/images/CE058700FG0010.gif). The reason that Columbus and then more than a century of subsequent explorers and conquerors went to South America and the Caribbean even though it's many times further than North America was because the currents did the work for them; the Atlantic coast of North America was a lot harder to get to, which is why they never really settled it much.
They planted a couple of colonies in what's now the Carolinas in the 1520s- total disaster- the slaves joined with the Indians and drove them out [and there have been black Indians in the Carolinas ever since incidentally], then Narvaez and others came and de Soto had his epic disaster and when the survivors from it mentioned that they never came around any gold to speak of (though ironically they marched around one of the richest deposits in the mountains of North Georgia) they figured it wasn't really worth it anyway. They founded St. Augustine for trade but that was about it as far as any real settlements.

TO BE CONTINUED

runcible spoon
03-05-2010, 02:45 PM
I love this place.

Sampiro
03-05-2010, 04:27 PM
So, gold and (more importantly to the Spanish economy) silver are coming into Spain throughout the 16th century in seemingly endless supply. (Potosi, a Bolivian village high in the Andes and peopled by enslaved natives high on coca leaves, was built on a mountain of silver ore so rich that it literally funded the Spanish navy for centuries; the "pieces of eight, pieces of eight" were mined there, and by some accounts (not all) the Potosi mint mark is where the dollar sign comes from (check out the column and the drape (http://www.cointalk.com/attachments/8001d1135651021-72_1_b.jpg.jpg)).

Unfortunately the Spanish have a stranglehold on most of the Caribbean and what's now Central America and Mexico and much of South America, and what they don't control the Portuguese do through Brazil. After 1581 is the King of Portugal is also the King of Spain when the old king dies and Philip II of Spain presses a claim to the throne; he has relatives with equal or better claims but unlike them he has an excrement load of money to fund his military in support of his claim. So, by the 1580s Philip II is for all intents and purposes Emperor of the Americas as well from northern Mexico down to Chile, and using South America as a pit stop he's making literally tons of gold from Japan and China as well. (No hopes of conquering those lands but he doesn't even want to really since they're more than happy to fill up the Spanish/Portugese ships with gold/spices/silk/etc. in exchange for weapons and other trade items [though they eventually say 'we're all stocked up on Jesuit priests, thanks just the same- use that space to bring some more muskets']).

So Philip II, who doesn't control anywhere near as much of Europe as his father did, has instead a global empire. Long before the sun didn't set on the British Empire the Spanish were sunbathing like mo-fos, and it is driving England, France, and everybody else in Europe bonkers. The Spanish are a super power and their revenue is absolutely endless- you could burn down Barcelona and blow up Madrid and make Ibiza go condo and still they'd manage to get the money to rebuild it.

Philip II had briefly been the King of England as well when he was married to 'Bloody' Mary; he was co-crowned with her, though Mary- as much as she loved him- never gave him the power of a monarch. He'd assumed it would be his through their child however, and failing that (since she never had a child) then upon her death- and there was a [mostly well paid and mostly Catholic] faction that rooted for him to become king when she died, but there was never any real contest twixt him and his sister-in-law Elizabeth. Unlike Mary Elizabeth was youn, attractive, potentially capable of having lots of babies, but she spurns him of course. I don't think it was his ego so much as his ambition that was hurt of course, but he and Elizabeth- who is also of the "Hail Mary's can go to merry old Hell" bent religiously and does away with Catholicism- came to cordially hate each other, plus having done quite well with his pressed claim to Portugal he decides to do likewise with his claim to the throne of England ("because my beloved late departed wife Mary, God rest her crazy silly smelly old soul, wanted me to have it- it was her dying words to me- or would have been had I been anywhere remotely near her- I'm guessing").
=====
Elizabeth meanwhile (and other powers too) realizes that she has to get a piece of Philip's New World action if she's going to compete. A land invasion of Panama or Mexico or Peru or whatever is unthinkable of course, but piracy is another matter entirely, and it's not like it's stealing if it belongs to a Catholic monarch who's already your sworn enemy. This is where the privateers come in- literally, the only difference between privateers and pirates was that the privateers had a license to steal so long as they gave the crown of England a [big] cut.
Elizabeth's other buddies in hatred of Philip are the Dutch. And pretty much everybody else in Europe who's not Philip or his court really, including the Catholic kings of France, but most particularly the Dutch. They hate being a vassal state of Spain- a micromanaging greedy Catholic superpower while they themselves are (by and large) Protestant and religiously tolerant (not to say they have any shortage of religious fanatics, Catholics and Protestants and otherwise, but they're religiously tolerant because it's really good for business). The Dutch start providing privateers as well. Piracy becomes the biggest thorn in Philip II's side; true, most of his treasure ships get through just fine, but every one that doesn't is a MAJOR loss to him and more so when you realize that Elizabeth's wetting her beak in it.
-----------
England decides it's finally ready for its own New World colony. This was Roanoke of course- founded in 1585, tons written about it including on these boards. What's less well known is that what ultimately damned the colony was the Spanish Armada which left the English unable to resupply or reinforce the colony and when they finally did get back to it there was nothing but an amphitheatre showing The Lost Colony pageant each summer.

