Why did blacks need white to free them from slavery?

Originally posted by inimalist
No other forms of slavery have involved such international institutions as the North Atlantic Trade route.

True, slavery is a human phenomenon. I may take issue with the term, but the "Chattel" like treatment of blacks, the vicious inhumanity, and the industry behind it are, as far as I know, unique to this context. Maybe only matched by ancient civs? I dont know...

No other slaves have been such a commodity in such an industry.

1. I never contradicted or implied a contradication to anything you've said above. I simply mentioend that even whites did not escape slavery in America.

2. Indentured servants were in many aspects, treated just the same as slaves. I would say that they were treated better, on the whole. Indentured servants were sold and bought, beaten, etc. Endentured servants comprised a large portion of the population in colonial America. You could say that North was built on temp. slaves. 😆 Again, I don't think their lives were nearly as hard, on average, to black slaves.

Originally posted by dadudemon
HB Stowe's book was more influential than Equiano's narrative. This is fact.

That's out of the way...what else are we "arguing" about? Anything? I don't think we are.

It would be that last point, the whos and whats and so on.

Though, no, I don't really think so

Also, Black slavery to me has much less to do with America and the civil war then it does to you. Seeing as the Civil war came decades even, as you say, after the North began ending slavery.

Like I said, America was behind when it came to slavery. Contextualizing black slavery and the emancipation of blacks in terms of the civil war and Lincoln, imho, a little amero-centric.

Originally posted by dadudemon
1. I never contradicted or implied a contradication to anything you've said above. I simply mentioend that even whites did not escape slavery in America.

2. Indentured servants were in many aspects, treated just the same as slaves. I would say that they were treated better, on the whole. Indentured servants were sold and bought, beaten, etc. Endentured servants comprised a large portion of the population in colonial America. You could say that North was built on temp. slaves. 😆 Again, I don't think their lives were nearly as hard, on average, to black slaves.

or, how did they come across the ocean?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Lincoln abolished slavery to free the slaves. 😐 They were already at war. The southerners declared that it was another tactic by the Union to cut off their economic ability to sustain war. It was also to turn the slaves against their slave holders.

It was a war tactic first and foremost. The result was, of course, that all slaves were, for the most part, made free, but that was not the true intention or objective of the proclamation. If it was the intention, then slavery would have been ended in all Confederate states, no matter if they rejoined the Union before January 1st. The proclamation was to weaken the Confederacy, plain and simple.

Originally posted by inimalist
True, but when you read Galton and the like, there is a clear Christian/Cultural influence on the work.

It was a case of having the answer and working backwards. I would compare it to the evolutionary and geological science being done by the Discover institute, only in those days it was mainstream science.

Point taken though.

Religion is far from blameless, there are several accounts of owners leaving for the weekend and coming back born again and worse than ever. Fredrick Douglas mentions that devout slave owners were some of the worst. That also seems to be an example of working backward for the answer you want, the answer being "slavery is okay" and the justification being "the bible says so".

It's just that the idea that religion was the sum total of justification isn't really true.

Originally posted by inimalist
That would be true if blacks were treated like machinery when they were kept as slaves.

Beating them into submission, raping their women, sadistic murder, all of these things paint slavery as a non-economic system. The proof was that slaves who were better treated were not only more profitable, but were more loyal and less likely to attempt escape.

Black slavery was, at least imho, a symbol for people. It was justified in entirely religious terms, and the mistreatment of blacks as people, and not as property, show that the morality and the culture behind the oppression of black people had at least as much to do with the continuation of slavery as economics.

HOLY SHIT!

My essay, which I just turned in yesterday, covered those very same points!

Here's what I covered:

1. Slaves were not comparable to machinery that had to be maintained, as some people liked to think.

2. Slaves that were treated better worked better and were more profitable for their owners. (Better health, etc.) I cited Solomon Northup's own words to back this claim up.

3. Slavery was fought for by the south not just to simply have them, but because of what slavery symbolically meant to the south.

4. Black people were considered less than human, even by Northerners.

5. The necessity of HB Stowe's book in inciting anger from the south, gaining more followers to anti-slavery, and strengthening the cause of the Northerners against slavery, in general.

