England and Slavery

[What the .... ?!?!]

Two questions that may have some factual answers ......

1. To what extent if any did England encourage slavery and perhaps even resist movements toward ending slavery prior to our independence?

2. In the 1830's when England abolished slavery, how did the economics of slavery compare between England's colonies and the U.S. ?

[RealityChuck]

Slavery was pretty much unknown within the UK; it was just established in their colonies, and was a big profit item for their slave traders. The resistance usually came from the traders and the plantation owners and their friends. Most of the rest of the UK didn't care about the issue until Wilberforce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce) started making it a political issue.

[blindboyard]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somersett%27s_Case

Slavery was, as you see, illegal in England (or rather not recognised by the law in England) and in most English overseas territory. As I understand it this was due to a lack of statute supporting slavery, so those British territories with slavery statutes on the books (or who introduced them in response to the ruling) such as Virginia and Jamaica kept their slaves, while others followed the English ruling and had no more slaves.

[Mk VII]

The discovery that sugar could be made from sugar beet grown in Europe, rather than sugar cane grown on West Indian slave plantations and transported across the Atlantic, meant that the economic incentive to slavery began to disappear, just as the moral case against it began to be made more strongly.

[Mahaloth]

Homework assignment? :)

[AmunRa]

Homework assignment? :)

On Christmas? :dubious:

Glad I didn't go to the same school you did. :p

[fumster]

England didn't need slaves, they had the Irish.

[What the .... ?!?!]

Homework assignment? :)

Nope......... just wondering what kind of moral authority England had when they got us started down the human bondage road and then only abolished it after it was much less lucrative for them.

[Mk VII]

someone had to start the ball rolling.

[casdave]

Nope......... just wondering what kind of moral authority England had when they got us started down the human bondage road and then only abolished it after it was much less lucrative for them.

Which neatly ignores the fact that the American colonies were British and slavery was not exactly imposed on this colony, more imported with the colonists, they were one and the same people, this is ot starting Amreicans with slavery but really its a continuation of an accepted practice, its just that one part of those peoples got rid of slavery first

[chappachula]

, more imported with the colonists
I think that's the point of the original question: from WHERE did the colonists import the institution of slavery. I dont think it was from England.
Slavery never really existed in the British Isles. The Brits had a long history of serfdom, of indentured servants, of dirt-cheap labor from abused children and Irish. But it was the Americans (yes, of British descent) who were started holding public slave auctions to sell humans the same way you sell horses.

[Martin Hyde]

I think that's the point of the original question: from WHERE did the colonists import the institution of slavery. I dont think it was from England.
Slavery never really existed in the British Isles. The Brits had a long history of serfdom, of indentured servants, of dirt-cheap labor from abused children and Irish. But it was the Americans (yes, of British descent) who were started holding public slave auctions to sell humans the same way you sell horses.

Slavery was well known and widespread in the British Isles. When the Domesday book was written 10% of the population were chattel slaves, it was widely practiced amongst the Irish as well. The Norman Conquest lead to the end of chattel slavery in England and I believe it also died out in Ireland around the same time. It was replaced with a system of involuntary servitude known as serfdom/seigneurialism and that was also slavery in every true sense of the word.

By 1500s serfdom had mostly come to an end in the entirety of England/Scotland/Wales, and it was one of the first regions where serfdom truly died out.

This doesn't, to my mind, have much to do with the question of chattel slavery in British colonies. However I just object to the factual statement that "slavery never existed in the British Isles" when at one point it was common and widespread.

As for where the British colonists "got it", the answer is basically that it was what made sense when they went over. There was no real moral opposition to the idea of enslaving non-Christian "lesser people" amongst the British in the late 16th/early 17th century. Like the Spanish before them, British colonies from the 13 in North America to colonies in the Caribbean and elsewhere practiced chattel slavery of indigenous (and later African) peoples wherever there was a need for lots of laborers.

From the English Bill of Rights and onward obviously the English felt some concept of personal liberty, but that really did not extend to non-Christians and indigenous peoples in conquered territories. Even when slavery ended in its overseas possessions, the British treated indigenous peoples very roughly throughout the 19th century.

There is nothing surprising about the existence of chattel slaves in any European colony during the 1500s-early 1700s, at least when we're talking about plantation economy colonies. It's really not notable at all that chattel slavery was practiced in the American colonies.