Meanwhile the Spanish Armada has not just taken the wind out of Philip's sails, it's burned the mothers. Even with his New World revenues the Armada's failure and destruction hurt like hell financially and would take a long time to recoup.
Also, just as Elizabeth had the (largely) Protestant Dutch who hated Philip as her friends, Philip had the (almost completely) Catholic Irish who hated Elizabeth on his, and who were in fact to be his allies if the Armada succeeded. And they're cutting up in other ways too and have been for years, so Good Queen Bess decides that the Earl of Leicester is more than just a pretty boy and genocide is more than just a pretty word.

TO BE CONTINUED

(and yes, I'm aware, this is way simplified)

Yllaria
03-05-2010, 05:04 PM
I love this place.

Yeah, I always love it when Sampiro says TO BE CONTINUED.

Spectre of Pithecanthropus
03-08-2010, 04:57 AM
If you carry on reading to article V, that's not the case



It's pretty clear (at least in my addled head) that there are two distinct classes of people:- slaves and whites. I'll admit that's it's logically possible for there to be overlap, but I doubt it.I've heard of laws to the effect that a free (or freed) black person could face re-enslavement, if they didn't stay out of the jurisdiction in question. I'm not sure how that worked, since AFAIK it was always possible, theoretically, for a slave to become free, whether by simple emancipation or by the slave somehow saving the money to buy himself free. I'd hate to think that a person who had just bought his freedom after decades of saving didn't get at least a few weeks' time to travel to free territory.

Spectre of Pithecanthropus
03-08-2010, 01:40 PM
It's always amazing reading things like that and remembering that men like Cotton Mather were not stupid nor were they like an ancestor of Glenn Beck worshiping tinfoil hat conspiracists, but rather were among the most intellectual and well educated men of their time. They spoke and read and wrote in several languages and even kept up with the scientific discoveries and debates of the day, yet a half crazy "Hag"....
I suspect that misogyny was a major factor here, since most of the "witches" were women.

Cotton Mather himself owned a native African slave* named Onesimus, who told him about his people's time-honored practice of smallpox vaccination, and eagerly allowed himself to be guided by this, even though this entailed pricking the skin and inserting a tiny bit of the pus from someone else who was infected. Of course it worked just great, since, crudely put, that's how we vaccinate today. Incision--pus--insert--OK, but Irish/Latin rappin' Catholic female--burn her!

*I suppose just about all black slaves in those days were imported. This story comes from the David McCulloch bio of John Adams.

Sampiro
03-08-2010, 02:28 PM
I suspect that misogyny was a major factor here, since most of the "witches" were women.

In one of the books I read they researchers did a profile of women most likely to be accused of witchcraft and in both Europe and America the highest risk of being "satanically profiled" was a poor single woman (unmarried/widowed/or abandoned) who did not regularly attend church. The mentally ill- both male and female- were also high risk, especially if they were poor, but if you were a mentally ill woman of that description go ahead and call your lawyer now cause they're coming for you.

