Posted on 03/21/2012 7:21:07 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Other ancestors fought with several Texas cavalry units, mainly against marauding bands of Commanche and Kiowa, but they also fought at Corpus Christi and Galveston.
So, because Marx correctly attributed the root cause of the civil war to the souths insistence on perpetuating and expanding the Peculiar Institution, anyone who also correctly identifies that root cause is what? A closet marxist themselves? Are you really that stupid?
It would be more accurate to say that anyone who defends the confederacy is a Klanner, either in fact or in inclination.
There is a small cadre of posters here who love to play brownshirt. You’ve met a number of them already. Their purpose in life (or at least as concerns FreeRepublic) is twofold: one - to propagandize historic revisionism regarding the occasion and circumstance of the Civil War and two - to squelch any opposing points of view.
They are fairly well versed in the art of intimidation, character assassination, and cyber-bullying. It’s probably compensation for having small penises.
Whatever the case, you would do well to avoid them because, yes - pointing out the truth on Civil War threads can be hazardous duty ;-)
Here's why:
I used reverse psychology on N-S that glorious day. On that day it seemed to me that he was following me from thread to thread. I bated him and he indeed took the bait. I knew if I "warned" him to stay away from that DADT zot thread he couldn't resist posting then.
I remeber it like it happened 5 minutes ago. War is hell.
Not defending slavery but the worst part of slavery, the most dangerous, was the transit over on the cruel Yankee vessels run by tyrannical and sick scum of the earth Captains. It was so unnecessary. Not all vessels were Yankee registered and operated, but most were.
Thanks again for the information. I suppose there are people like that everywhere.
Brilliant!
Brilliant!
His final day! Sweet. He was such an obvious troll.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2842216/posts
“So, because Marx correctly attributed the root cause of the civil war to the souths insistence on perpetuating and expanding the Peculiar Institution, anyone who also correctly identifies that root cause is what? A closet marxist themselves? Are you really that stupid?”
No need to be nasty, rockyy. Obviously it’s someone who is in agreement with Karl Marx’s interpretation of the Civil War. A rather basic tautology. Nothing stupid about it. Obviously there’s a number of theories on the root causes of the Civil War, but Karl Marx’s explanation is the one tracking closest to the modern South-hater.
Glad to see that you found the old communist a congenial thinker. I figured that you would enjoy him.
You really should read through the rest of Marx’s Civil War writings, I suspect that you might find a few new arguments to add to your anti-Confederate arsenal:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/us-civil-war/index.htm
I remember seeing that when you did it. A brilliant strategy.
No nastier than you pelly.
Crocodile tears on your part. Plenty of slave owners were tyrannical and sick scum themselves who didn't care where their labor came from or under what conditions it was transported.
Most slave traders weren't "Yankees" but British, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, or French, and most of the slaves who came to the 13 colonies or the United States came on their ships.
That doesn't excuse Northern participation in the slave trade. It doesn't exclude Southern demand for slaves either. Slave ships registered in Charleston brought a lot of slaves to these shores. I doubt all of them were owned by "Yankees," and note that as enforcement dried up the slave trade, Southern slave-owners, who'd been content to let others do their dirty work, equipped ships of their own to run blockades.
It wasn't necessarily morality that made slave-owners avoid that dirty work: they tended to avoid labor of any sort, so it's not surprising that they let others do their work for them. But there's something disingenuous about your accusations. Everybody came from somewhere. Northerners and Englishmen who settled in Charleston or Savannah and outfitted ships became a part of Southern society.
Most slave traders weren’t “Yankees” but British, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, or French,
“No nastier than you pelly.”
Well of course you are- there isn’t a post of mine alleging that you are stupid. But your incivility isn’t an important issue.
http://www.slavenorth.com/rhodeisland.htm
“Rhode Island, of course, was among the most active Northern colonies in importing slaves. Between 1709 and 1807, Rhode Island merchants sponsored at least 934 slaving voyages to the coast of Africa and carried an estimated 106,544 slaves to the New World. From 1732-64, Rhode Islanders sent annually 18 ships, bearing 1,800 hogsheads of rum, to Africa to trade for slaves, earning £40,000 annually. Newport, the colony’s leading slave port, took an estimated 59,070 slaves to America before the Revolution. Bristol and Providence also prospered from it. In the years after the Revolution, Rhode Island merchants controlled between 60 and 90 percent of the American trade in African slaves.