What is notable is that it continued so long and actually became more entrenched during the 19th century, an era when everyone else was going in the opposite direction. During the 18th century it wasn't a totally unknown line of thought that widespread chattel slavery was on the way out, even in the southern colonies/states. It was looking very much like an economically dead end situation. Furthermore, the relationship between slave and master seemed a lot different then. It was a lot more common for slaves to "work themselves free" by buying their freedom in the 18th century in America, it also was a lot more common for slave owners to educate their slaves and many of the slave holders who took place in the Revolution were big on emancipation, often times in their wills they would emancipate their slaves.

However as the 19th century got started and the economy of the South started to change, you saw slavery actually growing whereas before it was looking like it was on the way out. The Southern political elite also became more entrenched in their support of slavery and radical in their opposition to any reforms of the system. Southern society itself became much less open to outside opinions. Where there was a vein of Southern thinkers for many years who thought of slavery as an evil that should eventually be abolished, by the mid-19th century there were instances of Southerners who published such thoughts being ran out of town, beaten, or et cetera.

To me the question as to where America got slavery isn't that interesting. The answer is, "same place all other European plantation colonies got it: out of a necessity for lots of labor in a land without lots of laborers, it made economic sense to make use of slavery on a large scale." What's more interesting is exploring why slavery in America really started to grow during the early 19th century and why Southern society became much more radicalized in regard to slavery. All of this actually at a time when the rest of the world at large was moving in the other direction.

[GilaB]

What's more interesting is exploring why slavery in America really started to grow during the early 19th century and why Southern society became much more radicalized in regard to slavery. All of this actually at a time when the rest of the world at large was moving in the other direction.
My high-school level of history knowledge says that a lot of it had to do with the invention of the cotton gin, making cotton a practical crop that was widely adopted across the south. Slavery became more economically useful when there was an agricultural product that could be widely sold at a high price. How relevant was the cotton gin, actually? I have no doubt that my high school textbook oversimplified.

[Chefguy]

My high-school level of history knowledge says that a lot of it had to do with the invention of the cotton gin, making cotton a practical crop that was widely adopted across the south. Slavery became more economically useful when there was an agricultural product that could be widely sold at a high price. How relevant was the cotton gin, actually? I have no doubt that my high school textbook oversimplified.

It can be fairly said that the cotten gin (cotton engine) transformed America's status as an unimportant trade partner to one of significance and power. The only cotton that could be grown in America was a low-growing variety that had a ratio of seeds to cotton of 3:1. To separate the seeds by hand was so labor intensive that even the cost of the slave labor to do the work was prohibitive. Most cotton in England was imported from India at that time, but after the invention of the cotton gin, nearly all of the considerable imports came from America. This made a lot of people rich, although not the inventor, Eli Whitney.

[Chefguy]

It can be fairly said that the cotten gin (cotton engine) transformed America's status as an unimportant trade partner to one of significance and power. The only cotton that could be grown in America was a low-growing variety that had a ratio of seeds to cotton of 3:1. To separate the seeds by hand was so labor intensive that even the cost of the slave labor to do the work was prohibitive. Most cotton in England was imported from India at that time, but after the invention of the cotton gin, nearly all of the considerable imports came from America. This made a lot of people rich, although not the inventor, Eli Whitney.

I should also mention that the ability to remove the seeds easily meant that much more labor was needed to harvest. America went from almost zero cotton export when the gin was invented to something like 2 billion pounds by 1860, and slave states went from six to fifteen. The north was complicit in this effort and sold nearly a million slaves south as plantation labor.

[Claverhouse]

The discovery that sugar could be made from sugar beet grown in Europe, rather than sugar cane grown on West Indian slave plantations and transported across the Atlantic, meant that the economic incentive to slavery began to disappear, just as the moral case against it began to be made more strongly.


Well, the abolitionists of the period actively encouraged finding alternative production to cane-sugar...

Many at the time resented the do-goodery of middle class women agitating against slavery and refusing Jamaican grown sugar whilst their own poor were shoved up chimneys.


I think that's the point of the original question: from WHERE did the colonists import the institution of slavery. I dont think it was from England.
Slavery never really existed in the British Isles. The Brits had a long history of serfdom, of indentured servants, of dirt-cheap labor from abused children and Irish.


After the Black Death serfs formed an extreme minority of the population; indentured servitude and use of children would be more common from the 17th to 18th centuries; and the Irish only came over as labour in Britain ( not as slaves or necessarily always cheaper labour ) in the 19th century.

Serfdom was abolished in France earlier, but by the 19th century being a poor labourer sucked just as much. As it did in every country in the world irrespective of whether you were English, Russian, American or Indian. Just better than being an actual owned slave.