Cotton Mather himself owned a native African slave* named Onesimus....

Cool info- I didn't know that. I knew that he was pro-vaccination and IIRC was physically attacked for it a couple of times, but I didn't know the idea came from a slave.

Malthus
03-08-2010, 02:40 PM
Apropos of nothing, one of my direct ancestors was a woman hanged as a witch in New England - who survived (she was allegedly cut down by her neighbours after the lynch party left).

Tapioca Dextrin
03-08-2010, 02:57 PM
I knew that he was pro-vaccination .

I'm English and we were brought up to believe that the smallpox vaccination was an English invention, care of Edward Jenner in around 1796. Man, was my eduction off base. You can see the 1721 text here (http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/7910093?n=9&imagesize=1200&jp2Res=.25). There's also a Chinese book from 1536, but I'm too dumb to read it.

Sampiro
03-08-2010, 02:59 PM
CONTINUING FROM THE LOST COLONY:

Elizabeth I fought a war with Ireland that was extraordinarily expensive for England and extraordinarily bloody for the Irish. For all the Cate Blanchett and Glenda Jackson vehicles she's inspired she's still to this day about slightly more beloved to Irish history buffs than Mao Tse Dong, and with reason. The war was also extremely unpopular in England- not because so many Irish were being killed (though I'm sure you can find some who had problems with that as well) but because it was sucking the treasuries dry and because a lot of English soldiers were killed as well. You can also look up the intrigues twixt Elizabeth and Robert Devereaux, Earl of Essex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Devereux,_2nd_Earl_of_Essex), who some claim was her lover even though he was 32 years her junior- no idea on that but she was definitely infatuated with him, and he was the stepson of Robert Dudley, E. of Leicester, who was the undisputed love of her life who had died by this time, but the infatuation ended when Essex (who had always had boundary issues where the royal person was concerned) decided he didn't like the way Bess was running the war and crossed the Rubicon Irish Channel back into England with his troops. It didn't go well and he lost his head. (There's speculation he believed James VI of Scotland had his back on this one.)

Anyway, the Irish were led by Hugh O'Neill, Earl of Tyrone, who had been essentially held hostage during his childhood and educated at the English court (an old trick the Romans used to do- probably predated them- make your enemies kids as much like you as possible and they'll become allies and often it worked- even in Hugh's it did for a time). O'Neill was one of the richest men in the British Isles due in part to the concessions the English crown had made to his loyalty (he was in fact a king- a title honored by the English- of a couple of petty traditional Irish kingdoms, but the Earldom was his big money title) but ultimately his patriotism and Catholicism or perhaps his ambition won out over his loyalty to Elizabeth and he rebelled. It didn't go well of course- at one point he and other Irish nobles pretty much offered Ireland on a silver tray to Philip II if he would just send troops, but after the Armada and his other problems in running a vast empire and fighting a rebellion with the Dutch and various family problems (among other things he had become increasingly a Mr. Mom to his youngest kids after his 4th wife died [she'd originally been betrothed to his oldest son but when the Infanto proved to be either retarded or mentally ill {we're not sure what, just that he had serious issues} his dad broke the engagement and married her himself whereupon the Infanto starved himself to death and Philip had lots of guilt issues) and the ongoing problems with pirates and privateers and Protestants he just didn't want to get involved, so it went bad for the Irish.

Elizabeth died in 1603 and the throne passed to her cousin, the big tongued bisexual Jimmy Six of Scotland. He had often wanted the throne while she was alive but he probably didn't feel in 1603 she'd done him too many favors. England was broke and in debt and in serious need of coin, and Spain- even wounded and with a not particularly bright kid, Philip III, on the throne (Philip II died in 1598) was still a whole lot richer and more powerful than England and its New World colonies and Asian trade ever growing and who knows when that kid is going to say "I'd like to be king of Ireland too". There's even religious problems- Protestants and Catholics of course hated each other but within Protestantism Anglicans hated Puritans and both hated Presbyterians which is what Jimmy was, so there's that as well.