It's rather uncanny how many of my points you just covered.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
It IS relevant. Because this chip on the shoulder of ''black slaves at the time were treated the worse than any other slaves at the time, before that and all times after'' is rather tiresome, not to mention untrue.

It elevates balck slaves in America above all other slaves around the world that did NOT managed to free themselves, and many remain slaves today.

The fact that you think it is not relevant that there is more slavery today than ever before clearly reaffirms this.

Are you aware how much slavery today exists in Africa, Islamic World and Asia?
Are you aware of child slaves in Haiti which are beaten with electric wires every day if they're not quick in their work as their masters want them to?
Women and children in Uganda, Rwanda and Sudan were/are raped continuously, as rape is here used as a tool of war?
Little boys given a gun to kill other men and little boys?

Are you aware the amount of sex slavery that is going on today? The amount of women and CHILDREN trafficked and sold on black market every minute?

Of course it is relevant!

Yet you're so engrossed in ''we were once slaves, give me reparation and white guilt''. The slavery none of you actually experienced shits on millions upon millions of slaves (many of them children) TODAY.

I don't come from that part of the world, and neither to my ancestors, and therefore I am having a hard time understanding this idea that slavery originated with the Europeans and as if the slavery had anything to do with skin colour.
It did not. It had to do with economics.

All slavery is not relevant to another just as all wars are not and so on.

I'm not sure who says that or if you got the impression that
inimalist was implying that slaves in the U.S. were worse off than others. That is a case by case thing and slavery has no moral basis in the first place.

Certainly Africans had slaves but it is very difficult to have an actual discussion about African culture in any era because it is simply not taught to the masses regardless of if we mean to speak of any African history, the African languages or whatever (same can be said of any peoples who have not had mass intergration by European people). In general, people make bold, sweeping statements that might hold some truth but lack any background information critical to actual learning between different parties.

The point trying to be made, I believe, is that slavery is wrong in any form, at any place, no matter what time. It should be probably be left at that so that we are not going at each other's throats about the particulars.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Religion is far from blameless, there are several accounts of owners leaving for the weekend and coming back born again and worse than ever. Fredrick Douglas mentions that devout slave owners were some of the worst. That also seems to be an example of working backward for the answer you want, the answer being "slavery is okay" and the justification being "the bible says so".

It's just that the idea that religion was the sum total of justification isn't really true.

****, no totally.

I'm not trying to "blame religion", more, if anything, blame "culture". The beliefs of the people were symbolically justified by slavery and were morally/scientifically justified through their institutions of knowledge, whichever those might have been.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
It was a war tactic first and foremost.

Maybe...maybe not. This is debatable. There's more evidence to suggest that this was Lincoln's goal the whole time. He had been working hard even before his presidency, to abolish slavery because it was "morally wrong."

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
The result was, of course, that all slaves were, for the most part, made free, but that was not the true intention or objective of the proclamation.

It had many intentions, one of them being military.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
If it was the intention, then slavery would have been ended in all Confederate states,

It most certainly did end slavery in all of the confederate states. Do you think that the Union believed it was be very effective? Sure, they knew it may cause some uprisings, but they assumed that slavery would remain in most places until the Union won the war.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
The proclamation was to weaken the Confederacy, plain and simple.

I agree on this. Almost every intention arrives at this point.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Huh? What was wrong with their teeth?

LOL

best post in da thread.

Originally posted by dadudemon
HOLY SHIT!

My essay, which I just turned in yesterday, covered those very same points!

Here's what I covered:

1. Slaves were not comparable to machinery that had to be maintained, as some people liked to think.

2. Slaves that were treated better worked better and were more profitable for their owners. (Better health, etc.) I cited Solomon Northup's own words to back this claim up.

3. Slavery was fought for by the south not just to simply have them, but because of what slavery symbolically meant to the south.

4. Black people were considered less than human, even by Northerners.

5. The necessity of HB Stowe's book in inciting anger from the south, gaining more followers to anti-slavery, and strengthening the cause of the Northerners against slavery, in general.

It's rather uncanny how many of my points you just covered.