But it was the Americans (yes, of British descent) who were started holding public slave auctions to sell humans the same way you sell horses.


That would be news to the Romans, let alone the Islamic world; and in India.

Slavery flourished in China of course, but I don't know if they had public auctions; nor if these were held in the Caribbean and Latin America where 95% of the Atlantic Trade of slaves ended up. For some reason the Spanish & Portuguese get a free pass, whilst the Anglo Americans are reviled.

[Chefguy]

Slavery flourished in China of course, but I don't know if they had public auctions; nor if these were held in the Caribbean and Latin America where 95% of the Atlantic Trade of slaves ended up. For some reason the Spanish & Portuguese get a free pass, whilst the Anglo Americans are reviled.

As do the Arabs, who did a brisk business throughout west and central Africa well before and past the beginning and end of slavery in America.

[Captain Amazing]

Serfdom was abolished in France earlier, but by the 19th century being a poor labourer sucked just as much.

Serfdom was abolished in England earlier than France...1580s vs 1789.

[Manda JO]

After the Black Death serfs formed an extreme minority of the population; indentured servitude and use of children would be more common from the 17th to 18th centuries; and the Irish only came over as labour in Britain ( not as slaves or necessarily always cheaper labour ) in the 19th century.



It's worth mentioning that in the 1650s Oliver Cromwell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell) sold 50,000 Irish Catholics into slavery. It may have been a small percentage of the population, but 50K isn't chicken feed, and the fact that he could even do something like that suggests that the basic idea of slavery wasn't alien to English thinking at the time.

[Claverhouse]

As an extreme royalist I would claim that Cromwell was a disgusting little piece of human waste whose feeble-minded treachery was not untypical of the time, but whose justifications for his conduct would have been too long-winded and murky to have listened to. He was not an articulate man.

However, he --- or rather the Parliament in which name he primarily acted --- also sent Scots calvinists and English royalists into the same slavery, or rather indentured servitude which was not for life. Not just the Irish,

Still, no-one ever claimed the idea of slavery was alien to British thinking, or the thinking of anywhere else in the world. Slavery was the natural condition of all pre-christian civilisations from Egypt to Greece and Africa. Just that it was alien to British soil. After the Norman conquest. Slaves became serfs, but serfdom is not the same thing as chattel slavery. You had rather more rights and couldn't be whipped to death.

In Rome, I remember a slave killing himself by repeatedly dashing his head against a wall. And if a master was murdered his slaves were executed for not preventing it.

[Candyman74]

It's worth mentioning that in the 1650s Oliver Cromwell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell) sold 50,000 Irish Catholics into slavery. It may have been a small percentage of the population, but 50K isn't chicken feed, and the fact that he could even do something like that suggests that the basic idea of slavery wasn't alien to English thinking at the time.

Eh? I'm not seeing that information on the page you linked to.

This doesn't, to my mind, have much to do with the question of chattel slavery in British colonies. However I just object to the factual statement that "slavery never existed in the British Isles" when at one point it was common and widespread.


Serfdom was not slavery. Eh, if you wanna strenth the definition to fit your own personal viewpoint, then slavery still exists in the western world via corporate employment. We can stretch the definition as much as we like, but serfdom was NOT the same as slavery. It was fairly unpleasant and unfair, yes; but it was not slavery by any reasonably definition which doesn't include modern corporate employment. One's Lord could not kill you at will; you had rights to property, family, and earnings. Implying that this was slavery is stretching the definition beyond breaking point. Hell, I'm a slave, then.

[Claverhouse]

Serfdom was abolished in England earlier than France...1580s vs 1789.


Wiki says of serfdom in France 'For example, serfdom was de facto ended in France by Philip IV, Louis X (1315), and Philip V (1318). With the exception of a few isolated cases, serfdom had ceased to exist in France by the 15th century.'


I wouldn't rely on Wiki, but the number of serfs in western, not eastern Europe, would have been pretty small by the 1500s...

[Martin Hyde]

Serfdom was not slavery. Eh, if you wanna strenth the definition to fit your own personal viewpoint, then slavery still exists in the western world via corporate employment. We can stretch the definition as much as we like, but serfdom was NOT the same as slavery. It was fairly unpleasant and unfair, yes; but it was not slavery by any reasonably definition which doesn't include modern corporate employment. One's Lord could not kill you at will; you had rights to property, family, and earnings. Implying that this was slavery is stretching the definition beyond breaking point. Hell, I'm a slave, then.

Slavery to me = involuntary servitude.

Serfdom = involuntary servitude.