So Jimmy Six needs lots and lots of money and he needs an answer to the Irish problem (because even though England had won the wars it was just a matter of time before it started up again) plus he still has all the problems he had when king of Scotland (including a Scottish overpopulation problem). And one of his solutions of course gives birth to both America and the Scots Irish (and their eventual cross pollination of each other).
TBC

Tapioca Dextrin
03-09-2010, 08:25 AM
How about a date of 1701, at least for the island of Nevis (http://www.archive.org/stream/calendarofstate_1701grea/calendarofstate_1701grea_djvu.txt)?

Act (5). This Act inforceth
noe person whatsoever to bring servants from England or else-
where to Nevis, and when any are imported there, men and
women from sixteen to fifty years old, are by a law to serve
but four years as servants and not slaves

As far as I can tell, it's actually a piece of anti-Catholic legislation, as upstanding English Protestants were becoming afraid of the growing number uppity Irish Papists .

Really Not All That Bright
03-09-2010, 09:10 AM
I'm English and we were brought up to believe that the smallpox vaccination was an English invention, care of Edward Jenner in around 1796. Man, was my eduction off base. You can see the 1721 text here (http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/7910093?n=9&imagesize=1200&jp2Res=.25). There's also a Chinese book from 1536, but I'm too dumb to read it.
My mind is blown. Indeed, innoculation was a common practice even in England long before Jenner's time, apparently (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccination#History).

barleysinger
07-26-2015, 06:09 PM
How about a date of 1701, at least for the island of Nevis (http://www.archive.org/stream/calendarofstate_1701grea/calendarofstate_1701grea_djvu.txt)?



As far as I can tell, it's actually a piece of anti-Catholic legislation, as upstanding English Protestants were becoming afraid of the growing number uppity Irish Papists .


I would tend to agree. There was huge hatred for all Catholics by the Brits in that era. The hatred was so extreme that the Irish who were sent to the Caribbean an "indentured" rather than outright as slaves. Mind you they had become "Indentured" as punishment for the crimes of being Irish & Catholic.... ANYWAY....

The Irish "indentured" in the New World were in a bad way. They had extremely limited rights and the BRITS (who hated Catholics) were in charge of everything. Whatever a Brittish land owner said was true... no matter how untrue it was.

You might have been sent off for 10 years transportation and labor (because you were "walking while Irish" and were jailed without a trial) but in reality NOBODY cared if it was forever, and you had a very low chance of living to be set free...due to how the protestants land owners treated the Catholics.

From the standpoint of the Anglican Brits... black slaves were "lesser beings" BUT they were still better than Irish Catholics. They also COST a lot more. A black slave (transported or born near by) sold for 30 to 50 pounds... and Irish transported servant/slave sold for about 5 pounds.

The treatment the Irish got reflected all of this :

* hatred of the English for Catholics
* hatred of the English for the Irish
* higher cost of buying Africans.


Again...note - Catholics were HATED

It got to be SO bad for those Irish Catholics who were essentially grabbed off of the streets and sold as "indentured" .. that they made LAWS to try and decrease the violence.

A lot of kids had ben taken from their families and sold off.. and the Planters had been taking the Irish girls and BREEDING these girls to the African slaves (shipped off to the Caribbean because you were Irish, and the raped to make slaves for the master). So they made laws against this ("anti-race mingling" laws). And it was STILL so horrible for the Irish in the Caribbean that they eventually outright BANNED the trade in Irish slaves. They had hopes that this would "in general" decrease brutality to all the slaves because those left would cost 10 times as much.

Little Nemo
07-26-2015, 09:56 PM
Responding to old posts I know.
I'm English and we were brought up to believe that the smallpox vaccination was an English invention, care of Edward Jenner in around 1796. Man, was my eduction off base. You can see the 1721 text here (http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/7910093?n=9&imagesize=1200&jp2Res=.25). There's also a Chinese book from 1536, but I'm too dumb to read it.
My mind is blown. Indeed, innoculation was a common practice even in England long before Jenner's time, apparently (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccination#History).People had known that if you had smallpox once, you never got it again. So some people tried to give themselves a mild case of smallpox, hope it would stay mild, and give them immunity to any future smallpox. It was better odds overall than risking getting ordinary smallpox but it was still a risky procedure.

