Worth noting, I think, that Britain passed laws prohibiting the slave trade in 1807 (the driving force in the abolitionist movement being one William Wilberforce, who I think deserves a mention), and actively pursued initiatives to ban it in other countries from that date onwards … the 1833 date (26th July 1833) marks the end of the process, with the (admittedly long overdue) legal emancipation of all remaining slaves (i.e. sold into slavery prior to 1807).
Of course, slavery continues to be an issue in the world today … but it is, at least, illegal, pretty much universally.
AFAIK, they essentially went on doing the same job for a crappy pay…I wouldn’t be sure for british colonies, but in french islands, there essentially weren’t any other activities beside plantations and processsing agricultural products (sugar>rum), with the exception of fishing, so it’s not like they could have chosen to work for the industry or somesuch (And I doubt the conditions would have been better, anyway).
Actually, plantations are still a major activity in french west indies. And might still be owned by the descendants of the plantors, employing the descendants of the slaves. For a crappy pay.
Slave trade was condemned by the congress of Vienna ( which sorted out all sort of european issues following the fall of Napoleon with the intent of stabilizing the situation in Europe) in 1815. Most european countries ablolished slave trade at this moment ( Austria, France, Portugal, Russia, Sweden…). It was assimilated to piracy. British and French ships were allowed to seize ships transporting slaves. Spain officially abolished it in 1817, but it didn’t actually enforce it.
I just read also that Canada abolished it in 1803 (before the UK which, is surprising. I wouldn’t have thought that Canada could have decided this by itself) and the USA in 1807.
Thinking twice, what was this 1807 abolition of slave trade in the US? Since slaves, AFAIK, could still be bought/sold long after this date in the US, does it mean what they couldn’t be imported anymore?
I know the OP asked about ending slavery in the world, but I want to get on my hijack soapbox and talk about ending slavery in the US for a sec.
The civil rights movement, which should naturally include the movement to end slavery, owes a huge debt of gratitude to the white abolitionists who lobbied long and hard on behalf of the African slaves. So many of these persistant crusaders languish in obscurity (… other than John Brown, can the average college student name one?..), yet the current crop of civil rights celebraters (celebrants?) are loathe to acknowledge or honor them. The civil rights movement is “owned” by African Americans who seem to think it dilutes the integrity of their cause to honor the whites who were the pioneers of their cause.
Yeah. The US didn’t end slavery until after the Civil War - although many states had done so already. And while the bill to end the slave trade was signed in 1807, it didn’t go into effect until 1808, which was the earliest it could be banned due to a clause in the Constitution.
Anyway, Vermont banned slavery in 1777, Pennsylvania in 1780, Massachusetts and New Hampshire in 1783, Connecticut and Rhode Island in 1784, New York in 1799 and New Jersey in 1804.
In 1787, Congress banned slavery in the Northwest Territory (what would become Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin). Virginia almost banned it in 1831 after a slave revolt, but couldn’t quite muster the votes.
This disn’t exactly answer my question : what was forbidden by this bill, exactly? I understand it wasn’t slave trade within the US. So, was it the importation of slaves, as I suspect? Or was it more general? Could a US ship seize a foreign ship transporting slaves in interneational waters, for instance?
I believe the movie to which Starguard refers is Jefferson in Paris, starring Nick Nolte as Jefferson. It sounds to me as if Starguard is under the impression that this movie was a documentary.
Repeat after me, Starguard: It’s only Hollywood.
P.S. Thanks for the big belly laugh with that line about the IRS - good thing no one else was in the office yet!
Jefferson used anti-slavery rhetoric on occasion, but he kept slaves, which seems more than a bit hypocritical. The abolitionists of the day were Hamilton, Aaron Burr, and other northerners, not Jefferson and the Virginians. IIRC, Washington, who freed his slaves in his will, was the only Virginian who actually acted in an anti-slavery manner.
