Hey bozos, did it ever occur to you that the only reason the majority of slaves were black was because the trade still went on?
Even when it was outlawed.
Finally I've destroyed the idiots with this argument.
Remember, as some people have concluded Africans were
Africans, throughout the slave trade, were chosen predominantly because of their familiarity with farming, which the Europeans also had. Natives were discontinued from the trade for that reason.
While the trade was illegalized, de jure, in 1808 or 1807, it still went on until the very end of legal slavery. And in many cases attempts to indict the ones who did this went sour.
Yeah slavery was so racial. PFFT
African slaves sold these slaves a lot of the time too
And the trade still went on after its initial outlawing in 1808, USA.
Plus logic would dictate that if the trade truly ended, our slave descedants today wouldn't be black, but more mixed (being that slaveowners raped their slaves and bred new ones). So no points for you. Plus like the trade, prior to illegalization, same reason for using African immigrants was used.
2 -- see number 1
3 -- see number 1
4 -- I insult idiots.
5 -- I apologize for that one. I meant "African slavetraders selling slaves," since most of the trade was still going on
6 -- I gave my sources.
Response to your fifth paragraph (since the characters won't let me)
The reason for this had to do with the slave trade (still was legal in Britain in 1740) and making Africans slaves rendered the Natives and Mestizos useless to them. The reasoning was that Africans were familiar with domestic farming like the Europeans, and were immune to diseases Natives weren't. That argument was used. "*****" meant an African at that time. Race as a construct didn't even exist yet.
The above was for the 6th sorry.
Continued -- The Code Noir makes a distinction between free blacks and enslaved blacks.
I've already proved why your argument is falicious. Plus the speech by Hammond doesn't prove it was racial one bit either. Calhoun in his defense of slavery only mentioned how in every country, the elites enjoy the labor of the less fortunate.
- JonathanLv 75 years agoFavorite Answer
It's amazing to see what people think warrants their thinking they've "destroyed an argument" and going "LMAO" at "bozos." And while some people think it's cool to insult "idiots," others will actually educate them. Facepalm....
Everyone who studies American slavery knows full well that the banning of the transatlantic slave trade didn't end it entirely, any more than the outlawing of drug smuggling has eliminated that trade entirely. It did, however, greatly diminish the scale of the trade.
There's a handy interactive map of all slave ship voyages, including a graph of cumulative total of slaves disembarked: http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_history_of_...
What you'll observe is that, first of all, the vast bulk of the slave trade went to Brazil and the Caribbean - less than 10% to North America (again, something all historians of modern slavery are well aware of). Secondly, if you watch the North American coast for dots (ships) headed there, it reaches a peak in the 1790s and early 1800s; and then almost disappears after 1808. Yes, as is well documented, there continued to be some illegal importation of slaves from Africa after that date; but not in demographically significant numbers. The cumulative total of disembarked slaves for NA levels off at that date.
Related to your update 4 ("winning" an argument on the internet REALLY matters to you, doesn't it?) - of course the American slave population isn't all 100% African descent. Slave women were vulnerable to being raped by their owners. Some were even more or less willing mistresses, like Jefferson's lover Sally Hemmings. Why do you imagine some African Americans are paler in shade than others, to the point that some can "pass" for white? But race is not a genetic fact, it's a social construct. As far as slave owning society was concerned, they were all "black."
The connection of race and slavery is clear in the actual documents. The slave code of 1740 states that it applies to all "negroes, indians, mulattoes and mestizos" in the province (of South Carolina), and specifies as an exception that the exception is indians "in amity with this government" and mulattoes and mestizoes (but not negroes!) "who are now free." The Code Noir of Louisiana (1724, before its entry in the US, but still in effect thereafter) regularly uses "*****" as a synonym for "slave" (for instance, #15: "we forbid negroes to sell any commodities... without permission of their masters").
Slavery had not originally been based on a concept of race, that much is true. Ancient slavery was based on capture in war, criminal punishment, selling oneself into it due to poverty, or being the child of a slave. Europe had gradually dropped slavery as it became Christianized (existing slaves morphing into serfs), but didn't abolish it and the enslavement of non-Christians was still accepted. This was why they accepted enslavement of natives and Africans with the exploration of the 15th century onward. But as those populations too began to become Christian, the focus on what made them "different" (and therefore acceptable as slaves) increasingly focused on skin color and "race." No one was enslaving white people to work on cotton plantations.Source(s): http://www.teachingushistory.org/pdfs/Transciption... http://www.blackpast.org/primary/louisianas-code-n...
- Anonymous5 years ago
1 - insult people at the beginning
2 - demand people respect your opinion with no evidence
3 - supply one point and build an entire case around it
4 - insult your audience again
5 - use "African slaves sold these slaves" as proof without seeing the irony of the error
6 - using failed logic to build a theory on quicksand rather than solid research.
This is a classic case of Logical Fallacies Run Wild.
- poornakumar bLv 75 years ago
Ooh ..! what an utter wubbish or $hit-load. You excel in this genre. I wonder whether you were trained by Goebbels.