Origins of slavery in the US

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

You cannot take slavery in the US (pre- and post-Civil War) out of the context of slavery in the world and time. All types of slavery is in both the past and the present in the US and the rest of the world. That is the point I have been trying to make. Ahh well . . .

OK, So what is slavery?

 

[tabycat]

Or the families could be broken up whenever the master decided to sell them.I say that you do not understand the distinction between being coerced by someone who pretends to own you and a financial incentive.

Most of the families were not broken up by forced sall then parents broke up their family to another master care for the children. Most masters were not so dumb as to brake families with out a reason simialer to the reasons families get broken up on their own. As for the financial incentive, it just a different person giving and getting the money: the govemnent, the buyer/seller, the parents.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

In some cases, the slaves were relatives of the owner. So, are you saying that those slave owners are saying that they (the owners) are not people?

Even post Civil War some have said that women were not human, the only ‘true’ humans were males over 18 and belonged to certain ethnic groups (like wasps).

So what you are trying to say is that there is no real difference between-
-a person legally, socially, and sometimes morally viewed to be property

and

-unjust discrimination against individuals legally, socially, and morally viewed to be people?

Also, you mind citing these “some” who have said women weren’t human?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Most of the families were not broken up by forced sall then parents broke up their family to another master care for the children. Most masters were not so dumb as to brake families with out a reason simialer to the reasons families get broken up on their own. As for the financial incentive, it just a different person giving and getting the money: the govemnent, the buyer/seller, the parents.

While breaking up the slave family was perfectly legal and an accepted practice, it didn’t happen a lot not because of concern for the well being of the slaves; but because breaking up a slave family would end up hurting the slave owner’s bottom line. In other words, the slaves were property and treated as such with the non-break up of a slave family not being based on what was best for the property (i.e. the slaves) but what was best for the owner.

 

[tabycat]

While breaking up the slave family was perfectly legal and an accepted practice, it didn’t happen a lot not because of concern for the well being of the slaves; but because breaking up a slave family would end up hurting the slave owner’s bottom line. In other words, the slaves were property and treated as such with the non-break up of a slave family not being based on what was best for the property (i.e. the slaves) but what was best for the owner.

In the pre-Civil War (and even post-Civil War) America children were legally the property of their father. If the perents divorced the mother rarely got the children.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

In the pre-Civil War (and even post-Civil War) America children were legally the property of their father. If the perents divorced the mother rarely got the children.

Source?

 

[switalabe]

Jesus will wipe away every tear from our eyes. In Heaven we will not be slaves.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Jesus will wipe away every tear from our eyes. In Heaven we will not be slaves.

Best comment in this entire thread.

 

[tabycat]

Source?

From many places that I have read. :tiphat:

 

[tabycat]

Best comment in this entire thread.

You better be seated, I agree with you.

 

[magnet]

Slavery was almost universal in human history. The general pattern was that when people went to war, on the losing side, the warrior men were killed, and the rest of their families became slaves of the conquerors. This was especially true in the Roman Empire.

Providing labor was an effective way to make money, and slavery was among the cheapest forms of labor aside from animals. Slaves did not have to be paid and neither did animals. The market was for labor. The more labor one could get for a given amount of expense, the more valuable the laboring entity became.

So when the Portuguese started planting sugar cane in Brazil because of the lucrative sugar market in England, they needed labor and lots of it. So when African slave traders saw a way to make money by selling captured slaves to the Portuguese, they went into it in a big way. It’s the same way that wild horses could be captured, tamed, and sold to buyers.

The sugar cane plantations got started in the 1600’s, first by the Portuguese and then heavily by the English and French. Whatever and whoever provided cheap labor had a market value.

So when high labor crops such as tobacco and cotton were planted in the southern U.S., It was natural for the planters to buy slaves. Horses, oxen, mules provided labor, so why not buy captured African slaves for the same reasons? If they were to provide the maximum labor, they had to be treated similar to horses, mules, oxen, etc.

 

[Sarcelle]

You cannot take slavery in the US (pre- and post-Civil War) out of the context of slavery in the world and time. All types of slavery is in both the past and the present in the US and the rest of the world. That is the point I have been trying to make. Ahh well . . .

Your point is lost on me.

The topic of the thread us about the origins of slavery in the US. I keep seeing you try to steer away from the topic by bringing in posts about wage slaves.

What are you trying to say? Slavery is bad, no matter where and how and when it is practised. I don’t see your point of bringing wage slaves into the discussion.

Another argument that seems to have escaped your notice is that slaves can be put on the market and sold. You mentioned that others such as women are not seen as human beings but post slavery at least in the Western world, women are not put on the market and sold.

Elsewhere may be a different story, but that is not the topic of the thread.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Remember you don’t have to be on a southern plantation to be a slave, if you are dependent on government entitlements you just have a different owner.

 

[livingwordunity]

I think it probably originated with the Muslims since their religion allows for chattel slavery and since a lot of Northern Africa had been conquered by them.
And in Islam (Sunni) the Arab Muslims consider the non-Arab Muslims to be inferior.

