Colorado mom arrested in 'JihadJane' terror case

[Neil]

I doubt many Americans even knew about it.  Nor was it likely on the minds of those in Boston where the Revolution started where there were few slaves and slavery was abolished shortly after the war.

The Rebellion was won by the money and power of the South, which is why the South dominated American politics in the early days.

[Razgovory]

Now I know you are trolling.

[Agelastus]

Britain wouldn't have repudiated slavery if it was still practiced widely in their colonies.  So the point is moot.  They only banned it after it became economically irrelevant.   And even after that they still looked the other way when it happened.

The sugar colonies in the Caribbean were still economically very valuable at the time of abolition (which only went through parliament when it did due to the frailties of the then government - they needed the votes of the abolitionists.) Moreover, since the Royal Navy spent most of the nineteenth century stamping out the slave trade, while the government applied diplomatic, economic and occasionally military pressure on slave trading nations to get them to stop the trade, I think you are trolling when you say "they still looked the other way".

[Razgovory]

Britain wouldn't have repudiated slavery if it was still practiced widely in their colonies.  So the point is moot.  They only banned it after it became economically irrelevant.   And even after that they still looked the other way when it happened.

The sugar colonies in the Caribbean were still economically very valuable at the time of abolition (which only went through parliament when it did due to the frailties of the then government - they needed the votes of the abolitionists.) Moreover, since the Royal Navy spent most of the nineteenth century stamping out the slave trade, while the government applied diplomatic, economic and occasionally military pressure on slave trading nations to get them to stop the trade, I think you are trolling when you say "they still looked the other way".

Indeed this is why they stopped purchasing cotton from the US prior to the Civil war or why the Slavery abolition act didn't include India.

[dps]

I seem to recall a rather extensive Royal Navy antislavery campaign.

I knew grumbler could recall those days, but I though you were much younger. 

[Agelastus]

Indeed this is why they stopped purchasing cotton from the US prior to the Civil war or why the Slavery abolition act didn't include India.

It amuses me that you immediately equate diplomatic pressure with the near-to-doomsday "trade embargo" option. It also amuses me that you equate slavery 100% with the slave trade; the British concentrated on stamping out the trade so that the practise would die out naturally, and in fact banned the Trade 26 years before they abolished Slavery itself in British territories. Moreover, the USA banned the Trade itself at the same time Britain did; the USA was an anti-Slave Trade power while retaining slavery just the same as Britain, except for the fact that this situation lingered longer in the USA than it did in Britain.

The Southern States of the USA are almost unique in the history of slavery in the Americas in that the slave population did not rely on continual replacement from Africa in order to maintain its size; in fact, it actually increased even in the absence of importation. The contrast with the Sugar Islands of the Caribbean, or even most of the slave using regions of South America, is quite startling.

And the Slavery abolition Act could not include India, as the territories there were under the sovereignty of the East India Company, not the Crown. And although the Slave Trade itself was banned in 1807, the two acts in Britain and India that abolished slavery are actually only 10 years apart (1833 and 1843.) Moreover, it is quite clear that the West African trade was more well publicised in the early nineteenth century than the situation in the Indian Ocean; it was not until after Livingston's accounts of his East African travels were published that the Arab Slave trade in Eastern Africa received the same level of effort in suppression that the West Africa trade had already undergone (in relation to West Africa, 1600 slave ships had been siezed in the 52 years between 1808 and 1860.)

I remember studying this very thing fifteen years ago at university; the death rates in the Caribbean and other points south of the USA are enough to raise a sense of shame even in me, an otherwise unreformed Imperialist in many respects.

[garbon]

Why does Languish attract so many weirdos?

[Razgovory]

You are amused by strange things.  I"m not sure what you are arguing at this point.

[ulmont]

Why does Languish attract so many weirdos?

A forum initially populated by those who couldn't play nice with others on the Paradox OT board, and you're asking why the denizens are weird?

[garbon]

A forum initially populated by those who couldn't play nice with others on the Paradox OT board, and you're asking why the denizens are weird?

I doubt most of us would say I'm "an otherwise unreformed Imperialist in many respects."

[garbon]

You are amused by strange things.  I"m not sure what you are arguing at this point.

[Razgovory]

You are amused by strange things.  I"m not sure what you are arguing at this point.

Also I don't like talking to Agelastus because I can't figure out if his avatar is suppose to be a guy or a girl and that distracts me a great deal.

[Agelastus]

A forum initially populated by those who couldn't play nice with others on the Paradox OT board, and you're asking why the denizens are weird?

I doubt most of us would say I'm "an otherwise unreformed Imperialist in many respects."

I am what I am. As full of contradictions due to my sentience as any other poster here.

[Agelastus]

You are amused by strange things.  I"m not sure what you are arguing at this point.

Also I don't like talking to Agelastus because I can't figure out if his avatar is suppose to be a guy or a girl and that distracts me a great deal.

The character in my avatar's a girl. I don't really like the anime, or the character designs it used in general (everybody looks..."stretched" is the best way I can put it.) But the image of the girl crying in the rain, that I like, so it's my current avatar.

I will have to consider changing it though; I didn't think the character was that androgynous.


As for what I was arguing, you seemed to be implying that Britain was not serious about suppressing the slave trade because we still bought southern cotton. I was merely pointing out that that showed a misappreciation of the distinction that was drawn at the time between slavery and the slave trade itself, and added some of the reasoning that led reformers of the time to be happy enough with suppressing the trade (as they considered the institution of slavery itself would then wither and die.) I also pointed out that the reason for the relative lack of activity against slave trading in the Indian Ocean in the first half of the nineteenth century was because the west Africa trade had been much more heavily publicised in Europe.

And that the Southern States, because it was one of the few places in the Americas that didn't kill its slaves faster than they could reproduce, was somewhat immune to these tactics.

[Neil]

Indeed this is why they stopped purchasing cotton from the US prior to the Civil war or why the Slavery abolition act didn't include India.

It amuses me that you immediately equate diplomatic pressure with the near-to-doomsday "trade embargo" option. It also amuses me that you equate slavery 100% with the slave trade; the British concentrated on stamping out the trade so that the practise would die out naturally, and in fact banned the Trade 26 years before they abolished Slavery itself in British territories. Moreover, the USA banned the Trade itself at the same time Britain did; the USA was an anti-Slave Trade power while retaining slavery just the same as Britain, except for the fact that this situation lingered longer in the USA than it did in Britain.

The Southern States of the USA are almost unique in the history of slavery in the Americas in that the slave population did not rely on continual replacement from Africa in order to maintain its size; in fact, it actually increased even in the absence of importation. The contrast with the Sugar Islands of the Caribbean, or even most of the slave using regions of South America, is quite startling.

And the Slavery abolition Act could not include India, as the territories there were under the sovereignty of the East India Company, not the Crown. And although the Slave Trade itself was banned in 1807, the two acts in Britain and India that abolished slavery are actually only 10 years apart (1833 and 1843.) Moreover, it is quite clear that the West African trade was more well publicised in the early nineteenth century than the situation in the Indian Ocean; it was not until after Livingston's accounts of his East African travels were published that the Arab Slave trade in Eastern Africa received the same level of effort in suppression that the West Africa trade had already undergone (in relation to West Africa, 1600 slave ships had been siezed in the 52 years between 1808 and 1860.)

I remember studying this very thing fifteen years ago at university; the death rates in the Caribbean and other points south of the USA are enough to raise a sense of shame even in me, an otherwise unreformed Imperialist in many respects.

Note that slavery was already starting to be banned in the 1770s.