As a Rhode Island historian writes, “All together, 204 different Rhode Island citizens owned a share or more in a slave voyage at one time or another. It is evident that the involvement of R.I. citizens in the slave trade was widespread and abundant. For Rhode Islanders, slavery had provided a major new profit sector and an engine for trade in the West Indies.” Slaves that were not auctioned off were put to work aboard merchant ships. By 1807, black seamen made up 21% of Newport crews.
The Browns, one of the great mercantile families of colonial America, were Rhode Island slave traders. At least six of them — James and his brother Obadiah, and James’s four sons, Nicholas, John, Joseph, and Moses — ran one of the biggest slave-trading businesses in New England, and for more than half a century the family reaped huge profits from the slave trade. “When James Brown sent the Mary to Africa in 1736, he launched Providence into the Negro traffic and laid the foundation for the Brown fortune. From this year until 1790, the Browns played a commanding role in the New England slave trade.” Their donations to Rhode Island College were so generous that the name was changed to Brown University.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newport,_Rhode_Island
“During the colonial period, Newport was the center of the slave trade in New England. Newport was active in the “triangle trade,” in which slave-produced sugar and molasses from the Caribbean were carried to Rhode Island and distilled into rum, which was then carried to West Africa and exchanged for captives. In 1764, Rhode Island had about 30 rum distilleries, 22 in Newport alone.
Many of the great fortunes made during this period were made in the slave trade. The Common Burial Ground on Farewell Street was where most of the slaves were buried. Sixty percent of slave trading voyages launched from North America – in some years more than 90% – issued from tiny Rhode Island, many from Newport. Almost half were trafficked illegally, breaking a 1787 state law prohibiting residents of the state from trading in slaves. Slave traders were also breaking federal statutes of 1794 and 1800 barring Americans from carrying slaves to ports outside the United States, and the 1807 Congressional act abolishing the transatlantic slave trade.
A few Rhode Island families made substantial fortunes in the trade. William and Samuel Vernon, Newport merchants who later played an important role in financing the creation of the United States Navy, sponsored thirty African slaving ventures. However, it was the D’Wolfs of Bristol, RI, and most notably James De Wolf, who were the largest slave trading family in all of North America, mounting more than eighty transatlantic voyages, most illegal. The Rhode Island slave trade was broadly based. Seven hundred Rhode Islanders owned or captained slave ships, including most substantial merchants, and many ordinary shopkeepers and tradesmen, who purchased shares in slaving voyages”
Neither is yours.
http://www.slavenorth.com/profits.htm
Northern Profits from Slavery
The effects of the New England slave trade were momentous. It was one of the foundations of New England’s economic structure; it created a wealthy class of slave-trading merchants, while the profits derived from this commerce stimulated cultural development and philanthropy. —Lorenzo Johnston Greene, “The Negro in Colonial New England, 1620-1776,” p.319.
Whether it was officially encouraged, as in New York and New Jersey, or not, as in Pennsylvania, the slave trade flourished in colonial Northern ports. But New England was by far the leading slave merchant of the American colonies.
The first systematic venture from New England to Africa was undertaken in 1644 by an association of Boston traders, who sent three ships in quest of gold dust and black slaves. One vessel returned the following year with a cargo of wine, salt, sugar, and tobacco, which it had picked up in Barbados in exchange for slaves. But the other two ran into European warships off the African coast and barely escaped in one piece. Their fate was a good example of why Americans stayed out of the slave trade in the 17th century. Slave voyages were profitable, but Puritan merchants lacked the resources, financial and physical, to compete with the vast, armed, quasi-independent European chartered corporations that were battling to monopolize the trade in black slaves on the west coast of Africa. The superpowers in this struggle were the Dutch West India Company and the English Royal African Company. The Boston slavers avoided this by making the longer trip to the east coast of Africa, and by 1676 the Massachusetts ships were going to Madagascar for slaves. Boston merchants were selling these slaves in Virginia by 1678. But on the whole, in the 17th century New Englanders merely dabbled in the slave trade.