Serfdom happened over a period of around 1100 years across all of continental Europe. Germany and on West (France, Spain, England) had relatively "mild" forms of serfdom. When you go East it gets worse the farther East you go, in Russia serfdom was probably one of the worst forms of human living ever seen on a large scale.

Serfs had to work for their lord, if they didn't their lord could punish them. Serfs were often subject first and foremost to manor courts, which were ran by the feudal lord. There were a few more steps involved than traditional chattel slavery in Rome in which the master had arbitrary/on the spot powers of punishment, but the end result was the same. As a serf, you could not move out of your servitude, your children were bound because you were bound. The feudal lord had legal rights over you, including the right to punish you for not working for him.

Serfdom was slavery, I'm not sure why some people don't seem to accept that fact.

However, if you note European colonization of the Caribbean you'll note that every major European power made use of slaves there--even though many of these powers had long since abolished serfdom. So why did they "roll it back" so to speak? The answer is that the abolition of serfdom had nothing to do with the viewpoint of Europeans vis-a-vis slavery. Europeans showed for a period of 300 years or so they had few moral qualms about enslaving indigenous peoples of other societies. Europeans weren't shipping indigenous peoples back to Europe to be agricultural slaves because Europe was full up of agricultural labor, it didn't need chattel slaves.

[Martin Hyde]

I wouldn't rely on Wiki, but the number of serfs in western, not eastern Europe, would have been pretty small by the 1500s...

After 1500 serfdom was very rare East of the Rhine, and fairly rare in Germany itself. Austria, Poland, Hungary, the Baltic territories, Russia, etc practiced serfdom for much longer.

When Emperor Joseph II worked to abolish serfdom in his realm in the late 18th century it was controversial enough that it caused serious issues for him politically. The Russians kept their serfs for more than fifty years after that.

What's notable about East versus West Europe is sometimes Western European countries on paper didn't abolish serfdom that much earlier than Eastern countries, but in practice Western Europe had only small pockets of serfdom post-1500 which was eventually outlawed by statute. Eastern Europe was still practicing it heavily, when Emperor Joseph outlawed it in Austria it wasn't something that only affected a few people, it affected a huge number of people because it was still widely practiced there.

[qazwart]

It's worth mentioning that in the 1650s Oliver Cromwell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell) sold 50,000 Irish Catholics into slavery. It may have been a small percentage of the population, but 50K isn't chicken feed, and the fact that he could even do something like that suggests that the basic idea of slavery wasn't alien to English thinking at the time.

Oliver Cromwell didn't sell them into slavery. That would be wrong, and no Englishman would be able to abide by that.

Instead, he merely forced them to become indentured servants for their short brutal lives and scattered them all over the empire while they toiled away in the sun at the various plantations. Nope. Not slavery at all!

Most of the Irish slaves indentured servants were settled in Monserrat in the Caribbean which besides Ireland is the only other country where St. Patricks Day is a national holiday.

The Irish there are quite lucky. It's a very lovely place. It's called the Jewel of the Caribbean, the Paradise of... OH MY GOD THE VOLCANO IS ERUPTING! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!

I had assumed the whole island was abandoned back in the 1990s when a dormant volcano decided not to be dormant anymore, but apparently people still live in the northern 1/3 of the island. The rest is covered by volcanic ash along with the former capital of Plymouth. According to what literature I can find, it's a place to go to experience what a Caribbean island is like without all the tourist hoopla.

[Martin Hyde]

The big difference between corporate employment and serfdom is you're allowed to quit your employment with the corporation.

While in many scenarios a serf trying to "quit" would be unthinkable (because they would have to vacate the land and would almost immediately die of starvation along with the rest of their family), even still serfs did try to escape. I say escape because it was illegal for a serf to leave their lord's service. There were people employed who tracked down runaway serfs and returned them to their lord. You've probably heard of similar persons who captured runaway slaves for profit in the pre-Civil War United States.

Talking in general about serfdom is kind of pointless though, because it was so different based on what time and what place you're looking. Some serfs had legal rights, some serfs were protected against arbitrary punishment, some serfs had a right to family and property. In Russia, serfs could be and were sold and shipped elsewhere, without regard to their familial connections. In Prussia (a part of Germany), serfs could be punished through manor courts which were ran by the feudal lord. These punishments could be harsh and the courts were essentially as arbitrary as the lord themselves. (One of the things the Hohenzollern monarchs fought with the junkers over was the manor courts, eventually the monarchy reigned in the worst abuses and regulated the manor courts so that they were not mere instruments of the junker's will.)

