1. #181
    MLudner's Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,414
    Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
    hi all,

    I am not a historian but I have an interest in history.

    As far as I understand,the American War of Independence was sparked by the British demand for higher taxes.

    The taxes were raised as I understand to fight the French and a couple of other European nations who wanted their Imperial 'slice' of the British 'American colonies'.

    If the 'American Colony' had ACCEPTED this tax and a revolution had not taken place how would world history have changed assuming that America had remained a British Colony?

    I may be 'off the wall' here but to me this subject is of interest and worthy of a few moments thought.



    Best Regards,
    MB_Avro.
    It would have made a huge difference in the First World War at least. The Kaiser would not have stood a chance had the British had American manpower to draw on from the start.
    Share this post

  2. #182
    MLudner's Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,414
    Originally posted by Rattler68:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jungmann:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:
    Originally posted by DmdSeeker:
    Interesting thread.

    I can understand why the Americans posting in this thread assume that because thier forfathers had both rejected the European continent and had a pioneering spirit the break with England was inevitable; but I'd like to ask them what, in thier own eyes, diffentiates them from Australia?
    Everybody who came to America wanted to be there. Still applies.

    My 2 cents about the inevitable split--Britain treated the Colonies like all their colonies, as a cash cow, to be taxed up the wazoo, to make the Yankees have to buy British goods off British ships at higher prices than they'd pay elsewhere (say, the French), and as a handy garden for all that good stuff they couldn't grow at home (tobacco). Americans finally got p***ed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Overstated. Ever seen the movie Amistad? I think that a few Africans and West Indians would disagree that they wanted to be there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    "He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivatng and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of INFIDEL powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people for whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the LIBERTIES of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the LIVES of another.]"

    That's how Thomas Jefferson looked at it.
    Share this post

  3. #183
    It does seem at times that what Jefferson says does not really correspond to what he does. Slavery is one such issue. Upon his death he freed only several slaves.
    Napoleon needed money in a hurry at the time of the Louisiana Purchase. The US were worried about British and French policies hindering their trade along the Mississippi and approached the French for the purchase of New Orleans and the outlet to the Gulf of Mexico to protect our trade interest. The slave revolt in Haiti had caused the loss of a French Army that was going to be used to attack the British via the Mississippi. It certainly was a great deal at the time. A tremendous one for the price.
    Share this post

  4. #184
    How many slaves did Jefferson own?

    Undoubtedly one of the ablest leaders a nation ever had, but his practices seem at odds with his teachings.
    Share this post

  5. #185
    Jefferson is known to have owned at least 50 slaves. Besides Monticello he owned two other farms in which slave labor were used. Part of a wedding present to his daughter was one of these properties and at least 12 slaves to run it.
    Share this post

  6. #186
    horseback's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    5,052
    As regards slavery: to the shame of the 'Enlightened Western European," anyone other than a northern (Christian) European was looked upon by our ancestors as somewhat less than a man prior to the 19th century. Pale Caucasian Arabs, 'swarthy' Italians and Greeks, dark-skinned caucasian Indians (the ones from the subcontinent on the right), asians in all their varieties, Pacific Islanders, native Americans (which run a wide gamut of racial types & mixes) and black Africans all were looked down upon and treated as property or serfs to some degree(of course, they would have been terribly insulted to know that these 'lesser' peoples looked at them in much the same way.)

    It took a tremendous leap of intellect (and even greater moral courage) to believe that these were all men created in God's image and publicly say so in the late 1700s.

    That a few people did so, and were able to point at Jefferson's and the other Founding Fathers' words and make the reality stand next to the ideal so that we could see how far we had to go was a great gift to all of us, and the work that they started was not completed until well after--oh hell, we're not even close yet, anywhere on this earth.

    Who are you to make judgements about men like Washington, Jefferson or Adams on the basis of what you read in a few books or magazines, or far more likely, from watching the History Channel?

    cheers

    horseback
    Share this post

  7. #187
    MLudner's Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,414
    He purchased a total of 19 slaves during his life. Like the vast majority of his personal debt, the rest were inherited from his father in law.

    Jefferson was as born into slavery as were his slaves. What you see in Jefferson is the clash between his ideals and reality.

    In a Slave Economy (A modified Socialist Economy, I might add) you cannot compete without them and will go bankrupt if you attempt to employ majority free labor.