Jenner's discovery was that you could give people cowpox, a mild disease, and they would then be immune to both cowpox and smallpox. (There's evidence that other people had noticed this before Jenner. But he deserves credit as the guy who pushed to make cowpox vaccination a widespread practice.)

md2000
07-26-2015, 11:31 PM
One of the "evolutions of thought" that I recall reading was the trend toward the belief that Christians should not be enslaved by Christians. Whether this was a result of the African slave trade or the cause of it, I don't know. It does seem to me though, that the same viewpoint also spread across Europe and so slavery of Europeans was less prevalent (although obviously not non-existent) even before the colonization of the Americas.

Lemur866
07-26-2015, 11:55 PM
Right, one of the reasons initially Africans were deemed suitable for enslavement is that they weren't Christians.

The problem with this comes when your slaves convert to Christianity. Now you have to let them free. So the reason Africans should be enslaved must not be because they aren't Christians, there must be some other reason. So now we declare that Africans are naturally inferior to Europeans.

An Gadaí
07-27-2015, 04:55 AM
Liam Hogan in the University Of Limerick has done a lot of work in the field. For example, The Myth of “Irish Slaves” in the Colonies (http://www.academia.edu/9475964/The_Myth_of_Irish_Slaves_in_the_Colonies).

Nava
07-27-2015, 05:25 AM
Again...note - Catholics were HATED

Some years back, I was part of a group of Spaniards working in Glasgow. I went to see a parade, some sort of celebration. The sight of an embroidered pennant with words along the lines of "kill all Catholics" kind of killed my fun mood. Maybe it was Catholic, like me?

One of the "evolutions of thought" that I recall reading was the trend toward the belief that Christians should not be enslaved by Christians.

Right, one of the reasons initially Africans were deemed suitable for enslavement is that they weren't Christians.

Isn't that from the NT? Part of the issue with the Brits and Irish was the division of Christians (those in MY Church) and heretics (those in any other so-called church).




Sampiro! You've been owing us the rest for five years, man!

bob++
07-27-2015, 05:26 AM
The Pilgrims Fathers were English, but they left England due the hostile religious environment. They didn't head west though, the went to Holland, first to Amsterdam and then to Leiden. They didn't get on well there either and it was then decided to give America a go. They chose New England precisely because no one else wanted to go there. It was somewhere where they would be left alone.

I know it's a diversion but this is a common misconception. The pilgrims left England because it was TOO tolerant. They wanted to establish a colony where everyone would adhere to their version of intolerant Christianity.

The pilgrims believed that they were true Christians, determined to "purify" the Christian church and return to a scripture-based service. These "Puritans" were not satisfied with the reforms introduced after the separation of the English church from the Catholic Holy See in Rome.

Nevertheless, the Puritans were seen both as seditious and heretical for their beliefs. The King's agents persecuted them.

Fuzzy_wuzzy
07-27-2015, 05:40 AM
I know it's a diversion but this is a common misconception. The pilgrims left England because it was TOO tolerant. They wanted to establish a colony where everyone would adhere to their version of intolerant Christianity.


Both reasons can be correct. The Pilgrims may have wished for their very own separatist intolerant colony and have been persecuted in England at the very same time. Neither reason for their voyage to the New World is mutually exclusive.

edit: Sorry, your second quote did deal with the point I made.

rbroome
07-27-2015, 09:43 AM
Liam Hogan in the University Of Limerick has done a lot of work in the field. For example, The Myth of “Irish Slaves” in the Colonies (http://www.academia.edu/9475964/The_Myth_of_Irish_Slaves_in_the_Colonies).

Thanks!
A clear and readable explanation of what was really going on. This is an excellent addition to the earlier posts in this thread. White slavery in the Americas simply didn't happen. The Irish certainly weren't treated well, but they certainly weren't treated as badly as the Africans.