[Manda JO]

Eh? I'm not seeing that information on the page you linked to.


When I quoted Wiki a few hours ago, this line appeared in the Wiki article:

In addition, roughly 50,000[47] Irish people were sold into slavery under the Commonwealth

Oddly, you have to go back a version to see it now, because in the last hour it appears someone has edited that line out of the Wiki.

However, the Wiki does still state (as of this post) that:

On the other hand, the worst atrocities committed in Ireland, such as mass evictions, killings and deportation of over 50,000 men, women and children as slaves[51] to Bermuda and Barbados, were carried out under the command of other generals after Cromwell had left for England.

Which suggests that Cromwell himself wasn't personally responsible, but the point is still valid: Irish could be and were sold into slavery.


Oliver Cromwell didn't sell them into slavery. That would be wrong, and no Englishman would be able to abide by that.

Instead, he merely forced them to become indentured servants for their short brutal lives and scattered them all over the empire while they toiled away in the sun at the various plantations. Nope. Not slavery at all!

I've never heard that it was even called indentured servitude. I'm pretty sure it was understood as slavery. I suspect that the children of the Irish would not have inherited that status of slavery from their parents: the absolute heritability of slavery was still an ambiguous idea in 1650, and even then tended to be applied mostly to African slaves. But that's all pretty meaningless when you are being deported to the sugar islands: those populations worked too hard and died too fast to reproduce much. Populations were always sustained through importation.

[Claverhouse]

While in many scenarios a serf trying to "quit" would be unthinkable (because they would have to vacate the land and would almost immediately die of starvation along with the rest of their family), even still serfs did try to escape. I say escape because it was illegal for a serf to leave their lord's service. There were people employed who tracked down runaway serfs and returned them to their lord. You've probably heard of similar persons who captured runaway slaves for profit in the pre-Civil War United States.


To be exact, in England ( and Germany ) if one managed to get to a city ( or in the German states a Free City, at least ) and live there a year and a day, then the lord's claims lapsed.

Whereas with escaped chattel slavery, at least in the US, if one escaped and was recognized, even years later, people were legally bound to assist the owner's claim --- not that everyone would; still it was best to get to Canada if possible.

[Candyman74]

Slavery to me = involuntary servitude.

"To you" isn't a definition. Like I said, if you wanna expand the definition to what it means "to me" then it can mean anything you want.

But "to me" is not relevant.


Serfdom was slavery, I'm not sure why some people don't seem to accept that fact.

Because it doesn't meet the definition of slavery.

The big difference between corporate employment and serfdom is you're allowed to quit your employment with the corporation.



Corporate employment to me = slavery.

See what I did there?

Of course, I don't actually believe that; I'm just playing devil's advocate. All I'm trying to say is that you can't define slavery as whatever you disaprove of; it has a specific meaning - and serfdom does not fall under that definition because it doesn't meet the criteria. A serf could marry, own property, and could not be killed at whim by his lord. These are important differences (especially the last).

I'm not saying serfdom was good; I'm just saying it wasn't slavery.

[Manda JO]

A serf could marry, own property, and could not be killed at whim by his lord. These are important differences (especially the last).



I'm not totally unsympathetic to your point of view, but by this definition, there was no slavery in America by 1850: out and out murder of a slave was illegal, even if those laws were poorly enforced. It was discussed here. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=588725)

Really, I am not sure flat out killing has been acceptable since Roman slavery, and since Roman fathers could also kill their children and generals could kill their soldiers, I think it was more a function of being Roman than being a slave.

[Martin Hyde]

Of course, I don't actually believe that; I'm just playing devil's advocate. All I'm trying to say is that you can't define slavery as whatever you disaprove of; it has a specific meaning - and serfdom does not fall under that definition because it doesn't meet the criteria. A serf could marry, own property, and could not be killed at whim by his lord. These are important differences (especially the last).

To my knowledge outside of "me and you" I believe the only hard and fast difference between a serf and slave, at least in the minds of historians and people who lived through the times, was that serfs were primarily defined by their being bound to specific land while slaves were bound to a specific master.

However, if you're a slave in service of a specific fief instead of a specific person I'd argue you're still a slave.

You seem to totally ignore what I've already said:

1. Some serfs were subject to summary execution
2. Some serfs could not marry without approval
3. Some serfs were not allowed to own property

And while we're at it:

1. Some slaves were protected from summary execution
2. Some slaves could marry without prior approval
3. Some slaves were allowed to own property

So as fun as it is to mock me by saying my definition only has meaning "to me" I think you'll find that while serfs and slaves were treated very differently throughout human history based on time and place, they both shared something very much in common.