Then, around 1700, the picture changed. First the British got the upper hand on the Dutch and drove them from many of their New World colonies, weakening their demand for slaves and their power to control the trade in Africa. Then the Royal African Company’s monopoly on African coastal slave trade was revoked by Parliament in 1696. Finally, the Assiento and the Treaty of Utrecht (1713) gave the British a contract to supply Spanish America with 4,800 slaves a year. This combination of events dangled slave gold in front of the New England slave traders, and they pounced. Within a few years, the famous “Triangle Trade” and its notorious “Middle Passage” were in place.
Rhode Islanders had begun including slaves among their cargo in a small way as far back as 1709. But the trade began in earnest there in the 1730s. Despite a late start, Rhode Island soon surpassed Massachusetts as the chief colonial carrier. After the Revolution, Rhode Island merchants had no serious American competitors. They controlled between 60 and 90 percent of the U.S. trade in African slaves. Rhode Island had excellent harbors, poor soil, and it lacked easy access to the Newfoundland fisheries. In slave trading, it found its natural calling. William Ellery, prominent Newport merchant, wrote in 1791, “An Ethiopian could as soon change his skin as a Newport merchant could be induced to change so lucrative a trade as that in slaves for the slow profits of any manufactory.”[1]
Boston and Newport were the chief slave ports, but nearly all the New England towns — Salem, Providence, Middletown, New London – had a hand in it. In 1740, slaving interests in Newport owned or managed 150 vessels engaged in all manner of trading. In Rhode Island colony, as much as two-thirds of the merchant fleet and a similar fraction of sailors were engaged in slave traffic. The colonial governments of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania all, at various times, derived money from the slave trade by levying duties on black imports. Tariffs on slave import in Rhode Island in 1717 and 1729 were used to repair roads and bridges.
The 1750 revocation of the Assiento dramatically changed the slave trade yet again. The system that had been set up to stock Spanish America with thousands of Africans now needed another market. Slave ships began to steer northward. From 1750 to 1770, African slaves flooded the Northern docks. Merchants from Philadelphia, New York, and Perth Amboy began to ship large lots (100 or more) in a single trip. As a result, wholesale prices of slaves in New York fell 50% in six years.
On the eve of the Revolution, the slave trade “formed the very basis of the economic life of New England.”[2] It wove itself into the entire regional economy of New England. The Massachusetts slave trade gave work to coopers, tanners, sailmakers, and ropemakers. Countless agents, insurers, lawyers, clerks, and scriveners handled the paperwork for slave merchants. Upper New England loggers, Grand Banks fishermen, and livestock farmers provided the raw materials shipped to the West Indies on that leg of the slave trade. Colonial newspapers drew much of their income from advertisements of slaves for sale or hire. New England-made rum, trinkets, and bar iron were exchanged for slaves. When the British in 1763 proposed a tax on sugar and molasses, Massachusetts merchants pointed out that these were staples of the slave trade, and the loss of that would throw 5,000 seamen out of work in the colony and idle almost 700 ships. The connection between molasses and the slave trade was rum. Millions of gallons of cheap rum, manufactured in New England, went to Africa and bought black people. Tiny Rhode Island had more than 30 distilleries, 22 of them in Newport. In Massachusetts, 63 distilleries produced 2.7 million gallons of rum in 1774. Some was for local use: rum was ubiquitous in lumber camps and on fishing ships. “But primarily rum was linked with the Negro trade, and immense quantities of the raw liquor were sent to Africa and exchanged for slaves. So important was rum on the Guinea Coast that by 1723 it had surpassed French and Holland brandy, English gin, trinkets and dry goods as a medium of barter.”[3] Slaves costing the equivalent of £4 or £5 in rum or bar iron in West Africa were sold in the West Indies in 1746 for £30 to £80. New England thrift made the rum cheaply — production cost was as low as 5½ pence a gallon — and the same spirit of Yankee thrift discovered that the slave ships were most economical with only 3 feet 3 inches of vertical space to a deck and 13 inches of surface area per slave, the human cargo laid in carefully like spoons in a silverware case.
