Slavery at the time had a lot of legal ins and outs. Often they were buying "debt", thus a slave could technically buy their freedom. The English would go to the Irish and say you owe this much to the Crown for war / taxes / this crime / ect, then when they couldn't pay take them into debtors prison and sell them and their families to slavery. If Africa, the Spanish and Portuguese would buy the "debt" of "war prisoners" from one faction or another. The sale of the slave was a transfer of debt, and the rules for black or white slaves only differed really in that the Christians were allowed to go to receive communion and some areas or towns banned black slaves from entering.
Americans were mostly peasant farmers fleeing England and Germany, they couldn't afford slaves, first the European nobility then the companies were the ones that owned slaves. From the arrival of the first slaves Americans tried to ban them, not out of altruism but rather they didn't want blacks or Irish (Catholics) and slaves decreased the value of labor. This took the form of 200% taxes on slaves, massive tariffs, outright bans, laws stating all Christian workers must be paid, limits on slave terms and the passing of debt to children, ect. These laws were stopped repeatedly by those in charge. There was a lot of success in getting laws regarding service in times of war. Prior to, and including the civil war, if a slave could sign up for the military (run away and do it, or sneak into town) that would take priority and the slave master's claim would come in second, thus if they managed to serve a military term they could earn their "debt" cleared and their freedom.
Lastly, this whole "we must remove a statue of this man because he had slaves" thing pisses me off to no end. Find me any man of enough prominence from any country in the world during that time that has a statue that did not own slaves or was an "insert race here" supremacists. People someone don't think or realize that people like Emperor Daoguang of China or his lords and generals had slaves in the 1800s, or that Little Crow took slaves during the Dakota wars?
I heard about that book, then forgot about it, probably something I would like.
It's insane how little people know about the Indians, often people speak about them as a single group. Which makes about as much sense as talking about WW2 by grouping the entirety of Europe as a single entity. There is a reason that everyone is the SE is 1/16 Cherokee, many tribes just simply assimilated and became Christian. Which is always followed by the "but boarding schools" answer, failing to realize that these boarding schools were everywhere for every race and serve mainly to round up and try to tame the swaths of homeless or abandoned kids. "Public" as in Public House used to mean for the poor.
Slavery at the time had a lot of legal ins and outs. Often they were buying "debt", thus a slave could technically buy their freedom. The English would go to the Irish and say you owe this much to the Crown for war / taxes / this crime / ect, then when they couldn't pay take them into debtors prison and sell them and their families to slavery. If Africa, the Spanish and Portuguese would buy the "debt" of "war prisoners" from one faction or another. The sale of the slave was a transfer of debt, and the rules for black or white slaves only differed really in that the Christians were allowed to go to receive communion and some areas or towns banned black slaves from entering.
Americans were mostly peasant farmers fleeing England and Germany, they couldn't afford slaves, first the European nobility then the companies were the ones that owned slaves. From the arrival of the first slaves Americans tried to ban them, not out of altruism but rather they didn't want blacks or Irish (Catholics) and slaves decreased the value of labor. This took the form of 200% taxes on slaves, massive tariffs, outright bans, laws stating all Christian workers must be paid, limits on slave terms and the passing of debt to children, ect. These laws were stopped repeatedly by those in charge. There was a lot of success in getting laws regarding service in times of war. Prior to, and including the civil war, if a slave could sign up for the military (run away and do it, or sneak into town) that would take priority and the slave master's claim would come in second, thus if they managed to serve a military term they could earn their "debt" cleared and their freedom.
Lastly, this whole "we must remove a statue of this man because he had slaves" thing pisses me off to no end. Find me any man of enough prominence from any country in the world during that time that has a statue that did not own slaves or was an "insert race here" supremacists. People someone don't think or realize that people like Emperor Daoguang of China or his lords and generals had slaves in the 1800s, or that Little Crow took slaves during the Dakota wars?
Read this: Empire of the Summer Moon
Poor Innocent Powerless "Injuns" my ass.
I heard about that book, then forgot about it, probably something I would like.
It's insane how little people know about the Indians, often people speak about them as a single group. Which makes about as much sense as talking about WW2 by grouping the entirety of Europe as a single entity. There is a reason that everyone is the SE is 1/16 Cherokee, many tribes just simply assimilated and became Christian. Which is always followed by the "but boarding schools" answer, failing to realize that these boarding schools were everywhere for every race and serve mainly to round up and try to tame the swaths of homeless or abandoned kids. "Public" as in Public House used to mean for the poor.
It's a good read. Highly recommended.