• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Confederate Flag[W:1518,2230, 2241]

Should the Confederate Flag be abolished?

  • Yes

    Votes: 55 30.2%

  • No

    Votes: 127 69.8%
  • Total voters
    182
Paperview said:
It's been shown. Multiple times.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...230-2241-a-post1064866122.html#post1064866122

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...230-2241-a-post1064866129.html#post1064866129

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...230-2241-a-post1064866540.html#post1064866540

Those are just a few.

I noted you didn't respond to my posts.

Stop playing games and wasting my time.
Click to expand...

No joy. I read those posts back when you posted them. There is nothing there. No data that proves most American slave ships weren't Northern owned or controlled.
 
Risky Thicket said:
No joy. I read those posts back when you posted them. There is nothing there. No data that proves most American slave ships weren't Northern owned or controlled.
Click to expand...

Apparently, there's no data that proves they were, either. I notice you haven't found a source to support your claim, yet.
 
Risky Thicket said:
No joy. I read those posts back when you posted them. There is nothing there. No data that proves most American slave ships weren't Northern owned or controlled.
Click to expand...

You've done nothing to support your claim, yet dismiss my sources, from leading, scholarly sources to uphold mine.

How....unsurprising
 
Paperview said:
Upholding the Lost Cause mythology runs deep.

Very deep.
Click to expand...

Very, very deep....it's starting to look more like a bottomless pit. lol Maybe the best we can hope for is that the seeds of truth have been planted in their heads even if it might take years to bear fruit.
 
Moot said:
Apparently, there's no data that proves they were, either. I notice you haven't found a source to support your claim, yet.
Click to expand...

Well I do have sources, darlin'. I'm waiting on PV to prove me wrong. :lol:
 
Moot said:
Do you have a source? Because all I could find was this.... "most slaves were brought in by British ships..."


"...Since most slaves were brought in by British ships, and virtually all were purchased from the British on the coast of Africa, a ban on the trade was an important part of the colonists' general policy not to trade with Britain.[/B]...."​

U.S. Constitution and Acts - The Abolition of The Slave Trade
Click to expand...
I think one needs to see a couple of benchmarks here, mostly economic ones. BOTH Britain and the US banned the Atlantic slave trade practically simultaneously and the navies of both went after "blackbirders" from 1807 onwards. In that sense the US abolishment of slave trade only impacted Britain for a few years.

Despite being outlawed (and both navies were prone to blow ships out of the water in mid-ocean, slaves and all, if they could not catch them) the trade however continued. Primarily the gauntlet kept being run to the West Indies and Brazil, Venezuela etc. by ships of all nations, British, American, Spanish, Dutch etc.

All of them now having to rely on something not so important before the navies started their hunt, speed. And this, to outrun warships, was achieved by newer hull design, often copper sheathed to prevent seaweed growth and thus considerably reducing if not indeed eliminating "drag".

A favorite was the design of the Baltimore clipper. Need one say more?

Now what shipyards did the South have compared to the North? How many vessels did the later confederate navy have compared with the North? What sailing tradition compared to New Englanders? And finally, what money after trading its cotton, sugar and tobacco with Europe for exchange goods needed at home that could not be produced there? Money that is for getting ocean worthy Clippers built?

The US sailing potential, experience, construction capacity, design advance, in short the whole technology lay in the North. As did the financiers.

Before and after the Revolution and before and after the abolition of the slave trade.

Ships so built were not Northern in the manner of being commissioned, owned and finally run by any Northern State, they were run in private enterprise. The profiteers being Northern Moneybaggers. By no count ruling out that many a politico turned a blind eye in exchange for a cut, if indeed not investing into the voyage as was custom world wide. And washing his hands of it all if a US vessel actually called home to discharge a by then illegal (after 1807) cargo.

American ships had only a small portion of the Atlantic slave trade at all times, the post 1807 pirate runs included, but they were neither commissioned nor financed nor run (let alone built) in the South. The South couldn't or wouldn't hack it. No need. Exceptions in their negligence notwithstanding.

Of course they got on the bus (boat, rather) by 1861 but then it was too late.
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
Apparently, there's no data that proves they were, either. I notice you haven't found a source to support your claim, yet.
Click to expand...
Always follow the money. And I mean always.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Well I do have sources, darlin'. I'm waiting on PV to prove me wrong. :lol:
Click to expand...

Well, doll....if you can't provide a credible source to back up your claim then not only has PV proven you wrong, but so have I. :mrgreen:
 
Moot said:
Well, doll....if you can't provide a credible source to back up your claim then not only has PV proven you wrong, but so have I. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I know, I know. I'm not being obstinate with you. Truthfully, I first read it in a book. Since then I've read it in a few places on the Internet. I will post them tomorrow, promise. I just haven't wanted to go back through bookmarks and find them, but tomorrow I will.

