Posted on 07/15/2020 7:27:16 PM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
I just finished my recording for section 1, chapter 8 of The Wrong of Slavery, by Robert Dale Owen. I wanted to share this with you, because its very pertinent to the things that are happening today. In s.1 c.8 Owen wrote the chapter in corresponding segments. The primary segment of note is named "A king the pillar of the slave-trade." In particular, the footnotes are among the more interesting parts of the chapter. After laying out some details about Virginia's protests against the King's slave trade, Owen wrote this:
In the Report of the Lords of Council, so often already referred to, there is but one table bearing on the subject.(1) It exhibits the exportation of negroes from the West Indies (then the principal place of their deposit and sale) for five years, namely, from 1783 to 1787, both inclusive, — showing that, in these five years, out of twenty thousand seven hundred and seventy- three negroes exported to all parts, thirteen hundred and ninety-two went to the "States of America;" that is, only about one-fifteenth of the whole, — or two hundred and seventy-eight annually. Since so small a proportion out of the whole export was directed to the United States, it is evident that the demand for slaves at that time could not have been great.(1) Lords of Council Report, Part IV. Table No. 4.
Now isn't that interesting? Slave demand being low, is quite the contrary to "the narrative" that is constantly fed to us. I have little doubt that for those wanting to counter "the narrative", you might want to get your hands on this Lords of Council Report. Moreover, the fact that the West Indies is primarily where the British Empire brought most of its slaves is not really that big of a secret. It gets glossed over, but its out there. Owen continues:
The public opinion, as well as the legislation, of the colonies had uniformly been against it.(2)(2) The agency of the British Government in fastening slavery upon the Continental colonies is well known. Bancroft has placed it distinctly on record: —
"The inhabitants of Virginia were controlled by the central authority on a subject of vital importance to themselves and their posterity. Their halls of legislation had resounded with eloquence directed against the terrible plague of negro slavery. Again and again they had passed laws restraining the importation of negroes from Africa; but their laws were disallowed. How to prevent them from protecting themselves against the increase of the overwhelming evil was debated by the King in Council, and on the 10th day of December, 1770, he issued an instruction, under his own hand, commanding the governor, 'under pain of the highest dis-pleasure, to assent to no law by which the importation of slaves should be, in any respect, prohibited or obstructed.' In April, 1772, this rigorous order was solemnly debated in the Assembly of Virginia. They were very anxious for an Act to restrain the introduction of people the number of whom already in the colony gave them just cause to apprehend the most dangerous consequences. * * * Virginia resolved to address the King himself, who in Council had cruelly compelled the toleration of the nefarious traffic. They pleaded with him for leave to protect themselves against the nefarious traffic."
...
Laws designed to restrict importations of slaves are scattered copiously along the records of colonial legislation. The first Continental Congress which took to itself powers of legislation gave a legal expression to the well-formed opinion of the country by resolving (April 6, 1776) that 'no slaves be imported into any of the thirteen United Colonies.'
...
Again and again it was pressed upon the attention of the Ministers. But the Government of that day was less liberal than the tribunals; and, while a question respecting a negro from Virginia led the courts of law to an axiom that as soon as any slave sets his foot on English ground he becomes free, the King of England stood in the path of humanity, and made himself the pillar of the slave-trade. Wherever in the colonies a disposition was shown for its restraint, his servants were peremptorily ordered to maintain it without abatement." — Bancroft's History of the United States, vol. vi. pp. 413, 414, 415.
The biggest challenge we face is knowing where to look for the answers. This helps resolve many of the parts of the challenge. You're going to want to read Dale's book. And I can't wait to deliver it to all of you in audiobook form, for added benefit and dissemination.
I cannot for the life of me see why anybody should accept seeing the United States of America be blamed for what the British Empire is at fault for.
Perhaps someone will disagree with my thoughts.
Friendly ping. I thought you might take some interest in this - if I’m incorrect, please disregard. Thanks.
Slaves went to where there was money to be made from their labors. For a very long time that was sugar production. The economics of slavery demands a high value product that required constant labor. Makes no sense to grow wheat using slave labor—not an awful lot of money in wheat and the labor is needed only planting, harvesting and processing. Slaves have to eat every day.
Sugar was a high-value crop that required constant attention in planting, tending harvesting and processing, so the slaves went to where sugar could be grown. Tobacco rice and indigo were cash crops that were amenable to slave labor, so some slaves came to what became the U.S.
But it wasn’t until the invention of the cotton gin in the early 19th century that a great cash crop that required lots of constant care came to the Southern U.S. and with it a large numbers of slaves made economic sense. Happily, though, only a few years after the invention of the cotton gin, the importation of slaves became illegal in 1808—thanks to the horribly racist Founders—who banned importation of slaves as soon as it was Constitutionally possible.
Thanks.
You must be under the misconception that facts matter to BLM. They don’t and they never did.
So where were the other slaves sent? South and Central America?
And the Caribbean Islands, yes.
"Because OrangeManBad, and you're racist, that's why!"
There, see how simple that was?
Thanks for leading me to this very good blog. I just read with appreciation the Walter Lippman piece there.
Brazil imported 5x as many slaves as the US.
And killed many if not most of them with brutal conditions and treatment.
That did not happen here, except rarely.
MOST informative. Thanks for posting.
The clueless "Progressive Regressives" often claim that Thomas Jefferson and other Founders were "slave owners."
