Slavery Abolished - Not In The Iom

[Cambon]

People working for under the minimum wage aren't in a condition of slavery, but they are being exploited. Why ruin what could be a reasonable topic by bringing in the (irrelevant) illegality of slavery when the employers mentioned are already breaking the law in paying below the minimum wage? Why, damn you, why?

 

In the days of the black slave trade the slaves were probably better off than those earning less than minimum wage (and probably some who earn more).

 

The picture that is painted of slavery is always one of misery and whipping, where the reality is that the majority of slaves were treated very well. I mean, they needed the slaves to work, much as they needed horeses to pough fields. If a farmer does not look after his animals he does not make a living.

 

The slaves were clothed and fed and had a place to live. They may not have been paid, but they had security.

[Lonan3]

Back on topic:

 

People working for under the minimum wage aren't in a condition of slavery, but they are being exploited. Why ruin what could be a reasonable topic by bringing in the (irrelevant) illegality of slavery when the employers mentioned are already breaking the law in paying below the minimum wage? Why, damn you, why?

 

Because it's copycat! That's what he/she does to keep things warm while manxchatterbox is spreading malicious rumours engaging in well-informed debate throughout the rest of the world (allegedly!)

[The Last Bulgam Miner]

xvc

 

The slaves were clothed and fed and had a place to live. They may not have been paid, but they had security.

 

 

Just wot I keep telling the wife ! Ungrateful cow.!

[Chinahand]

People working for under the minimum wage aren't in a condition of slavery, but they are being exploited. Why ruin what could be a reasonable topic by bringing in the (irrelevant) illegality of slavery when the employers mentioned are already breaking the law in paying below the minimum wage? Why, damn you, why?

 

In the days of the black slave trade the slaves were probably better off than those earning less than minimum wage (and probably some who earn more).

 

The picture that is painted of slavery is always one of misery and whipping, where the reality is that the majority of slaves were treated very well. I mean, they needed the slaves to work, much as they needed horeses to pough fields. If a farmer does not look after his animals he does not make a living.

 

The slaves were clothed and fed and had a place to live. They may not have been paid, but they had security.

 

I don't know if you are just trolling, but do you have any idea what slavery was like in the Caribbean?

 

You might - just - be able to say it was just brute inhumanity in the Southern US, but in the Caribbean it was systematic and people were worked to death. There was little attempt to creat sustainable populations and the dead were replaced by new slaves not by children born into it.

 

I think it is a gross distortion to compare historic slavery like in Rome, the Ottoman Empire etc with the 18th century slave trade.

 

The trade in the 18th century was conducted on a vast scale compared to these historic examples - you cannot compare a process that developed in less than a century to a massive scale to a process that existed over millenia - and the earlier examples were far less deliberate and systematic.

 

Think about the deliberate throwing of slaves overboard when supplies or storms were threatenned, the death rate on the journeys and the slave pens on the Gold Coast of Africa.

 

I am not into apologies - but I think it is possible to say this was a regrettable period in Britain's history - I'm sure many Germans feel the same about the Nazis. I'm not trying to put the two on a par, but can say I regret the brutality with which Britain exploited those less able to defend themselves.

 

Man's inhumanity to man is a vice civilization should attempt to reduce - I cannot reconcile involvement in 18th slavery with humanity and respect those who campaigned and won the moral argument of the day.

 

One point Francis Wilkins' DVD on Manx connections with the Trade has got little comment on the Forums - a shame. Its a much a part of our history as smuggling or trafalgar. Good on her for researching and educating people about this subject.

[keyboarder]

In the days of the black slave trade the slaves were probably better off than those earning less than minimum wage (and probably some who earn more).

 

The picture that is painted of slavery is always one of misery and whipping, where the reality is that the majority of slaves were treated very well. I mean, they needed the slaves to work, much as they needed horeses to pough fields. If a farmer does not look after his animals he does not make a living.

 

The slaves were clothed and fed and had a place to live. They may not have been paid, but they had security.

 

You seem to be confusing slaves with holiday reps.

[Cambon]

Chinahand - Am I a troll? No. I grew up in the caribbean and had studied slavery (mandatory) at school in history. However, I actually take a great interest in many forms of history. The black slave trade is one. The situation of slaves on the Islands is regretible, but it was often seen as a sorting ground. That is where the slaves were delivered from africa. Like it or not.