Bridget Burke
07-27-2015, 12:10 PM
I'm English and we were brought up to believe that the smallpox vaccination was an English invention, care of Edward Jenner in around 1796. Man, was my eduction off base. You can see the 1721 text here (http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/7910093?n=9&imagesize=1200&jp2Res=.25). There's also a Chinese book from 1536, but I'm too dumb to read it.

Jenner invented "vaccination"--from the Latin root for "cow." Because he used cowpox cells instead of smallpox. But he was building on the established practice of "inoculation" ---now called "variolation." Which was quite effective & permanent; vaccination was safer, even if "boosters" were needed.

Cotton Mather did pioneer inoculation in New England. Some disagreed with him because they thought he was tampering with God's Will. Others, because they disliked him....

Bridget Burke
07-27-2015, 12:16 PM
I just dug out the Slave Code of South Carolina (http://www.teachingushistory.org/tTrove/1740slavecode.htm) from 1740

That implies that there were no white slaves.

History & slave codes varied in the different colonies--even just the English-speaking ones. Virginia was the oldest colony; there were a few African slaves early on but the labor force was mostly indentured. Enslaved Africans only became vital to the economy after the first century.

South Carolina was founded later--after the sometimes involuntary indenture of folks from the less fortunate parts of the British Isles had slowed down. African slavery was part of the colony's initial plan.

DrDeth
07-27-2015, 12:41 PM
One of my Scots ancestors was arrested in the Monmouth Rebellion of 1685 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monmouth_Rebellion) and sent to Pennsylvania as an indentured servant. He eventually became a successful Philadephia businessman. Now I wonder if he was just very lucky to be sent to the North rather than the South or Caribbean. (Monmouth Rebellion was also cause of Capt. Blood's slavery (Errol Flynn) -- see previous post.)

Actually, he was very lucky not to have been hanged. I know the idea of slavery is extremely distasteful to us, but as a alternative to execution, it could even be considered merciful. People were not kept much in prisons for crime- they were executed, transported/indentured or given lashes. The prisons were hellholes anyway, except those for the upper class.

md2000
07-27-2015, 03:53 PM
A good way to think of Protestants and Catholics in the "good old days" in Britain is to consider them like the communists and capitalist camps up to 1990...

Catholics were supposedly "just another religion" but the protestants considered that they "took their orders" from Rome, much as communism was an idealistic belief, but the western world believed - to some extent true - that the communists took their orders from Moscow. Both Moscow and Rome diverged from their ethereal ideals with very messy politics, and England worried that the Vatican and its puppet-masters was perpetually trying to ensnare and enslave England so it could be ruled by France or Spain.

Ireland, where local Catholics and British immigrants lived side by side, was the most virulent of these antagonistic arrangements - it persists into the present. Of course, the rest of England was equally suspicious, as event over the years kept the disagreement in the forefront - there was the gunpowder plot, and also James Ii and the glorious revolution. (he spent much of the Cromwell reign in France, and became Catholic, and the English suspected he was trying to hand the country to France.) After Henry VII, there was Bloody Mary, as the country bounced between Protestant Edward, then Catholic Mary and her Spanish husband (and late mother), then protestant Elizabeth.

We may see it as "just religion" but the choice of religion was incredibly tied into politics and international relations. The King was also the head of the Anglican church, so rejection of Anglicanism was implicit disrespect for the King and country and immediately made you an object of suspicion.

This is also why the Pilgrims had such a hard time. Rejecting Anglicanism meant the same if the sect were protestant or catholic; plus the nobility had not forgotten the civil war in the mid-1600's when rabid puritans executed the king and tried to shut down other churches - they were vigilant about allowing any such social movement to gain ground again.

DrDeth
07-27-2015, 04:02 PM
A good way to think of Protestants and Catholics in the "good old days" in Britain is to consider them like the communists and capitalist camps up to 1990...
.

Not to mention- when Queen Mary was in charge, Protestants were pretty nastily repressed.