Also, IIRC, the DNA evidence for the Jefferson-Hemmings relationship only shows that someone descended from Jefferson’s grandfather (or father; can’t remember exactly) was involved. It could just as easily be his brother’s DNA, and in fact he had a brother who was known to hang around the slave quarters.
And I just answered my own question. It was the Sommersett case, in 1772. Lord Mansfield wrote, in his opinion (about James Sommersett, a slave from Virginia who escaped to London. His master followed him there and sued for his return,
Over and above Wendell Wagner’s cogent observations, there’s one massively obvious problem with this particular statement about the Declaration of Independence: Sally Hemmings was born is 1773 and so was only a small child in 1776.
Depends exactly what part of the slave trade you’re referring to. British colonies had considerable freedom to legislate for themselves, provided the law didn’t conflict with an imperial statute. The first Legislature of Upper Canada, meeting in 1793, passed a statute which prohibited the importation of slaves into Upper Canada, and provided for gradual emancipation: An Act to prevent the further introduction of Slaves, and to limt the term of Contracts for servitude within the Province, S.U.C. 1793, 33 Geo. III, c. VII.
(Since there was no political unit called “Canada” in 1803, I’m not sure what action in 1803 that you’re meaning - could you provide a bit more detail?)
Here is the reference to the movie I was talking about. (and I humbly admit that ** I was wrong about the IRS**. It’s been a VERY long time since I’ve done any research in this area. I also mentioned in my origional statements that my memory was VERY spotted on this topic, and I strongly invite ANYONE who is more knowlegeable about this topic to offer any and all factual corrections that feel necessary)
Yea I know :o Unfortunately it was this movie that got me interested in this topic to begin with. I was a few years ago when I saw this movie, (and since then I’ve done a little research on it here and there), but over time I’ve forgotten many of the titles and authors that I would like to use as references to previous quotes I made. I’m still beating my head against the wall trying to remember where I read about the speech to congress she was supposed to have made.
From the little digging around I’ve done since this topic was posted here, I’ve already reached the conclusion that there are many variations to the life of our third president from many different people all with different and conflicting views.
Some have tried using scientific data or DNA testing to either prove or disprove exactly how many children Thomas Jefferson had from Sally Hemmings (some have stated that they had no children at all).
*Others view this entire topic as an embarrasment to the Government and have tried time and time again to both deny (and prove) that the entire event never even happened.
Some have tried to romanticise his relations with her in an attempt to win the hearts of the American Public ( Sort of like the way Shaksephere did with Cleopatra and Mark Anthony)
The list goes on and on. I’m afraid that the real and brutal truth can (and will) only be known to the U.S. Government, and for reasons unknown to me, I don’t think that they will ever share it with us.
I’ve read through the Act - I don’t see any ten year delay.
Section I: prohibits introduction of new slaves into Upper Canada “from and after the passing of this Act” i.e. - immediately upon royal assent; also prohibited voluntary contracts of servitude for longer than 9 years;
Section II: provides that nothing in the Act libertates any person from servitude, if lawfully purchased prior to the passing of the Act;
Section III: provides that immediately “from and after the passing of this Act” every child born of a slave woman shall be free upon reaching the age of 25 years;
Section IV: provides right of such child to apply to a Justice of the Peace upon reaching 25, if the mother’s owner tries to detain the child;
Section V: provides that upon freeing a child at age 25, the former owner shall give security to the parish that the child shall not be chargeable upon the poor rolls of the parish.
I don’t see anything that delays the coming into force?
[QUOTE=Starguard]
*I’m still beating my head against the wall trying to remember where I read about the speech to congress she was supposed to have made.*Not to be snarky, but maybe nowhere? You may have it confused with something else. Sally Hemmings never made any speech that I know of.
Again, I’m pretty sure it’s been established that there was an affair and they did have children together.
Cite? As near as I can tell the US government could not possibly care less. The only people making a stink denying it are the legitimate ancestors of Jefferson.
Very true.
So what brand of tin foil do you use?
What special information, exactly, do you think the US possesses? What reason, do you think, they would cover this up? The answers to both questions are none.