 

In the US salvery was generally in the south. But it was also in the north. A great misconception is that the US civil war was about the abolishion of slavery. It was not, it was about taxes. The legislation at the time was that people would be taxed on the size of the land they owned. For the rich businessmen living in the cities that was fine, but for those owning big planatations the taxes were outrageous. Rather like the Pole Tax. That is when the confederation was formed.

 

When the US civil war broke out it should be noted that two of the southern states had already abolished slavery, and one of the northern states still endorsed it. The US civil war was one of the bloodiest in history, and it really was about civil rights and freedom. You should note that no black person was ever conscripted to fight for the south, although many did fight. For example, when the union took Arlington house (the family home of the wife of General Robert E. Lee) it was only after a fierce battle against Lee's slaves, who after all lost their homes!

 

During the civil war, the president actually passed a law that was to abolish slavery across the entire republic of the US. This is the bit that is now popularly picked up on. However, in reality he was losing the war and it gave him the opportunity to conscript blacks to fight, which he did.

 

At the end of the day the south could have taken washington DC and won the war many times over. But that is not what they wanted. They just wanted a fair taxation system.

 

Chinahand, go and visit Virginia, DC, Georgia, etc. The history is short but amazing. When you are there make sure you visit Frederiksberg, the battle grounds at barboursville (and surrounding areas) and most of all Arlington Cemetry. The above mentioned arlington house is and its history are amazing.

[VinnieK]

In the US salvery was generally in the south. But it was also in the north.

 

On a very, very small scale. The primary reasons for opposition of slavery in the North were fears that the South's established slave labour farms afforded them an economic and thus political advantage over the North.

 

It was not, it was about taxes. The legislation at the time was that people would be taxed on the size of the land they owned. For the rich businessmen living in the cities that was fine, but for those owning big planatations the taxes were outrageous. Rather like the Pole Tax. That is when the confederation was formed.

This is erroneous. Taxation, like slavery, was a manifestation of the concerns that led to the Confederacy, but not the reason itself. The Civil War had its origins more in the broader question of what status the Federal Government held in relation to the states. The South claimed that the rights of individual states to govern themselves overrode that of the Federal Government to impose its laws upon the states, hence when the South split they formed a Confederacy, not a union or another republic.

 

When the US civil war broke out it should be noted that two of the southern states had already abolished slavery, and one of the northern states still endorsed it. The US civil war was one of the bloodiest in history, and it really was about civil rights and freedom.

 

This is closer to the truth, but you said before that it was really about taxes.

 

You should note that no black person was ever conscripted to fight for the south, although many did fight. For example, when the union took Arlington house (the family home of the wife of General Robert E. Lee) it was only after a fierce battle against Lee's slaves, who after all lost their homes!

This is quite shaky evidence for the slave's endorsement of slavery. A more likely explanation is that if they didn't fight, then they would be severely punished.

 

During the civil war, the president actually passed a law that was to abolish slavery across the entire republic of the US. This is the bit that is now popularly picked up on. However, in reality he was losing the war and it gave him the opportunity to conscript blacks to fight, which he did.

 

At the end of the day the south could have taken washington DC and won the war many times over. But that is not what they wanted. They just wanted a fair taxation system.

 

This is simply false, and verges on a bizarre distortion of history. The North held the most important advantage of industrialization and a greater degree of political union. Materially, the North held the upper hand, both in the production of weaponry and a higher population rate (if anyone would have needed to enlist black soldiers, it would have been the south, who throughout the war suffered from manpower shortages) as well as transportation links. Although the South won tactical victories in the field, they were fighting a losing war from the start.

 

Also, you shouldn't make too much of the South's ability to capture Washington DC, which was more a consequence of Washington's unfortunate geography (situated between Maryland and Virginia), than the South's military prowess. Even had Washington fell over and over again, what do you think would have happened? The North would simply have relocated its capital to the old centres of political power like New York or Pennsylvania.

 

Finally, the Union didn't need to enlist black former slaves into the army - 190,000 volunteered of their own accord as soon as the emancipation proclamation was passed (and many slaves from the South subsequently fled to the North where they would gain automatic freedom), which seems unusual behaviour if they truly preferred slavery.

 

 

What's most important, however, is that what you've said about the Civil war actually has little relevance to your claims regarding the conditions of Slaves. There are a great many sources, both from former slaves and officials (particularly ships doctors and the like) that testify to the cruelty and inhumanity with which slaves were treated, both during their service and their transportation (which itself accounted for many deaths since they were often kept in conditions poorer in quality than those provided for livestock).

 

You say that you're from the Caribbean, and that you studied slavery, in which case you'll no doubt be aware of the recurring slave rebellions that took place in, say Barbados, the largest of which followed the abolition of the slave trade and sought to overturn the institution of slavery. Why would slaves, who you claim were comfortable and happy in the stability offered by their status, be so willing to face almost certain defeat at the hands of professional armies for a freedom that you say they didn't want? Also, how do you account for the numbers of Slaves in the Southern States of the U.S. who fled to the Bahamas where they were guarranteed freedom following the British act of emancipation in 1834?

 

It has often been claimed, from black slaves in the Carribean and Southern U.S. to Serfs in the Russian empire, that slavery offered security, and the abolition of slavery thus promoted unrest and a downturn in living conditions, which is then used to dilute the criticisms of or justify the institution of slavery. This claim is, however, simple nonsense. The greatest obstacle former slaves met with upon emancipation was not the uncertainty of freedom, but the fact that emancipation had left all the political and economic power in the hands of their former masters and owners, who used their advantages to preserve their own status at the necessary expense of their former slave's opportunities to enjoy the opportunities and advantages of freedom. If freedom for emancipated slaves was initially a miserable affair, it was not because they were ill suited to freedom, or that slavery was beneficial, but because the provision of freedom was not accompanied with the rights and opportunities that other free men and women around the world enjoyed.

[Cambon]

In the days of the black slave trade the slaves were probably better off than those earning less than minimum wage (and probably some who earn more).

 

The picture that is painted of slavery is always one of misery and whipping, where the reality is that the majority of slaves were treated very well. I mean, they needed the slaves to work, much as they needed horeses to pough fields. If a farmer does not look after his animals he does not make a living.

 

The slaves were clothed and fed and had a place to live. They may not have been paid, but they had security.

 

This is my original quote. I never said slaves were comfortable and happy.

 

Your talk of the strength of the Union army etc. is exactly right except for one thing. The south knew this and that is why most of the fighting took place in the south. The south also knew that the union's uniform and kit was considerably heavier thant the south's. By the time a Union army had travelled (unually walked) the 100 or so miles to the battle ground they were knackered and never stood a chance. As well as that the south were on home turf and knew how to use the land to their advantage. Read about the battle of Fredericksberg, then tell me that the south were not great tactitioners.

 

Oh, in case you didn'e know, Arlington house and plantation (now the war cemetry) were ceased by the union in payment of tax arrears, yes the entire thing. Call that a fair taxation system? Not erroneous. As I said I had to study this is school and the teachings were all very one sided. That is why I visited the south, to find some balance.

 

You are correct about the black volunteers, but it was not enough. At most battles the south would take down the union soldiers thousands at a time.

[VinnieK]

This is my original quote. I never said slaves were comfortable and happy.

 

You said that the slaves were treated very well (my emphasis). That surely implies at least comfort, and yet they volunteered in large numbers to fight against their benevolent former masters.

 

Your talk of the strength of the Union army etc. is exactly right except for one thing. The south knew this and that is why most of the fighting took place in the south.

The reason most battles took place in the south was because the South was forced into a defensive posture. The North's blockade of southern ports combined with the lack of international support for the Confederacy starved the South of the resources required to effectively wage war on the North (as demonstrated by the battle of Gettysburg), and gave Union forces the initiative. The North's better transport infrastructure and higher levels of manpower on the other hand allowed the Union to be more offensive, fight battles of attrition where needed, and place ever more pressure upon the Confederacies weakest points (not least the lack of manpower available). In short, the North could afford to lose men attacking the South more than the South could defending itself.

 

Read about the battle of Fredericksberg, then tell me that the south were not great tactitioners.

 

I didn't say that in the first place, in fact I said that they did achieve tactical victories in the field. But they were less successful as strategists and were from the beginning fighting from an already weak position. Tactics win battles, but it is strategy that wins wars, as the North demonstrated in the civil war.

 

Call that a fair taxation system? Not erroneous.

You're misunderstanding what I said. I didn't say that taxation wasn't an issue, I said that it was erroneous to claim that taxation alone was the primary reason for the Civil War. Instead it was but an instance or example of the more general and fundamental cause.

 

You are correct about the black volunteers, but it was not enough. At most battles the south would take down the union soldiers thousands at a time.

 

You neglect the point of my mentioning the black volunteers, which I emphasise at the beginning of this post. Why did they volunteer in the first place, if indeed they had been treated so very kindly and well by the South? And, again, the North could afford to lose those men. The South, on the other hand, couldn't afford to lose the casualities inflicted by them. The Confederate forces were a whole million less in strength than those of the Union, and, in any case, you're painting a rather one sided portrait of the South's military abilities: At Atlanta the South sustained five thousand more casualties than did the Union, around one thousand more at Chattanooga, two thousand more at Chickamauga, four thousand more at Franklin, and a whole ten thousand more at Nashville. The South lost because they were at a strategic, political, and logistical disadvantage in nearly every way to the North, who, despite what you've said about the South killing men in their thousands, was capable of waging war just as effectively and, in light of Southern weakness with regards to resources, far more devastatingly in the long term.

[Cambon]

I don't have time to reply point by point. However, from Wiki:

 

 

During the first year, the Union asserted control of the border states and established a naval blockade as both sides raised large armies. In 1862 large, bloody battles began, causing massive casualties as a result of new weapons and old battlefield tactics. In September 1862, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation made the freeing of the slaves a war goal, despite opposition from northern Copperheads who tolerated secession and slavery. Emancipation ensured that Britain and France would not intervene to help the Confederacy. In addition, the goal also allowed the Union to recruit African-Americans for reinforcements, a resource that the Confederacy did not dare exploit until it was too late. War Democrats reluctantly accepted emancipation as part of total war needed to save the Union. In the East, Robert E. Lee rolled up a series of Confederate victories over the Army of the Potomac, but his best general, Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson, was killed at the Battle of Chancellorsville in May 1863.

 

Jackson's death, and the appointment of a total numpty whos name eludes me was the real turning point (battle of Gettysburg and beyond).

 

Your idea of the union army being one million greater is rather high. The total population of the confederacy and union combined was barely 3 million, nearly 1/3 of which died as a result of the war.

[Chinahand]

***********Going on about the US civil war **********

***********More going on about the US civil war*************

 

All this is very interesting and educational, BUT entirely misses the point which for me is:

 

In the days of the black slave trade the slaves were probably better off than those earning less than minimum wage (and probably some who earn more).

 

The picture that is painted of slavery is always one of misery and whipping, where the reality is that the majority of slaves were treated very well. I mean, they needed the slaves to work, much as they needed horeses to pough fields. If a farmer does not look after his animals he does not make a living.

 

The slaves were clothed and fed and had a place to live. They may not have been paid, but they had security.

 

"Better off than those earning less than the minimum wage"

What! - do you really wish to compare rates of disease, death and "industrial" injury (should we describe the lash such do you think) between slaves and those in penury in today's society? Get real - all your erudition about the US civil war is so much cover and evasion. Are you really going to defend the treatment of slaves in the US South? Moral relativism is always an interesting thing to behold - go on give it a go, but please keep to the subject. Taxation, Arlington and the causes of the Civil war have nothing to do with it.

 

Slavery is/was based on coercion and a destruction of will - maybe the house slave wasn't whipped daily - but they knew if they resisted they would be - if the maid resisted the masters advances, if she resisted the removal of her children, if she complained about the drudgery of her work - all for no recompense.

 

Slaves were treated significantly worse than free people - they suffered worse health and more violence. A farmer may invest in his horse, but he knows his horse will not rise up against him if he doesn't ensure the violence any such action would bring down is not fully visible and apparant.

 

Strangle the chicken to teach the monkey - the plantation owners knew that using violence - deliberately and calculatedly - would protect their investment - strangle one chicken, whip one monkey - it keeps the others working and in line.

 

You say

they had security

- Bull - they had the guarantee of violence and kept their heads down.