Mk VII
07-27-2015, 05:20 PM
November 5th, 1605 was the 9/11 of its day - except that it was discovered in time (opinions differ on how much foreknowledge the government had). In the light of it most people would have thoroughly approved of repressing Catholicism.

jasg
07-27-2015, 07:58 PM
One of my Scots ancestors was arrested in the Monmouth Rebellion of 1685 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monmouth_Rebellion) and sent to Pennsylvania as an indentured servant. He eventually became a successful Philadephia businessman. Now I wonder if he was just very lucky to be sent to the North rather than the South or Caribbean. (Monmouth Rebellion was also cause of Capt. Blood's slavery (Errol Flynn) -- see previous post.)Likewise for a Scots ancestor of mine. A POW from the Battle of Dunbar in 1650, he survived to be sold into servitude at the Saugus Iron Works in Massachusetts.

Sampiro
08-04-2015, 12:54 PM
The problem with this comes when your slaves convert to Christianity. Now you have to let them free. So the reason Africans should be enslaved must not be because they aren't Christians, there must be some other reason. So now we declare that Africans are naturally inferior to Europeans.

Mississippi's 1861 Declaration of Secession (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp) adds "[Cotton and sugar cane] are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun." Ignoring the fact there was no shortage of white farmers who were bearing exposure to the tropical sun, this is one of the most naked bits of admission ever: they don't try to justify black slavery with the Bible or even racial superiority but in a "they're a lot more durable than we are, we can't do without them financially, if they ever get allowed to feel equal we are all in some serious danger, and so we're bloody keeping them enslaved and keeping them beaten down.

DrDeth
08-04-2015, 01:03 PM
Yes, and that reminds us just what kind of racist fucks ran the CSA:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

...
It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

...

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.....
It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.
...
Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

And yet, they still keep saying "State Rights". :rolleyes:

Folacin
08-04-2015, 03:33 PM
And yet, they still keep saying "State Rights". :rolleyes:

And they meant - they just don't often mention that the overriding right they wanted was to be able to own slaves.

DrCube
08-04-2015, 03:56 PM
And they meant - they just don't often mention that the overriding right they wanted was to be able to own slaves.

They had that right, too. The right they wanted (and kept getting, until their little temper tantrum) was to expand slavery into the territories and newly created states so they could gain legitimacy and avoid being viewed by the rest of the world as the backwards evil fucks they were.

Northern Piper
08-05-2015, 07:46 AM
A good way to think of Protestants and Catholics in the "good old days" in Britain is to consider them like the communists and capitalist camps up to 1990...

Catholics were supposedly "just another religion" but the protestants considered that they "took their orders" from Rome, much as communism was an idealistic belief, but the western world believed - to some extent true - that the communists took their orders from Moscow. Both Moscow and Rome diverged from their ethereal ideals with very messy politics, and England worried that the Vatican and its puppet-masters was perpetually trying to ensnare and enslave England so it could be ruled by France or Spain.

Considering that the popes issued orders to Catholics in Britain, freeing them from all allegiance to the English Crown, and excommunicating them if they remained loyal to the Crown, and renewed those orders at times of peril to the English government, such as the Armada, there was probably some basis for this belief.

Article on the Papal Bull issued by Pius V and Renewed by Later Popes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regnans_in_Excelsis):

Regnans in Excelsis ("reigning on high") was a papal bull issued on 27 April 1570 by Pope Pius V declaring "Elizabeth, the pretended Queen of England and the servant of crime", to be a heretic and releasing all her subjects from any allegiance to her, even when they had "sworn oaths to her", and excommunicating any that obeyed her orders.[1]
"We charge and command all and singular the nobles, subjects, peoples and others afore said that they do not dare obey her orders, mandates and laws. Those who shall act to the contrary we include in the like sentence of excommunication."
...
The Bull was issued in support of, but following, the 1569 "Northern Rebellion" in England, and the first Desmond Rebellion in Ireland, with foreign Catholic support, and hardened her opinion against her landowning Catholic subjects.
...
At the request of the Jesuits and to relieve the pressures on Catholics in England, Pope Gregory XIII issued a clarification or suspension in 1580, explaining that Catholics should obey the queen outwardly in all civil matters, until such time as a suitable opportunity presented itself for her overthrow.
...
In 1588, Pope Sixtus V, in support of the Spanish Armada, renewed the solemn bull of excommunication against Queen Elizabeth I, for the regicide of Mary, Queen of Scots, in 1587 as well as the previously catalogued offences against the Catholic Church

filmstar-en
08-05-2015, 06:32 PM
The bigger picture was the contention between the principle of the 'Divine Right of Kings' and the Supremacy of the Pope in Rome. The Papacy behaved like an international corporation with its own tax raising powers and laws within countries.