In addition I came about it deductively. James deWolf of Rhode Island was the largest slave trader in the U.S. There were a number of other huge slave traders in New England. New England dominated American shipping: Massachusetts and Connecticut and then there was New York City. Most of the slaves came to America by foreign owned vessels. But Rhode Island was responsible for half of American slave ships. Add slave ships from other states in New England and New York.

In addition the South didn't have many deep ports at the time compared to the north: Charleston, Savannah and New Orleans primarily. I don't know about why Norfolk, Va doesn't seem to be prominent. I'll have to look that up. North Carolina didn't have any ports to speak of.

For these and other reasons the shipping industry became established in New England. New England wanted the American slave trade and they already dominated American shipping.
 
Last edited:
Chagos said:
I think one needs to see a couple of benchmarks here, mostly economic ones. BOTH Britain and the US banned the Atlantic slave trade practically simultaneously and the navies of both went after "blackbirders" from 1807 onwards. In that sense the US abolishment of slave trade only impacted Britain for a few years.

Despite being outlawed (and both navies were prone to blow ships out of the water in mid-ocean, slaves and all, if they could not catch them) the trade however continued. Primarily the gauntlet kept being run to the West Indies and Brazil, Venezuela etc. by ships of all nations, British, American, Spanish, Dutch etc.

All of them now having to rely on something not so important before the navies started their hunt, speed. And this, to outrun warships, was achieved by newer hull design, often copper sheathed to prevent seaweed growth and thus considerably reducing if not indeed eliminating "drag".

A favorite was the design of the Baltimore clipper. Need one say more?

Now what shipyards did the South have compared to the North? How many vessels did the later confederate navy have compared with the North? What sailing tradition compared to New Englanders? And finally, what money after trading its cotton, sugar and tobacco with Europe for exchange goods needed at home that could not be produced there? Money that is for getting ocean worthy Clippers built?

The US sailing potential, experience, construction capacity, design advance, in short the whole technology lay in the North. As did the financiers.

Before and after the Revolution and before and after the abolition of the slave trade.

Ships so built were not Northern in the manner of being commissioned, owned and finally run by any Northern State, they were run in private enterprise. The profiteers being Northern Moneybaggers. By no count ruling out that many a politico turned a blind eye in exchange for a cut, if indeed not investing into the voyage as was custom world wide. And washing his hands of it all if a US vessel actually called home to discharge a by then illegal (after 1807) cargo.

American ships had only a small portion of the Atlantic slave trade at all times, the post 1807 pirate runs included, but they were neither commissioned nor financed nor run (let alone built) in the South. The South couldn't or wouldn't hack it. No need. Exceptions in their negligence notwithstanding.

Of course they got on the bus (boat, rather) by 1861 but then it was too late.
Click to expand...

That was pretty good, Chagos. But there is still more to be said. For instance, informants were paid with the fines that ship owners, captains and sailors had to pay when they got caught. The punishment for piracy, rigging ships for slave import, illegal slaves, etc....was severe and could ruin a persons life investment if their boat was confiscated and fined thousands of dollars and possible jail sentence. Ten to twenty thousand dollar fines sure sound like a good incentive to be an informant and rat out slave ships, imo.

And too, the North's economy didn't depend on slaves, and most of their state laws had already banned foreign slave trade before 1807 and they had a strong abolitionist movement that by 1861 there were only about seven slaves left in the north. So it couldn't have been very lucrative for slave ships to port in the north where there wasn't a big demand for slaves...let alone risk unloading illegal cargo in a busy port from an obviously rigged slave ship. The only real safe and lucrative place for slave ships to smuggle in slaves was in the south.

So it would be interesting to know just how many slave ships actually were harbored in the north compared to the south after 1810...but no one here seems to really know.
 
Risky Thicket said:
................In addition I came about it deductively...............
Click to expand...
same here, coupled with having been (and still being) interested in shipping history.

I don't know about why Norfolk, Va doesn't seem to be prominent. I'll have to look that up.
Click to expand...
Not to preempt, yet one could safely consider it jinxed in those times. No city or area should deserve that many catastrophes in a row. In the war of revolution the Brits pelted it into rubble and the colonials burned the rest. Everyone left in droves. At the first sign of even a slight recovery it largely fell to a fire. The 1820s showed long term recession in the agrarian South and had people leaving in droves again and then the whole area was hit by Yellow Fever, dragged in from the Indies on the 1850s. After that it barely survived the first year of the civil war before being taken by the Union.