Weird, I wrote something similar with more importance placed on Equiano's work, especially because it was a black writing in Christian terms (terms that a theocratic government [Britain] can't ignore, as it is the language of law). (Equiano was also a main part of the course, which may explain the slant toward that. I'm surprised it wasn't mentioned to you, as the work was a bestseller in its time, and he was, even in his life, recognized by the Crown of England as one of the central figures in the abolitionist movement).

It really surprised me how this seems overlooked in the study of black slavery. Most people go "chattel" or "property" and leave it at that. I'd never treat my property that way, lol.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Maybe...maybe not. This is debatable. There's more evidence to suggest that this was Lincoln's goal the whole time. He had been working hard even before his presidency, to abolish slavery because it was "morally wrong."

Debatable? I don't really think so, but people are allowed to their opinions, of course. In my mind and in a lot of other historians' eyes, it was a war tactic that was meant to weaken the Confederacy. Did Lincoln have ulterior motives for releasing it? Sure, but he acted for the Union first and foremost; he transformed the war into one against slavery to weaken the Confederacy, rather than just unification. On a side note, a little known fact is that Lincoln had a previous plan to compensate slave owners/slave states by paying them 400 dollars for every slave; and, in turn, the states would abolish slavery within 20 years.

I'm talking specifically for the proclamation, not the 13th Amendment. The proclamation was a war tactic; if Lincoln could have ended the war by having all states keep their slaves, he would have. If he could have ended the war by freeing the slaves, he would have done that.

It most certainly did end slavery in all of the confederate states. Do you think that the Union believed it was be very effective? Sure, they knew it may cause some uprisings, but they assumed that slavery would remain in most places until the Union won the war.

It did end slavery in the South to an extent, but...if any Confederate state stopped fighting and rejoined the Union, they would have been able to keep their slaves and would have been exempt from it. For how long? No one could possibly know for sure, but I would take a gander that they would become a free state by the end of the 1870's. After all, if one of the states would have rejoined the Union, who knows what would have happened to Lincoln since history would be changed.

Originally posted by inimalist
Weird, I wrote something similar with more importance placed on Equiano's work, especially because it was a black writing in Christian terms (terms that a theocratic government [Britain] can't ignore, as it is the language of law). (Equiano was also a main part of the course, which may explain the slant toward that. I'm surprised it wasn't mentioned to you, as the work was a bestseller in its time, and he was, even in his life, recognized by the Crown of England as one of the central figures in the abolitionist movement).

It really surprised me how this seems overlooked in the study of black slavery. Most people go "chattel" or "property" and leave it at that. I'd never treat my property that way, lol.

Equiano's narrative, as well as an essay about it, were required for my course. It's the first narrative we read during the summer semester.

We also read Uncle Tom's Cabin and 12 Years a Slave.

These were the three works required for out course...each required an essay, similar to the one you and I wrote.

In conclusion, it does seem we are on the same page, as usual, it's just that we differ on one very small point. However, I don't think this is a difference, really.

I'm referring to Civil War and slavery post civil war. You're referring to slavery, in general.

I am focusing on America.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
Debatable? I don't really think so, but people are allowed to their opinions, of course.

It is debatable, which is why you're replying to me.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
In my mind and in a lot of other historians' eyes, it was a war tactic that was meant to weaken the Confederacy.

No one is denying that. What is being debated is it being the foremost reason for doing it. That's debatable.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
Did Lincoln have ulterior motives for releasing it? Sure, but he acted for the Union first and foremost;

Depends on your definition of "Union." Do you mean the northern states or do you mean the nation, as a whole?

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
he transformed the war into one against slavery to weaken the Confederacy, rather than just unification.

Correct. We both agree on this point and it was something I mentioned earlier.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
On a side note, a little known fact is that Lincoln had a previous plan to compensate slave owners/slave states by paying them 400 dollars for every slave; and, in turn, the states would abolish slavery within 20 years.

It wasn't just a plan, it happened in D.C., I think. People were compensated.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
I'm talking specifically for the proclamation, not the 13th Amendment. The proclamation was a war tactic; if Lincoln could have ended the war by having all states keep their slaves, he would have. If he could have ended the war by freeing the slaves, he would have done that.