Strong Renaissance Kings like Henry VIII, in his efforts to secure his dynasty by bearing a son, found Martin Luthers religious Protest provided an answer. Luther was protesting about the practice of selling 'get out of Purgatory early vouchers' - Indulgences, which was a money making enterprise to finance the building of St Peters Basilica for Pope Leo X. His religious protest argued that there was no religious basis for this sort of thing and went further, questioning the infallibility of the Pope and the Catholic church, when interpreting scripture. Catholicism came with huge political and economic power and this Protest was a direct threat. It was soon denounced as a heresy and its followers persecuted by Inquisitions.

However, ambitious Renaissance Kings like Henry saw it as way to strengthen their grip on power. Here was a religious argument that could be used to challenge the authority of Rome. It was consistent with the doctrine that Kings were appointed divinely to rule. Adding to this confrontation was the tendency of Protestantism to divide into sects, each defining their own method of worship, some were against having any head of their church.

What followed was a couple of hundred years of religious wars that flared up across Europe. England in the age of Elizabeth I was divided between Catholic and Protestant and teetered on the edge of civil war and the threat of invasion. Many other countries in northern Europe had similar tensions. In Catholic countries there were Inquisitions ordered to deal with heretics by burning at the stake.

The losers in civil wars are seldom well treated and transportation to the New World was a softer option. The English Civil war was set Protestant Parliament forces against a Catholic King Charles I, who firmly believed in his divine right and lost his head for it. It raged on through the 1650s and created a problem of how to handle the prisoners. The sugar plantations of the Colonies needed labour and rounding up political prisoners for transportation and use as indentured labour, far away from where they could cause trouble, was a common solution to this problem. Given the severity of other punishments, this was probably one of the softer options.

However, plantation owners did not regard these prisoners as a reliable workforce, preferring politically loyal Protestant English, Scottish or Welsh who volunteered to go to the colonies. Moreover, the tropical climate and diseases took its toll. The profits from sugar were considerable but it was a semi-industrialised process that demanded large amounts of labour.

Eventually African slaves proved to be a fitter workforce and with the huge expansion of the sugar plantations replaced most of the white slaves. However, the descendants of the white slaves are still there today in islands that were at the centre of the sugar trade such as Barbados. White Barbadians often have Scottish and Irish names and live in marginalised conditions in certain districts. They are known locally as Redlegs and often have Scottish or Irish family names.

When was slavery abolished? The slave trade in the British Empire was abolished in 1807. Slavery itself was 1834 was the big date for the abolition of slavery itself across the British Empire. Again religion played a big part in this. Evangelical Christians and Quakers organised a national campaign for abolition arguing on moral and ethical basis against commercial interests. It was a long struggle.

There are problems with the definition of slavery. While the ownership of another human being is one definition known as chattel slavery and that was the focus of abolition, there are many other forms. Some types of indentured labour can be very severe and little better than slavery.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline

The UK has recently passed a Modern Slavery Act to address some of the modern forms of slavery arising from illegal immigration and human trafficking.

aethelred
08-06-2015, 03:05 AM
Proleptic apologies for contributing to topic drift :)

Regarding the Mississippi Ordinance of Secession and neoconfederate or confederate apologist "states' rights" revisionism, it might be worth pointing out that the Confederate Constitution rather severely limited its own member States' rights not to maintain the Peculiar Institution (Art IV, Sec 2, (1)).

Lumpy
08-06-2015, 09:21 AM
Yes, and that reminds us just what kind of racist fucks ran the CSA:
And yet, they still keep saying "State Rights". :rolleyes:Well, given that their entire society was based on protecting and expanding slavery, the anti-slavery measures gaining ground in the rest of the Union would have meant their "utter subjugation".