If you're going to say that the key distinction between "slave" and "not slave" is that a slave can be summarily executed, then I could point to instances in which peoples that all of history refers to as "slaves" were protected from summary execution. Likewise, I could point to people that all of history refer to as "serfs" who were not protected from summary execution.

To me the defining attribute of slavery is that you lack liberty. Which I define as freedom of movement and freedom over your own time and how you choose to pursue it. I don't mean freedom from consequences. If you're employed by a company you do not have true freedom of time on a daily basis, but you have agreed to give up freedom over your own time in exchange for something. A slave does not get to enter into that agreement willingly and cannot leave it willingly.

I would then argue there is a second dynamic to slavery, namely that you enter into it primarily so that someone else can benefit directly from the deprivation of your labor, primarily in terms of that person being able to increase their wealth and income.

This is an important point, because one could point to conscripts and convicts as lacking liberty. However, conscripts are drafted for the good of the State for the protection of the State as a whole; convicts are denied liberty for the protection of the State and its citizens, and as punishment for illegal actions. Slaves generally are not being enslaved as punishment (sometimes they were...though), but they're being enslaved to directly benefit another individual in a financial sense.

Serfs share both of these traits. Serfs lack liberty and they are subject to their condition primarily to serve the economic interests of a more powerful individual.

Some would argue that a key component separating a serf and a slave is that slaves were paid for their labor, so even though it was forced and involuntary, it cannot be slavery. Well, I disagree with that. Serfs were allowed to keep a portion of their output, and to live on the land. Historically you can find many instances in which slaves were paid by their masters, either on a regular basis or in the form of periodic gifts. So to me the simple fact that serfdom had a built in "payment" system in the form of "free rent" doesn't change the underlying involuntary servitude (and perpetual/lifelong at that) aspects of serfdom.

[Martin Hyde]

I'm not one to quote Wikipedia as authoritative, but I quote them here because I think it makes my argument in a manner agreeable to myself and my views on this:

Serfdom is the socio-economic status of unfree peasants under feudalism, and specifically relates to Manorialism. It was a condition of bondage or modified slavery which developed primarily during the High Middle Ages in Europe. Serfdom was the enforced labour of serfs on the fields of landowners, in return for protection and the right to work on their leased fields.

I think "modified slavery" is a perfect way of describing serfdom. I view serfdom as a subclass of slavery. Not all slaves are serfs, but all serfs were, in my opinion, slaves.

To be exact, in England ( and Germany ) if one managed to get to a city ( or in the German states a Free City, at least ) and live there a year and a day, then the lord's claims lapsed.

Whereas with escaped chattel slavery, at least in the US, if one escaped and was recognized, even years later, people were legally bound to assist the owner's claim --- not that everyone would; still it was best to get to Canada if possible.

I don't know the full history in England, but in Germany the "year and a day" thing was rescinded at various times throughout history. I know that in Prussia for example under the pressure from junkers, the monarchy for a time stopped providing such protection. There were also instances in which the German Free Cities were stripped of their ancient protections and liberties, during the rise of absolutist monarchy and et cetera.

There were also instances in which persons who were paid to capture runaway serfs in Prussia captured persons who had never been serfs at all. (There was also a point in Prussian history in which persons who captured Army deserters would round up any random group of people and force them into the Army under the ruse that they had previously deserted.) Just as in America there were instances in which runaway slave catchers illegally kidnapped free blacks. As for being bound to assist in the capture of a runaway slave, that was not generally true until passage of the Fugitive Slave Act, and as you note it was not widely supported in the North. In many Northern States the State legislatures passed laws which effectively made it legally very difficult for a slave catcher to find success in bringing runaway slaves back.

[Captain Amazing]

Which suggests that Cromwell himself wasn't personally responsible, but the point is still valid: Irish could be and were sold into slavery.

But not in England. There were no laws providing for slavery in England. The slaves all were in English colonial possessions, which had their own laws.

Wiki says of serfdom in France 'For example, serfdom was de facto ended in France by Philip IV, Louis X (1315), and Philip V (1318). With the exception of a few isolated cases, serfdom had ceased to exist in France by the 15th century.'

Not that early. Abuses of serfdom were one of the complaints of the Jaqueriue. I mean, I agree that serfdom was pretty much obsolete in France by the end of the 15th century, but the same was true in England. Nevertheless, it took until the French Revolution that serfdom was abolished by statute.

