[ExI] Slavery Now and in the Past

Lee Corbin lcorbin at rawbw.com
Sat Apr 19 14:17:15 UTC 2008

Samantha inquires

> On Apr 15, 2008, at 4:41 AM, Lee Corbin wrote:
>> Olga and Rafal both make good points.
>> But I've been meaning to address something else
>> for a while. Earlier this year someone here opined
>> that the main reason that slavery was ended in the
>> west was that it was becoming economically unviable.
> It was in fact becoming increasingly nonviable particularly
> as the industrial revolution expanded.

Were there any signs that in the U.S. slavery was
being replaced by share-cropping in the south?
If it wasn't competitive, why wasn't it slowly being
replaced?  Or was it?  I guess you'll have to provide
some references too.

>> In fact, it was a moral revolution among people mainly in Brittain,
>> and to a lesser extent in the U.S.
> That is an assertion that requires some proof.   It was almost  certainly not the case that the Civil War was fought to end
> slavery.

First, let's look at the timeline:


which, though it shows the amazing advancement all around the
world, lists the $$$$ efforts of the British:

   1802 Denmark abolish slave trade in Danish colonies
   1802 Slavery re-introduced in France[2]
   1803 Lower Canada abolishes slavery
   1804 Haiti abolishes slavery[3]
   1807 Abolition of the Slave Trade Act: slave trading
            abolished in British Empire. Captains fined £100
            per slave transported.
* 1807 British begin patrols of African coast to arrest
            slaving vessels. West Africa Squadron (Royal Navy)
            established to suppress slave trading; by 1865,
            nearly 150,000 people freed by anti-slavery operations[8]
   1807 Abolition in Prussia, Germany The Stein-Hardenberg Reforms.
   1808 United States -- importation of slaves into the US
            prohibited after Jan. 1.[9]
   1811 Slave trading made a felony in the British Empire
            punishable by transportation for British subjects
            and Foreigners.
   1811 Spain abolishes slavery at home and in all colonies
            except Cuba,[2] Puerto Rico, and Santo Domingo
   1814 Dutch outlaw slave trade
* 1815 British pay Portuguese £750,000 (several hundred
            million dollars in current values) to cease their trade[10]
   1815 Congress of Vienna. 8 Victorious powers declared
            their opposition to slavery
* 1817 Spain paid £400,000 by British to cease trade to
            Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Santo Domingo[10]

Look at the 1807, 1815, and 1817 particulars. I have
also read, but do not have handy, how expensive it
was for the slave patroling for decade after decade
after decade by the British Navy, e.g.,

1845 36 British Navy ships are assigned to the Anti-Slavery
         Squadron, making it one of the largest fleets in the world.

>> And a bit later, it could be said that the Abolitionists
>> in the U.S. caused the War Between the States.
> Not with any real correctness.

What?  Please provide some argument.

It is *clear* and was clear the whole time from 1787 to 1861
that *this* was the big dividing issue between north and south.
Yes, of course there were other causes, e.g., immediate causes
in the 1850s (for example, Henry Clay finally died).  But they
were all related to the slavery issue.

The north and south would *never* have gone to war without
the slavery issue. The south would *never* have wanted
succession to that degree without the slavery issue.


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list