[ProgressingAmerica]

"There would be no point in arguing otherwise. The British were quite keen on maintaining the economic activity brought by the African slave trade, despite the preference by some colonial legislatures for people of a different stock (as you yourself have documented)."

A much more sober response than others, given by some. Moving on. I'm not looking for cheap points or to spend some 20 posts into the future gloating. Moving on.

"it seems rather disingenuous to ignore the reality that it takes two to tango. A slave trade can't exist if no one is willing to buy. Yet there were numerous American colonists who were willing to buy."

Patriot or Loyalist?

Besides, The people who cast the vote decide nothing. The people who count the vote decide everything. - Stalin

The people who buy the slaves decide nothing. The people who keep the market stocked decide everything.

We see the same thing in the drug trade. The addict isn't the key. The kingpin is the key. Who's the kingpin? Who's the one vetoing the laws? There you go. It all comes full circle.

[jeffersondem]

“We see the same thing in the drug trade. The addict isn’t the key. The kingpin is the key.”

Problem identified: you don’t understand a market economy.

Although, this does remind me of the time Winchester sold me a model 94 and I was forced to go out and shoot somebody.

Then they forced me to shoot the witnesses.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

Patriot or Loyalist?

Are you insinuating that every colonist who purchased slaves during the American Revolution were Loyalists?

The people who buy the slaves decide nothing.

So if there had been no market for African slave labor (as in, no one was willing to buy, regardless of price), you sincerely believe that the British would have kept shipping them over to their colonies?

You apparently have a strangely skewed view of Supply and Demand.