When countering that claim, it is well to ask those know-it-all 21st Century "elitists" to consider the historical context within which those Founders found themselves, as well as the enormous contributions they and their generations made toward eradicating slavery from these shores and creating a constitutional republic which could, ultimately, affirm and protect the rights of ALL people:
Of special interest in that regard is Jefferson's “Autobiography,” especially that portion which states:
"The first establishment in Virginia which became permanent was made in 1607. I have found no mention of negroes in the colony until about 1650. The first brought here as slaves were by a Dutch ship; after which the English commenced the trade and continued it until the revolutionary war. That suspended...their future importation for the present, and the business of the war pressing constantly on the (Virginia) legislature, this subject was not acted on finally until the year 1778, when I brought a bill to prevent their further importation. This passed without opposition, leaving to future efforts its final eradication."
Jefferson also observed:
"Where the disease [slavery] is most deeply seated, there it will be slowest in eradication. In the northern States, it was merely superficial and easily corrected. In the southern, it is incorporated with the whole system and requires time, patience, and perseverance in the curative process."
He explained that,
"In 1769, I became a member of the legislature by the choice of the county in which I live [Albemarle County, Virginia], and so continued until it was closed by the Revolution. I made one effort in that body for the permission of the emancipation of slaves, which was rejected: and indeed, during the regal [crown] government, nothing [like this] could expect success."Below is another quotation, cited in David Barton's work on the subject of the Founders and slavery, which also cites the fact that there were laws in the State of Virginia which prevented citizens from emancipating slaves:
"The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. Our children see this and learn to imitate it; for man is an imitative animal. This quality is the germ of all education in him. From his cradle to his grave he is learning to do what he sees others do. If a parent could find no motive either in his philanthropy or his self-love for restraining the intemperance of passion towards his slave, it should always be a sufficient one that his child is present. But generally it is not sufficient. . . . The man must be a prodigy who can retain his manners and morals undepraved by such circumstances. And with what execration should the statesman be loaded who permits one half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the other. . . . And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep for ever. . . . The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest. . . . [T]he way, I hone [is] preparing under the auspices of Heaven for a total emancipation."A visit to David Barton’s web site (www.wallbuilders.com) provides an essential, excellent and factual written record of the Founders' views on the matter of slavery. One source he does not quote, I believe, is the famous 1775 Edmund Burke "Speech on Conciliation" before the British Parliament, wherein he admonished the Parliament for its Proposal to declare a general enfranchisement of the slaves in America.
Burke rather sarcastically observed that should the Parliament carry through with the Proposal before it: "Slaves as these unfortunate black people are, and dull as all men are from slavery, must they not a little suspect the offer of freedom from that very nation (England) which has sold them to their present masters? from that nation, one of whose causes of quarrel with those masters is their refusal to deal any more in that inhuman traffic?"
He continued: "An offer of freedom from England would come rather oddly, shipped to them in an African vessel, which is refused an entry into the ports of Virginia or Carolina, with a cargo of three hundred Angola negroes. It would be curious to see the Guinea captain attempting at the same instant to publish his proclamation of liberty and to advertise his sale of slaves." Ahhh, how knowledge of the facts can alter one's opinion of the revisionist history that has been taught for generations in American schools (including its so-called "law schools"!!)
Human beings are allotted ONLY A TINY SLIVER OF TIME ON THIS EARTH. (Pardon shouting) Each finds the world and his/her own community/nation existing as it is.
If lawyers and judges cared enough to educate themselves (in this day of the Internet) on the history of civilization and America's real history, and if they used that knowledge and the resulting understanding, to do as much on behalf of liberty for ALL people as did Thomas Jefferson and America's other Founders, the world in the next century would be a better place.
Remember: Thomas Jefferson was only 33 years old when he penned our Declaration of Independence which capsulized a truly revolutionary idea into a simple statement that survives to this day to inspire people all over the world to strive for liberty!
I see absolutely no reason to be in disagreement with your conmments. It’s just to bad that this issue is not what is driving today’s political derangement syndrome.
Every 4 years we have to deal with the crazies of the sub-culture being paid to do what they do best: Anarchy to support the demonic rat power base.
I know the facts don’t matter to them. This is for the rest of us that are interested to learn more or at least willing to hear what others have to say.
It’s amplified by the work to create this into a downloadable audiobook. That increases the amount of people we can reach.
Agreed. Jefferson may have been flawed in written/spoken words on this subject, but in deeds he was always on the correct side of history with but one single exception, and that was his personal ownership.
Had the king been less rigid against earlier colonial attempts to abolish the slave trade and slavery(those prior to the revolution), Jefferson may have reached a point in his life where he would have paid his debts and emancipated his slaves.
When idealism is allowed to flourish at the time its most ideal, it changes the way people act. Instead, the king blocked him and the rest is history. All his idealism was instead poured into Independence.
Thanks!
My writings over the years have focused on the founding period and the exceptional efforts of those men and women who captured the spirit of liberty at that time.
Coincidentally, at that time, Burke, in his 1775 Speech on Conciliation, more than any, captured that spirit and the motivations from which it sprang.
Love Frothingham’s “Rise of the Republic. . . ,” in which he detailed what he described as, “the Christian idea of man”—the Source from which American liberty sprang.
Best to you in this season of discontent—or so it seems to me.
LL2
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.