Above all let's not forget (follow the money) that the Southern economy was always precarious at best. Any economy primarily based on foreign money and goods, rather than covering the bulk of its industrial need from within always is. More so if its revenues come from a mono-culture as happened when cotton outran the other two (sugar cane and tobacco). Add to that the already vulnerable economy being based on slavery and you have a large portion of the populace not participating in money circulation (consuming). The South always was cash-strapped anyway, most of its exports finding swap deals for what it needed to import. Hardly a pound or franc, let alone a dollar entered it even before the restrictions imposed by the North. It bought its slaves on credit (pre 1807) against cotton to be delivered.

James de Wolfe and his comrades must have loved it. Cotton to Liverpool=profit. All sorts of trinkets but also guns, pots and pans Liverpool-Ghana, Ivory Coast etc.=profit and then slaves East Africa-America=profit. The famous Atlantic triangle, clockwise-determined by the trade winds. No fuel costs.

Best reason to build a ship all on your own.
 
Chagos said:
Well, read #2582 and you might become a wealthy slaver.;)
Click to expand...

Funny, because my ancestors really were wealthy slavers and apparently owned about eight or nine plantations. But that was way before my time and I never saw a dime of it, I swear. lol
 
Moot said:
That was pretty good, Chagos. But there is still more to be said. For instance, informants were paid with the fines that ship owners, captains and sailors had to pay when they got caught. The punishment for piracy, rigging ships for slave import, illegal slaves, etc....was severe and could ruin a persons life investment if their boat was confiscated and fined thousands of dollars and possible jail sentence. Ten to twenty thousand dollar fines sure sound like a good incentive to be an informant and rat out slave ships, imo.

And too, the North's economy didn't depend on slaves, and most of their state laws had already banned foreign slave trade before 1807 and they had a strong abolitionist movement that by 1861 there were only about seven slaves left in the north. So it couldn't have been very lucrative for slave ships to port in the north where there wasn't a big demand for slaves...let alone risk unloading illegal cargo in a busy port from an obviously rigged slave ship. The only real safe and lucrative place for slave ships to smuggle in slaves was in the south.

So it would be interesting to know just how many slave ships actually were harbored in the north compared to the south after 1810...but no one here seems to really know.
Click to expand...
I think it was yourself (can't remember clearly) who pointed out that slaves were bred like cattle in the South. With the Southern economy having little hope of considerable expansion (see #2589), it was covered this way. Illegal slave runs after say 1820 were getting fewer and fewer and those few of course called in at Southern ports. Which the South did have, sans shipyards.

I'm glad Risky brought up James deWolfe, I'd forgotten about him. Have a look at the dirty scoundrel :mrgreen:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_DeWolf

Anti slavery laws had about as much impact on him as anti trust laws have on ExMob.

As to the exact number of ships, I'll also await Risky's figures. But I'd wager none or darn near none in the South. The South was involved in the transatlantic slave trade only indirectly. In providing the market. I know of no case where it actually equipped a slave ship.

People like deWolfe and his henchmen had them built in the North and they could be refitted as blackbirders anywhere. Once they were it would have been darn stupid to call at a Northern port, especially since the trade triangle I mention had nothing to do with North.

And in the South you didn't rat, not if even for thousands of bucks. You can't spend any of it once you're in the earth.
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
Funny, because my ancestors really were wealthy slavers and apparently owned about eight or nine plantations. But that was way before my time and I never saw a dime of it, I swear. lol
Click to expand...
Well, they'd have been broke long ago now anyway. Even without the war.

That system simply could not survive. Leaving aside the moral issues totally, economic strictures would have caused it to collapse.
 
Risky Thicket said:
I know, I know. I'm not being obstinate with you. Truthfully, I first read it in a book. Since then I've read it in a few places on the Internet. I will post them tomorrow, promise. I just haven't wanted to go back through bookmarks and find them, but tomorrow I will.

In addition I came about it deductively. James deWolf of Rhode Island was the largest slave trader in the U.S. There were a number of other huge slave traders in New England. New England dominated American shipping: Massachusetts and Connecticut and then there was New York City. Most of the slaves came to America by foreign owned vessels. But Rhode Island was responsible for half of American slave ships. Add slave ships from other states in New England and New York.

In addition the South didn't have many deep ports at the time compared to the north: Charleston, Savannah and New Orleans primarily. I don't know about why Norfolk, Va doesn't seem to be prominent. I'll have to look that up. North Carolina didn't have any ports to speak of.

For these and other reasons the shipping industry became established in New England. New England wanted the American slave trade and they already dominated American shipping.
Click to expand...