[Claverhouse]

(There was also a point in Prussian history in which persons who captured Army deserters would round up any random group of people and force them into the Army under the ruse that they had previously deserted.)


Well, at the same time, England may not have had slaves nor conscription, but we did have the Press Gang. Once on a ship, the captain had full powers of life or death pretty nearly at whim. Some of them, oddly enough not Captain Bligh, had a marked taste for flogging.



Really, I am not sure flat out killing has been acceptable since Roman slavery, and since Roman fathers could also kill their children and generals could kill their soldiers, I think it was more a function of being Roman than being a slave.


True. One general sent an officer off to catch a deserted officer and execute him: to the fellow's delight he found the other had not deserted but been delayed and brought him back against his specific orders. The general had both of them killed.

[Manda JO]

But not in England. There were no laws providing for slavery in England. The slaves all were in English colonial possessions, which had their own laws.


Yes, but they were white and they were Christian (-ish, from Cromwell's perspective). Go a hundred years in the future and it's hard to imagine British solders selling 50K rebellious American colonists into slavery: by then, slavery had picked up a distinctive racial element.

[Candyman74]

So as fun as it is to mock me by saying my definition only has meaning "to me" I think you'll find that while serfs and slaves were treated very differently throughout human history based on time and place, they both shared something very much in common.

I apologise if it seemed I was mocking you; that was not my intention.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that the two share traits. And given the rest of your post, I've actually come round to your point of view - you've convinced me!

[What the .... ?!?!]

But not in England. There were no laws providing for slavery in England. The slaves all were in English colonial possessions, which had their own laws.



Kind of gets back to my original query................

I was curious as to what extent "their own laws" allowed them to make all the decisions about slavery up to the revolution. Which would also point to the degree to which the Founders were influenced by the attitudes of the mother country when they were doing the founding.

I was also curious about the other colonial possessions and the extent to which slavery was still a key economic factor when slavery was abolished in them.

[Captain Amazing]

I was curious as to what extent "their own laws" allowed them to make all the decisions about slavery up to the revolution. Which would also point to the degree to which the Founders were influenced by the attitudes of the mother country when they were doing the founding.

Here's a complete list of Parliamentary bills dealing with slavery and the slave trade. As you can see, most of them deal with the slave trade itself, because almost all decisions about slavery itself before the American Revolution (as well as after it in the other British colonies) was colonial law made by colonial assemblies. The page might be helpful, though:

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/records/research-guides/slave-trade-acts-of-parliament.htm

I was also curious about the other colonial possessions and the extent to which slavery was still a key economic factor when slavery was abolished in them.

Slavery was important up to abolition is the West Indies colonies, and they, especially Jamaica, which which was the biggest and richest, were strong opponents of its abolition. You might want to check out Sharpe's Rebellion in Jamaica.

[qazwart]

I've never heard that it was even called indentured servitude. I'm pretty sure it was understood as slavery.

There were two classes of indentured servants. There were those who served a master for a set period of time. And, there were those who indenturetude was a wee bit longer (like forever). Quote from Wikipedia:

Indentured servitude was a common part of the landscape in England and Ireland during the 17th century. During the 17th century, many Irish were also kidnapped and taken to Barbados. In 1643, there were 37,200 whites in Barbados (86% of the population).[25] Many indentured servants were captured by the English during Cromwell’s expeditions to Ireland and Scotland, who were forcibly brought over between 1649 and 1655.

Apparently, whomever edited the article on Ireland forgot to edit the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant article too.

Much like slaves, indentured servants could be bought or sold. Excuse me, I mean their contract could be bought or sold. They were at the mercy of their master, and many suffered ill treatment. However, they were never "slaves" since enslaving a fellow British citizen was legally dubious.

Britain had all sorts of methods to have what looks like slavery without having to refer to it by such a nasty name. One was arresting people for petty crimes, then shipping them off to penal colonies to work for the colonial masters. Others included forcing people to work off their debt, indentured servitude, and later workhouses for the poor.

[Quartz]

1. To what extent if any did England encourage slavery and perhaps even resist movements toward ending slavery prior to our independence?

England didn't do much to stop the Arab slave raiders raiding the English South Coast.

It's very difficult to understand, but slavery used to be a normal and accepted part of human history since before there was writing. It's only in the past few hundred years that people have actively worked against slavery.

[Manda JO]

There were two classes of indentured servants. There were those who served a master for a set period of time. And, there were those who indenturetude was a wee bit longer (like forever)..