[Cambon]

No, I am not defending the treatment of slaves or slavery in the slightest degree. But perhaps you should consider those sleeping in doorways and cardboard boxes in London and other cities. Those who cannot claim anything from the dhs because they simply don't have an address. They live a life of fear and violence. A major crime to them is the theft of a sleeping bag or a pair of shoes. The live from meal to meal not knowing where the next is coming from. Is this what we all consider a modern society? How much better off are they than the slaves were?

 

I am not defending the treatment or or conditions slaves had to endure. Rather point out that slaves were not all beaten and torchered on a daily / hourly basis. They had quarters to live in. They were given food which guaranteed them a meal even if it was inadequate for the work they were doing.

 

 

By the way, the american civil war is a very interesting subject. I was enjoying the discussion!

[DjDan]

No, I am not defending the treatment of slaves or slavery in the slightest degree. But perhaps you should consider those sleeping in doorways and cardboard boxes in London and other cities. Those who cannot claim anything from the dhs because they simply don't have an address. They live a life of fear and violence. A major crime to them is the theft of a sleeping bag or a pair of shoes. The live from meal to meal not knowing where the next is coming from. Is this what we all consider a modern society? How much better off are they than the slaves were?

 

For one who apparently studied black african slavery.... I can only wonder what books you read! You appear to have a wholly distorted understanding of the extreme inhumanities these people suffered. You cannot compare a homeless man to a black slave!! Their suffering is on a completely different scale. You're probably right, a major crime to them is a theft of a sleeping bag... a major crime to a black slave may be having a spike slammed through their hand. Incomparable!

 

I cannot believe you end that paragraph with "How much better off are they than the slaves were?" !!!!! Absolutely stunned that you could think that.. let alone question it.

 

I am not defending the treatment or or conditions slaves had to endure. Rather point out that slaves were not all beaten and torchered on a daily / hourly basis. They had quarters to live in. They were given food which guaranteed them a meal even if it was inadequate for the work they were doing.

 

I agree, not every slave may have been beaten. Not every slave may have suffered the inhumanities we associate with slavery, but the huge majority certainly did.

 

They had quarters to live in..

Given food for the work they did..

 

Hoorah!!! That makes it okay then? Imagine that you have a daughter and she is kidnapped.. these people who kidnap her, rape her continually, molest her, beat her, permanently damage her physical body..... but give her a place to sleep and food to eat. I suppose that makes it okay? If you ever got her back again, you'd think to yourself...

 

The slaves My daughter were was clothed and fed and had a place to live. TheyShe may not have been paid, but theyshe had security.

 

Fact of the matter is, the slavery was a shocking and horrible time in our history. Many today may suffer a 'state of slavery' (ie. those who are kidnapped and forced into prostitution)... but nothing can be compared to the extreme suffering of these black slaves. We still have a lot of progression to do (in taking care of whose who suffer in life), but still.... nothing can be put onto the same scale.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I am still not sure whether it is worth having Tony Blair give an apology. I am a little unsure as to whom he is giving such an apology. Is it all Black Africans or those who live in Britain.

 

Just seems to lack sincerity in that I do not personally feel in any way responsible, I doubt most Briton's would either, therefore, where this apology come from, would Tony Blair be offering such an apology on behalf of the British people. Something about this just seems crazy. Would Yemen and Oman be expected to apologise for their role in enslaving the people of Mozambique and Tanzania?

 

Yet I wonder whether it is just worth offering the apology to end all the 'hoo-hah'. Though I understand it is an emotional issue to many I think if an apology is all that is wanted to just give it. It must be important to the people who want it.

[Freggyragh]

Slavery has definately figured strongly in Manx history. We know that both Gaels and Norse raided for slaves. We also know that Manx slaves were shipped to Barbados. Frances Wilkins's research shows that merchants based here had no scruples about trading with slave traders. We wouldn't do that kind of thing anymore would we?

http://www.uaeprison.com/human_trafficking.htm

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle...usiness&col

There is so much injustice in the world, I think an apology for something that ended 200 years ago would make us all feel a little bit better about ourselves and won't cost us a penny. I hope in 200 years my descendants will apologise for my carbon footprint, the inorganic food, the sweatshop-made leisure wear, etc etc.