    Just ask Henry Clay. Henry Clay was a Kentuckian, and early on he became a public figure. His first public acts of note occured when Kentucky was drafting its first State Constitution: Henry Clay went from one end of Kentucky to the other making stump speeches and campaigning aggressively for a FREE soil constitution that would make Kentucky a free state.
    He lost. Kentucky entered the Union as a slave state.
    In order to run his plantation he soon discovered the necessity of becoming a slaveholder since he lived in a slave state and despite his very public opposition to slavery he himself became a slave owner.

    Henry Clay was one of Abraham Lincoln's most influential mentors.

    Reality sometimes trumps one's ideals. Jefferson's first piece of legislation back in the Virginia House of Burgesses was a measure that would have out-lawed slavery in Virginia. He was too junior to floor the measure himself and he asked a sympathetic friend in the House whom he knew shared his view of the matter to propose it. His friend told him it would never pass, of course, but he agreed that it had to be tried.
    Jefferson would rue that day for the rest of his life.
    The man rose and tabled the legislation. Instantaneously he was under vitriolic assault, suffering condemnation and excoriation of such a bitter and ad hominem nature that Jefferson withered. Jefferson eternally regretted putting that man through that and felt responsible for what he had suffered.

    Hind-sight is almost 20/20 vision, but living in their present you would not have had that.
    Share this post

  8. #188
    MLudner's Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,414
    On the subject of slavery:

    First - The US was founded with slavery already in existence, it was not our idea. There was a strong Abolitionist movement in the colonies before the US was founded, and half of the States began the process of emancipation as soon as independence was achieved. The US Consitution set a date for the elimination of the slave trade and as soon as that date came the African Slave Trade was discontinued in the US. The US Constitution also contained provisions whcih encouraged emancipation and placed slave states at a disadvantage. Unique among nations, the US was formed by a VOLUNTARY association; no one HAD to join. This was why slavery could not be immediately ended, because the States from Maryland south would never have signed on.

    Second - Slavery came into existence on this continent not by any intent or plan, but came about through conditions at the time that made it unfortunately necessary. Early on there was a lack of labor and indentured servants could not entirly supply the need. The problem is that an indentured servant is bound to his employer for only a term of years or for a sum of money, both of which equal the cost of passage across the pond. The indentured servant, if sufficiently industrious (and many were) could do work on the side and save enough money to buy-out of his contract early. The employer then had to pay for another costly passage. This is where the Arabs come in. For centuries the Arabs had been taking slaves from Subsaharan Africa and Europeans learned of this from them. Those West Africans then supplied the labor shortage. Unfortunately, in the Southern colonies their entire society and economic system then developed around slavery.

    To be continued when time allows...
    Share this post

  9. #189
    Blutarski2004's Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,020
    Originally posted by MLudner:
    On the subject of slavery:

    For centuries the Arabs had been taking slaves from Subsaharan Africa and Europeans learned of this from them. Those West Africans then supplied the labor shortage. Unfortunately, in the Southern colonies their entire society and economic system then developed around slavery.

    To be continued when time allows...

    ===> The Arabs and Ottomans and piratical North African states routinely also seized immense numbers of caucasian europeans as slaves. The galleys of the Ottoman navy were all crewed by slave rowers. Some authorities argue that the numbers of caucasians put into slavery during the period of Muslim ascendancy equalled the numbers of Africans taken.

    One interesting observation I have made is that slavery as a European institution disappeared as soon as the very labor-intensive Caribbean sugar cane industry was supplanted by the devlopment of beet-derived sugar. It's not commonly known that the Caribbean Island during the 17th and 18th centuries representedsome of the most valuable commercial real estate on the planet because of the sugar cane crops raised there. Once the need for massive numbers of cheap labor disappeared, so did slavery as an economic institution in Great Britain.
    Share this post

  10. #190
    WWMaxGunz's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    4,792
    Slavery and slave trade existed in Africa as well. Losers of wars that survived were taken
    as slaves if not sacrificed though the children of the slaves were not slaves. Slave trade
    moved between African nations and continued after Muslim control moved in. I've seen records
    of silver and livestock traded to African nations for shiploads of slaves.

    AFAIK the first Euros to take slaves from Africa was Portugal in IIRC 1510 but maybe it's 1610.
    Share this post