The earliest form of slavery in the Americas arrived with Christopher Columbus. The brutal treatment of the natives by the Columbus crew can be found easily enough. He even sent some of them back to Europe on a trans Atlantic voyage. Many of them died during the trip.

The diary of Christopher Columbus reveals that he was a pious man. And the Catholic Church spoke very favorably about him. But recently, historical revisionists began to unfairly attribute the bad actions of some of the other explorers to Christopher Columbus.

When the four hundredth anniversary of Christopher Columbus’s discovery of America was observed in 1892, the atmosphere was one of celebration. Columbus was a brave and skilled navigator who had brought two worlds together and changed history forever. The Knights of Columbus even put his name forward for canonization.

A century later, the prevailing mood was far more somber. Now Columbus was accused of all kinds of terrible crimes, ranging from environmental devastation to cruelties that culminated in genocide…

– Thomas E. Woods, Jr., Ph.D.
How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, p.133, 2005

There was a lot more good than bad from the colonization by the explorers. They brought Christianity which replaced a barbaric pagan religion. And our Lady of Guadalupe helped convert many natives in Mexico to the Catholic faith while Protestantism was leading Catholics away from the Church in Europe.

Further References:
Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on the Columbus Quadricentennial
Apostolic Journey to Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, Trinidad, and Tobago
Special Assembly for America of the Synod of Bishops

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I think it probably originated with the Muslims since their religion allows for chattel slavery and since a lot of Northern Africa had been conquered by them.
And in Islam (Sunni) the Arab Muslims consider the non-Arab Muslims to be inferior.

The diary of Christopher Columbus reveals that he was a pious man. And the Catholic Church spoke very favorably about him. But recently, historical revisionists began to unfairly attribute the bad actions of some of the other explorers to Christopher Columbus.

When the four hundredth anniversary of Christopher Columbus’s discovery of America was observed in 1892, the atmosphere was one of celebration. Columbus was a brave and skilled navigator who had brought two worlds together and changed history forever. The Knights of Columbus even put his name forward for canonization.

A century later, the prevailing mood was far more somber. Now Columbus was accused of all kinds of terrible crimes, ranging from environmental devastation to cruelties that culminated in genocide…

– Thomas E. Woods, Jr., Ph.D.
How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, p.133, 2005

There was a lot more good than bad from the colonization by the explorers. They brought Christianity which replaced a barbaric pagan religion. And our Lady of Guadalupe helped convert many natives in Mexico to the Catholic faith while Protestantism was leading Catholics away from the Church in Europe.

Further References:
Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on the Columbus Quadricentennial
Apostolic Journey to Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, Trinidad, and Tobago
Special Assembly for America of the Synod of Bishops

Wait, you are claiming that the system of slavery practiced within the Americas and specifically the US is due to Muslims and Islam?

 

[Hobbes42]

Wait, you are claiming that the system of slavery practiced within the Americas and specifically the US is due to Muslims and Islam?

I suppose livingwordunity wants to ignore all of the slavery pre-Muhammed (By pagans and Christians no doubt, Genoa was attacked for example due to its practice of keeping Tatar slaves), as it doesn’t fit his narrative of “dem evil Mooslims”

 

[livingwordunity]

I suppose livingwordunity wants to ignore all of the slavery pre-Muhammed (By pagans and Christians no doubt, Genoa was attacked for example due to its practice of keeping Tatar slaves), as it doesn’t fit his narrative of “dem evil Mooslims”

I know that chattel slavery existed with the ancient pagans. What I’m saying is that chattel slavery made a big comeback and grew as Islam grew. It’s still practiced in Islam even to this day.

 

[decatholic]

Remember you don’t have to be on a southern plantation to be a slave, if you are dependent on government entitlements you just have a different owner.

O behave…

 

[magnet]

Massachusetts was the first slave-holding colony in New England, though the exact beginning of black slavery in what became Massachusetts cannot be dated exactly. Slavery there is said to have predated the settlement of Massachusetts Bay colony in 1629, and circumstantial evidence gives a date of 1624-1629 for the first slaves. “Samuel Maverick, apparently New England’s first slaveholder, arrived in Massachusetts in 1624 and, according to [John Gorham] Palfrey, owned two Negroes before John Winthrop, who later became governor of the colony, arrived in 1630.”[1]

The first certain reference to African slavery is in connection with the bloody Pequot War in 1637. The Pequot Indians of central Connecticut, pressed hard by encroaching European settlements, struck back and attacked the town of Wetherfield. A few months later, Massachusetts and Connecticut militias joined forces and raided the Pequot village near Mystic, Connecticut. Of the few Indians who escaped slaughter, the women and children were enslaved in New England, and Roger Williams of Rhode Island wrote to Winthrop congratulating him on God’s having placed in his hands “another drove of Adams’ degenerate seed.” But most of the men and boys, deemed too dangerous to keep in the colony, were transported to the West Indies aboard the ship Desire, to be exchanged for African slaves. The Desire arrived back in Massachusetts in 1638, after exchanging its cargo, according to Winthrop, loaded with “Salt, cotton, tobacco and Negroes.”

slavenorth.com/massachusetts.htm

 

[Catholic_farmer]

Wow, that was quite early. Thank you.