Posted on 12/16/2006 6:01:23 PM PST by scouse
Bttt.
You are so right, and how sad is that! Slavery has nothing to do with race or color, it has everything to do with greed.
William conquered England,but not Scotland,Wales or Ireland.
Britain/UK/GB remember equals those four nations...
A timely correction. Thanks, scotman!
Free Blacks did not "strut" anywhere in this country during the 18th century. They certainly didn't in front of whites.
If the writer gets something this basic wrong how much truth can the rest of the article have?
"There was also a lot of white slavery/servitude after the civil war." Where did this gem come from?
The relative value of the slaves in fact did result in Irish being used for dangerous jobs. They were not slaves however.
Slaves are not allowed to "work off" debt. There was no escape. Your family history sounds a bit dubious at best.
Moll was no innocent victim. She was a criminal and readily admitted it.
Not being politically correct is not the reason this is not taught. Not being TRUE is the reason.
Not my family my wife's ancestors. They didn't "work off" debt and I never implied that they did.
Again their travel was entirely paid for, they were not "in debt" to anyone. They were headed to Philly but Andrew Tarbett a shady ship captain conspired with Alexander Spotswood to pocket the money and sale them into slavery in Virginia.
When the criminal endeavor was found out the people that were left alive were set free.
What you are describing is fraud leading to indentured servitude not slavery.
They had no debt to pay off or time. They were simply slaves.
Alexander Spotswood had some land to develop and these people were the beasts of burden that were used for that purpose.
What in the definition of "slave" is not consistent with these people?
Slavery has a definition and legal sanction. Kidnapped people are not legally slaves or people held under fraudulent pretenses. Remember in those days there were debtors prisons and people very jailed for defaulting on debt.
As to practical difference to any in that condition there is none. De facto they were slaves but de jure they were not merely victims of crimes.
That makes sense to me now.
I was thinking more in the general sense of anyone who's liberty is revoked through no consequence of their own actions but through the criminal endeavors of another.
But legally a slave was a very specific thing and I guess these people were something else.
Yeah. If slavery were only the result of violence that would be bad but when it is legally sanctioned and supported that is even worse.
You could simply google it and find out the truth, but you're not interested in that or how many things I cite, so why bother????
I have a copy of "Fatal Shore" some escaped convicts in Austrailia resorted to cannibalism.
I don't consider Crackpot.com as a source for history.
In 1972 I was living out of a backpack, and wandering about, a ditz, and ignorant about most things. But during the few weeks I was in Australia, I was struck by the competive attitude towards Americans, and a sort of glorying in their convict past. I have wondered how much that shapes Australians, similarly to the American cowboy.
I worry about things like that, along with: Can flies fly backwards?
Some of my best friends are Australian. It's an amazing country. Truly, some of the bravest soldiers in the world, and America's friend.
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.