On this, I disagree. Lincoln most certainly would not have allowed the South to keep their slaves. That was the whole point of the war.

We have evidence of his anti-slavery ideas from his campaign to win a senate seat.

I

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
t did end slavery in the South to an extent, but...if any Confederate state stopped fighting and rejoined the Union, they would have been able to keep their slaves and would have been exempt from it. For how long? No one could possibly know for sure, but I would take a gander that they would become a free state by the end of the 1870's. After all, if one of the states would have rejoined the Union, who knows what would have happened to Lincoln since history would be changed.

We can certainly speculate, but the 13th amendment was the eventual goal.

I have to go more than a decade back to recall something I read about slavery continuing in the south, even after the 13th amendment. It was illegal, but some people kept up the practice...it took a while for it to stop. It wasn't instant.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It is debatable, which is why you're replying to me.

No one is denying that. What is being debated is it being the foremost reason for doing it. That's debatable. Depends on your definition of "Union." Do you mean the northern states or do you mean the nation, as a whole?

The Union, meaning country as a whole. I admitted that Lincoln did have ulterior motives, but the main intention of the proclamation was to weaken the Confederacy.

On this, I disagree. Lincoln most certainly would not have allowed the South to keep their slaves. That was the whole point of the war.We have evidence of his anti-slavery ideas from his campaign to win a senate seat.

In a letter to Horace Greeley, Lincoln wrote:

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
I am replying to you in an attempt to correct you, I am not debating you.

But you're the one who was corrected.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
In a letter to Horace Greeley, Lincoln wrote: So on that point, you are incorrect. You must remember, his campaigning for the Senate was before the Civil War erupted, which definitely changed his opinion or point of view.

Ever hear of political rhetoric? Even Honest Abe was a politician. 😐

He freed the slaves. That's that.

Edit - What we do have is Lincoln freeing the slaves which only created more friction. In order to understand when a politician is telling the truth or not, you have to look at their actions, and not their political rhetoric. If a contemporary congressman declared anti-slavery and voted favorably for slavery, his political rhetoric holds not ground. What we do know, depsite what you claimed, is Lincoln was against slavery. His actions prove that.

To claim that he would have kept slavery if it would have saved the union is factually incorrect, as evidenced by the emancipation proclamation. That only drove the divide further. It was not primarily a military move, as you claimed. Why did he do it, then? Sure, there were many motivations for the proclamation...that's not being debated.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Ever hear of political rhetoric? Even Honest Abe was a politician. 😐

He freed the slaves. That's that.

Ironic. You chalk the letter up to political rhetoric, but you yet use campaigns as proof. He freed the slaves, yet left it open for slave states to keep their slaves if they rejoined the Union, that is fact, hence me saying that the main intention of the proclamation was to weaken the Union.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
Ironic. You chalk the letter up to political rhetoric, but you yet use campaigns as proof.

Actions speak louder than political rhetoric, my friend. See my edit.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
He freed the slaves, yet left it open for slave states to keep their slaves if they rejoined the Union, that is fact, hence me saying that the main intention of the proclamation was to weaken the Union.

You still didn't define Union. I can assume, by this post, that you're referring to the U.S. as a whole, and not North.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You still didn't define Union.

Edit: just read your edit. Have you ever read the proclamation? He didn't outlaw slavery; he freed slaves within the Confederacy that was not under the Union control by January 1st. I really don't understand how you can argue against that he left slavery open in the Union.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
Yes, I did. Its in the post before my last. And his actions do speak louder than words, yes, and his actions show that he left it open for slavery to be present in the Union within the proclamation.

You'll have to forgive me. Your post was a mess, at the time, and I didn't really pay attention to that part of it...I kinda...skipped over it.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
Edit: just read your edit. Have you ever read the proclamation? He didn't outlaw slavery; he freed slaves within the Confederacy that was not under the Union control by January 1st. I really don't understand how you can argue that he left slavery open in the Union.

Where did I say the Emancipation Proclamation outlawed slavery?

And where am I arguing that he left slavery open in the Union? (I would argue that he did do that...depending on what you're talking about.)