Posted on 06/20/2013 11:09:10 AM PDT by zeestephen
I can’t recall the author or the publication.
I read that during the run up to the 2008 election, from a link here at Free Republic.
It was a long, well written, academic essay on the Internet.
Good points. And Europeans only got into the African slave trade through Mohammedans invading Spain. After throwing them out, the Spanish and Portuguese muscled in on their trade in Africa. The Dutch and English followed, and others.
Saudi Arabia only legally banned slave trading of black Africans in 1946. That’s not 1846; that’s 1946. There was a big market for them near Mecca, because that’s how many Mohammedans financed their pilgrimage, particularly from Africa. And there are rumors it still goes on in that country. And as you pointed out, it’s not just rumors elsewhere.
In 1777, being then a member of the Virginia Legislature, he brought in a bill which became a law, “to prevent the importation of slaves.” He also proposed a system of general emancipation, as a preliminary to which he introduced a bill to authorize manumission; this became a law.
In these efforts he had the support and sympathy of the slave-holding States, which were overrun with slaves, and that returned no adequate remuneration for their support.
At this period their numbers reached some 600,000, a part of whom were employed in raising tobacco and rice. The majority of them, however, were occupied in domestic farm-labor, producing no exportable values. Hence there was no profit in slavery at the South, while at the North it was even a greater burden.
Massachusetts had found it so unproductive that, in 1780, she abolished it in her own borders, but she did not cease for that reason to force it, by her importations, on the South.
In the Congress of the Confederation, the views of the North and South on the subject of slavery, founded on interests so antagonistic, frequently came into collision.
It was at this point, that Virginia, Georgia and other Southern States ceded to the Federal Government for the common benefit of all the States, their immense Western Territories. All the States were then slave-holding, and the idea that a man could not hold his slaves in any part of the territory of the United Stares, had never yet been broached.
On the contrary, the right to carry them everywhere was undoubted. The policy of Virginia, however, was manumission and Mr. Jefferson, in 1784, prepared in the Congress of the Confederation a clause preventing slaves being carried into the said territories ceded to the United States, north of the Ohio river.
This was a part of the Southern implementation of manumission, which was meant as a check to the trading in Negro slaves, carried on by Massachusetts with unabated activity. This clause did not pass at the time, but in 1787, it was renewed by Nathan Dane, in the Federal Convention. The clause enjoining the restitution of fugitive slaves was then added and it passed unanimously.
By a unanimous vote, it became a vital part of the Federal Constitution, and without it, this compact could never have gone into effect. The slave trade carried on by the North became also the theme of much sharp discussion in the Convention. The North was not disposed, of course, to give it up, but with the South it had become an intolerable grievance. They had long and earnestly protested against it when carried on by the mother country, but their minds were now made up to break with the North rather than submit further to this traffic.
The North then demanded compensation for the loss of this very thriving trade, and the South readily conceded it by granting them the monopoly of the coasting and carrying trade against all foreign tonnage.
In this way it was settled that the Slave Trade should be abolished after 1808.
Without this important clause, the South would never have consented to enter into a Confederacy with the North. The Federal Constitution, with these essential clauses, having passed into operation, it became, henceforth, a certainty that the slave trade would finally expire in the United States at the close of 1808. This left it still a duration of nineteen years, and the North seemed determined to reap the utmost possible advantage from the time remaining.
It makes sense. As you probably know, Kenya was right next door to what was then called German East Africa, which they lost as a result of World War I. Zanzibar, located on an island between the two territories, was a quasi-independent city state which served as shipping port for contraband (including slaves) for the 3-4 decades proceeding the war and grew very, very wealthy as a result.
Officially, the Germans prohibited slavery as well as the British. Unofficially, their enforcement people could be bought off much more easily than the British. The Brit officials tended to come from a higher strata of society who saw foreign service as an opportunity to serve Queen/King and country. The Germans were (how can I put this delicately?) more like appointees in the Obama administration.
So it makes sense that the Kenyan/Luo Tribe slave traders were not going to go quietly away when the Brits closed off the German loophole as a result of the 1919 Treaty of Versailles.
I had forgotten the whole World War One - German East Africa - Kenya connection.
I clearly recall now that the essay I referenced discussed Zanzibar at some length, but I don’t recall the details.
Thanks for taking the time to post.
I always enjoy learning new things and being refreshed on things I used to know.
Excellent essay - it reads like it was written in the 19th Century - my apologies if that's the way you write!
Re: Pea Ridge
Is that a reference to the Civil War battle?
Both of my great-great grandfathers fought at Pea Ridge.
They were both Lutheran ministers and farmers from Peoria, Illinois.
Pea Ridge was the name of the our large family farm in central South Carolina that was burned by Sherman in 1865.
I love the state but haven't been back to visit in 30 years.
Just realized that my kin were shooting at your kin.
Sorry about that.
No hard feelings I hope.
You always did remind me of Joan of Arc.....
From where did you come to go to Furman?
Furman is very well known down there.
In the 1960’s, a “Vacation” to people from south Florida meant going to
the “Mountains” in North Carolina.
We all went to the same summer camps, and my parents owned a home near Asheville.
Great years, and great memories.
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.