Help on slave trade...?
I am doing some work on slavery around the time 17/1800. It is an article persuading people to stop it. What could I include, say or just any info on the topic will help, thanks.
- 1 decade agoFavorite Answer
~First, you have to convince the Spanish and British to stop growing sugar. The vast majority of African slaves were exported to the sugar plantations of South and Central America and the Caribbean. Very few found their way to the British North American colonies or to the USA after the colonies were granted independence. Of course, you could always try to convince the Dutch, Swedish, Norwegian and Portuguese ship owners and captains to forgo the immense fortunes they were making by transporting the human chattel. And you could work on the African tribal leaders who were consolidating their power and wealth by conquering, capturing and selling their fellow Africans to the European and Arabic buyers.
If you concern is the slave trade in the US, not to worry. The US Constitution guaranteed the right to own slaves (Article I, Sections 2 and 9, Article IV, section 2, Amendments IV, V, IX and X) and prohibited Congress from outlawing the importing of slaves until at least 1809. In 1809, largely because of Southern agitation for it, Congress did outlaw the importation of slaves. Of the 4 million or so slaves freed by Amendment XIII, most had roots in North America that stretched back much farther than those of a majority of the white citizens.
In 1787, the time of the Philadelphia (Constitutional) Convention, approximately 20% of the colonial population consisted of slaves in bondage and slavery was legal and extant in every state. only the Republic of Vermont had outlawed it - which is of dubious merit since the legitimacy of the Republic of Vermont was, at best, suspect. The colonies had always been plagued by a shortage of labor and slavery was vitally necessary to the survival of the colonies and to the nations of the USA after independence was attained. By 1860, 75% of federal revenues were raised in the South, mostly from tariffs on the Southern tobacco, cotton and rice cash crops. Northern bankers, mercantile interests, industrialists, merchants and shippers relied on the southern goods to make their own fortunes and since 75% of federal spending occurred in the north, the northern governments relied as heavily on the slaves as did their cousins and brothers south of the Mason-Dixon line.
Your task is difficult. You have to make a moral argument to convince people to ignore the facts of life, the law of the land and their own financial security and self-interest. Then you have to figure out what you are going to do with several million uneducated, homeless, penniless, angry slaves that you intend to turn loose on society. First, given the constitutional prohibition against taking private property without due process of law and just compensation, you have to figure out how to pay the owners. The government won't be able to afford it since without the slaves, approximately 75% of federal revenue will be lost. The government will be bankrupt. Then, you have to figure out where to get rid of the freed slaves. Abe Lincoln wanted to ship them them off to colonies to be established for the purpose in the Caribbean, in unoccupied regions in Texas and Missouri and in Indian Territory. Naturally, when those unoccupied regions become occupied and when the land is stolen from the First Nations, you'll have to move them again, but before that day comes, you'll have to educate, feed and clothe them and establish some type of police or military force to contain them in the concentration camps to which you've exiled them. It would be somewhat easier in 1860 than in 1790, since they make up a smaller percentage of the overall population and the institution was dying a natural death by then because it was rapidly becoming financially unfeasible. In 1790, the USA could not have survived without the slaves.
Don't consider the problem from 21st Century morality. That is beyond inane. Consider it from the perspective and practicalities of the 18th century. In doing so, bear in mind that the conventional wisdom of the time determined that the African was sub-human, incapable of being educated or raising above the station of a beast of burden and preachers and priests the world over taught that the African was put on earth by god to be enslaved and to do the white man's bidding.
The abolitionists were always a distinct minority. Slavery had always been an acceptable, natural and necessary institution for every civilization created by mankind. African slavery was all the more acceptable because, as the men of the cloth were so quick to point out, those who are different are inferior. It would be far easier for you to justify the institution by the common sense and practicality and financial/economic necessity of the practice, coupled with the morality and 'science' of the era.
- 1 decade ago
Well the Africans were trading them to Europe which then sold them to the USA. White man is not racist like they all say. Black people started the slave trade.Source(s): White and proud
- blondieLv 51 decade ago
u could write about how the african tribe leader traded 1 slave per 1 gun. how african leaders tricked there peeps to go on white slave ships. u can explain how african leaders threaten natives that they would be killed if they didnt go the ships. how leaders killed there tribesman kids if they didnt leave.
- 1 decade ago
To be honest im all for black slavery.