Did they really draw up indenture papers for 50K Irish men, women, and children? My impression was that it was a lot less formal than that, and that the whole process was extralegal at best: a mass kidnapping that no one in power cared to stop. Basically, a bunch of Irish ended up in the sugar islands with no one to speak for their rights and were by any definition slaves. Their legal status was never tested because no one with any standing spoke for them. The argument that they were indentured servants seems to be circular: The Irish were indentured servants, not slaves because slaves were black, and we know this because the Irish were all indentured servants.

[Captain Amazing]

Did they really draw up indenture papers for 50K Irish men, women, and children? My impression was that it was a lot less formal than that, and that the whole process was extralegal at best: a mass kidnapping that no one in power cared to stop.

It wasn't extralegal, exactly. Most of the people transported were soldiers taken prisoner and their families. Remember, Ireland had been in rebellion for 11 years at that point.

[Mk VII]

After the capture of Drogheda on 11th September 1649 Cromwell writes:

"The next day, the other two towers were summoned, in one of which was about six or seven score ; but they refused to yield themselves, and we knowing that hunger must compel them, set only good guards to secure them from running away until their stomachs were come down. From one of the said towers, notwithstanding their condition, they killed and wounded some of our men. When they submitted, their officers were knocked on the head, and every tenth man of the soldiers killed, and the rest shipped for the Barbadoes. The soldiers in the other tower were all spared, as to their lives only, and shipped likewise for the Barbadoes.
I am persuaded that this is a righteous judgment of God upon these barbarous wretches, who have imbrued their hands in so much innocent blood ; and that it will tend to prevent the effusion of blood for the future, which are the satisfactory grounds to such actions, which otherwise cannot but work remorse and regret."

This is not a simple English-Irish thing; The officers were all English, a good part of the troops were as well, and as the losing side in the Civil War who had refused the summons to surrender they could scarcely have expected better when the town fell.

A plot point in the Errol Flynn picture Captain Blood, is that the hero, getting caught up in Monmouth's Rebellion, is [unjustly] sold into indentured servitude in the West Indies. (Although this film contains many anachronisms and inaccuracies)

[adhay]

Two questions that may have some factual answers ......

1. To what extent if any did England encourage slavery and perhaps even resist movements toward ending slavery prior to our independence?

2. In the 1830's when England abolished slavery, how did the economics of slavery compare between England's colonies and the U.S. ?I can offer no more than one considered opinion.

The USA is England's spawn. England is the spawn of Rome. Hitler was a mere belch on our way to globalization. Questions?

[Spoke]

It's hard to blame Mother England for slavery in the U.S. The first slaves in the Jamestown colony were brought by Dutch traders who had obtained them (IIRC) from Spanish colonies in the Caribbean. Slaves proved a better solution for Virginia planters than indentured servants. You didn't have to constantly replace them, and they proved more resistant to heat and disease than servants from the British Isles.

Now of course, the Jamestown colonists were themselves English, so I guess if you were really determined to blame the English for slavery you could look at it that way.

[What the .... ?!?!]

Now of course, the Jamestown colonists were themselves English, so I guess if you were really determined to blame the English for slavery you could look at it that way.

..... and we were far from independent until the revolution.

Prior to starting this thread I heard reference on the radio (can't remember by whom) to efforts that were made to alter slavery but resisted by Parliament.

[Lust4Life]

On an episode of Q.I. it was said that there are more slaves in the world today then there has ever been in history.27,000,000.

Apparently these figures come from the U.N.

And I believe that we're talking about actual slavery here not indentured servants.

I had a quick scan of the net but couldn't find the report myself so I can't attest to the accuracy of the statement one way or another, but then again its not a subject that interests me that much.

If you are GENUINLY upset by slavery as opposed to looking for a stick to beat Brits or Americans or Europeans with .......whatever, then why don't you actually do something to help these people right here,right now.

Rather then crying crocodile tears for long dead people, and shouting moral outrage against long dead slavers .

Who's turn is it next ?

The Romans?

The Ancient Egyptians?

[Acsenray]

Please forgive the nitpick, but since I saw it more than once, I hope this suggestion won't be unwelcome:

manor courts which were ran by the feudal lord

which were ran by the feudal lord

They were run by the feudal lord.

[Lust4Life]

..... and we were far from independent until the revolution.

Prior to starting this thread I heard reference on the radio (can't remember by whom) to efforts that were made to alter slavery but resisted by Parliament.

Prior to reading this thread I heard reference on the radio (can't remember by whom) that efforts were made to alter slavery and they weren't resisted by Parliament.