A list of the leading slave merchants is almost identical with a list of the region’s prominent families: the Fanueils, Royalls, and Cabots of Massachusetts; the Wantons, Browns, and Champlins of Rhode Island; the Whipples of New Hampshire; the Eastons of Connecticut; Willing & Morris of Philadelphia. To this day, it’s difficult to find an old North institution of any antiquity that isn’t tainted by slavery. Ezra Stiles imported slaves while president of Yale. Six slave merchants served as mayor of Philadelphia. Even a liberal bastion like Brown University has the shameful blot on its escutcheon. It is named for the Brown brothers, Nicholas, John, Joseph, and Moses, manufacturers and traders who shipped salt, lumber, meat — and slaves. And like many business families of the time, the Browns had indirect connections to slavery via rum distilling. John Brown, who paid half the cost of the college’s first library, became the first Rhode Islander prosecuted under the federal Slave Trade Act of 1794 and had to forfeit his slave ship. Historical evidence also indicates that slaves were used at the family’s candle factory in Providence, its ironworks in Scituate, and to build Brown’s University Hall.[4]
Even after slavery was outlawed in the North, ships out of New England continued to carry thousands of Africans to the American South. Some 156,000 slaves were brought to the United States in the period 1801-08, almost all of them on ships that sailed from New England ports that had recently outlawed slavery. Rhode Island slavers alone imported an average of 6,400 Africans annually into the U.S. in the years 1805 and 1806. The financial base of New England’s antebellum manufacturing boom was money it had made in shipping. And that shipping money was largely acquired directly or indirectly from slavery, whether by importing Africans to the Americas, transporting slave-grown cotton to England, or hauling Pennsylvania wheat and Rhode Island rum to the slave-labor colonies of the Caribbean.
Northerners profited from slavery in many ways, right up to the eve of the Civil War. The decline of slavery in the upper South is well documented, as is the sale of slaves from Virginia and Maryland to the cotton plantations of the Deep South. But someone had to get them there, and the U.S. coastal trade was firmly in Northern hands. William Lloyd Garrison made his first mark as an anti-slavery man by printing attacks on New England merchants who shipped slaves from Baltimore to New Orleans.
Long after the U.S. slave trade officially ended, the more extensive movement of Africans to Brazil and Cuba continued. The U.S. Navy never was assiduous in hunting down slave traders. The much larger British Navy was more aggressive, and it attempted a blockade of the slave coast of Africa, but the U.S. was one of the few nations that did not permit British patrols to search its vessels, so slave traders continuing to bring human cargo to Brazil and Cuba generally did so under the U.S. flag. They also did so in ships built for the purpose by Northern shipyards, in ventures financed by Northern manufacturers.
In a notorious case, the famous schooner-yacht Wanderer, pride of the New York Yacht Club, put in to Port Jefferson Harbor in April 1858 to be fitted out for the slave trade. Everyone looked the other way — which suggests this kind of thing was not unusual — except the surveyor of the port, who reported his suspicions to the federal officials. The ship was seized and towed to New York, but her captain talked (and possibly bought) his way out and was allowed to sail for Charleston, S.C.
Fitting out was completed there, the Wanderer was cleared by Customs, and she sailed to Africa where she took aboard some 600 blacks. On Nov. 28, 1858, she reached Jekyll Island, Georgia, where she illegally unloaded the 465 survivors of what is generally called the last shipment of slaves to arrive in the United States.
“Neither is yours.”
I’m not aware of any recent incivility on my part, but it’s certainly possible.
You should point it out.
Could it have been a post like:
“It’s probably compensation for having small penises.”
Well no, that’s one of yours, and I wouldn’t want to speculate on why penis size is an interest of yours. Seems like that would have been a more appropriate subject for the departed N-S, considering how he got himself banned.
Could it have been along the lines of:
“Are you really that stupid?”
Well no- again that’s one of your posts.
So I give up, rockky. You’ll have to point out my uncivil posting. Please do so, I might enjoy it if it appears to be clever rather than vulgar.
Mine is that man is inherently evil and has been enslaving others through out history in many ways, shapes and forms. I have been in Africa and my interpreter says to me as we pass through a village, “Those people used to be my ancestors slaves.” The purpose of the story is that man is inherently evil whether white black or purple.
If we tell the whole story we get closer the the truth. This has been corrected in our nations, be sure to tell that part of the story also.Many in Africa while I was there would have given everything they had for the freedom and opportunity we are now losing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.