OK, from Brown University within an enlightening and depressing lengthy article:

The rhode island slave trade

Rhode Island’s distinction lay not in slavery but in the leading role that the colony and state played in the transatlantic slave trade. Though Rhode Islanders lagged behind their Massachusetts neighbors in entering the trade, they soon made up for their slow start. The first recorded transatlantic slaving voyages from the colony embarked in the early years of the eighteenth century. By the close of the trade, more than a century later, Rhode Islanders had mounted at least a thousand voyages, carrying over one-hundred thousand Africans into New World slavery. While such totals are far smaller than those amassed by the Por- tuguese, British, Span- ish, and French, they are extraordinarily high in the American context. In all, about sixty percent of slave trading voyages launched from North America – in some years more than ninety percent – issued from tiny Rhode Island. As we shall see, nearly half of the Africans transported by Rhode Islanders were trafficked illegally, by ships operating in defiance of a 1787 state law prohibiting residents of the state from trading in slaves, federal statutes of 1794 and 1800 barring Americans from carrying slaves to ports outside the United States, and the 1807 Congressional act abolishing the transatlantic slave trade.
Click to expand...

Sources for the above:

The classic work on the Rhode Island slave trade is Jay Coughtry, The Notorious Triangle: Rhode Island and the African Slave Trade 1700-1807 (Philadelphia: Temple Uni- versity Press, 1981); see especially the appendix, pp. 239- 285, which lists 954 known Rhode Island slaving voyages between 1709 and 1807. See also Sarah Deutsch, “Those Elusive Guineamen: Newport Slavers, 1735-1774,” New England Quarterly 55, 2 (1982), pp. 229-253; Alexander Boyd Hawes, Off Soundings: Aspects of the Maritime History of Rhode Island (Chevy Chase: Posterity Press, 1999), pp. 103-207; and J. Stanley Lemons, “Rhode Island and the Slave Trade,” Rhode Island History 60, 4 (2002), pp. 95-104. Donnan, Documents Illustrative of the History of the Slave Trade to America, Volume III: New England and the Middle
Colonies (Washington: Carnegie Institution, 1932), contains a wealth of primary source material about the Rhode Island trade, including records from dozens of specific voyages.
Click to expand...

----

Of interest:

But the real story of the Rhode Island slave trade is not of a few great fortunes but of extremely broad patterns of participation and profit. Even with the inevitable gaps in the docu- mentary record it is possible to identify by name some seven hundred Rhode Islanders who owned or captained slave ships. The roster includes virtu- ally every substantial merchant, as well as many ordinary shopkeepers and tradesmen, many of whom purchased shares in slaving voyages, much as Americans today buy shares in corporations.
Click to expand...
 
Ahhhh, the book. The Atlantic Slave Trade. Tonight I'll pour through it and try to find the specific data. I don't believe I bookmarked or underlined the information but, I'll locate it and pass it along.
 
Chagos said:
Well, they'd have been broke long ago now anyway. Even without the war.

That system simply could not survive. Leaving aside the moral issues totally, economic strictures would have caused it to collapse.
Click to expand...
I agree a system like this wouldn't last leaving the moral ethics behind when some lets us gradually move away from a system that would've been a lot better for us economically but the north wanted us too do so faster rather than later. I believe Risket said so awesomely ie idiotic northerners telling us what to do and change how we are and we did not like that.
 
Ryriena said:
I agree a system like this wouldn't last leaving the moral ethics behind when some lets us gradually move away from a system that would've been a lot better for us economically but the north wanted us too do so faster rather than later. I believe Risket said so awesomely ie idiotic northerners telling us what to do and change how we are and we did not like that.
Click to expand...

Hi Ryriena. In addition in practice the North ended slavery rather gradually in comparison to what the North demanded of the South. In essence, without making judgements, the North ended slavery on its own terms and in its own time. The South was to come to the same conclusion and slavery would have ended in the South. It was inevitable. As I have said before the agrarian economy of the South and the industrial economy of the North were on different schedules. A Southern conclusion to end slavery in the Southern agrarian economy was never to be.
 
Risky Thicket said:
The South was to come to the same conclusion and slavery would have ended in the South.

A Southern conclusion to end slavery in the Southern agrarian economy was never to be.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, this is contradictory.
 
Chagos said:
Always follow the money. And I mean always.
Click to expand...

While I agree that is generally a great rule it is obviously not "always".
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I'm sorry, this is contradictory.
Click to expand...
Unless he meant "...if the South was to come to the same conclusion..."

And then saying they wouldn't have.

That would make sense?
 
The Mark said:
Unless he meant "...if the South was to come to the same conclusion..."

And then saying they wouldn't have.

That would make sense?
Click to expand...
I'd rather have him speak for himself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom