Slavery in the British Empire

[intel]

Thanks for the input, this thread was very informative- it really gave me a better insight to the British policies regarding slavery

+1 Conon, Ludicus

[Hanny]

Thanks, as an aside the state penitentiary of Louisiana is nicknamed 'Angola'. I guess most of the slave population there was imported during the French and Spanish eras, with others brought by Anglo settlers later. The more French and Spanish parts of the state also had a demographic composition more similar to Latin America than the rest of the US, with lots of mulattoes between the creole elite and the slaves.

La State Pen was built on a slave planatation that housed slaves from Angola, hence its nickname.

No Creoles were from a different region of Africa, http://africanhistory.about.com/libr...ery-stats4.htm

[Duptar]

http://books.google.co.uk/books/abou...d=QUV98bwrqscC

costs of purchasing slaves

Page 251: "Slave prices varied with the place of origin, physical condition, sex, age, state of the market, credit terms, and bargaining power of the parties to the transaction. Besides the price range at a given time and place, the general level of prices fluctuated widely over time. Buying prices in West Africa were bid up when buyers far outnumbered sellers, or when the bargaining power of buyers was weakened by such exigencies as mortality among seamen and slaves already loaded, lack of water and provisions, and the need to complete a cargo quickly so as to avoid the hurricane season. Conversely, slavers had the bargaining edge when supplies were augmented by means of inter-tribal war or famine. Of the many factors which made for fluctuating slave prices in the West Indies, none exerted a more pervasive influence than the wholesale price of sugar. Except in wartime, sugar and slave prices tended to rise and fall together."

Then Table 11.4 has further detail. I do believe that slave prices in the South (over the long term) displayed the same characteristics, as for example there was an average rise in prices after the Revolution and then a relative decline up until 1850. Fogel and Engerman (pages 95 and 96) predict that, without the Civil War, slave prices rise 1.4% per annum up to 1890, the demand for cotton being the primary reason.

[TWWolfe]

La State Pen was built on a slave planatation that housed slaves from Angola, hence its nickname.

No Creoles were from a different region of Africa, http://africanhistory.about.com/libr...ery-stats4.htm

you mean parents and grantparents with creoles, right? since creoles themselves were born in the americas.

[Hanny]

Double post.

[Hanny]

you mean parents and grantparents with creoles, right? since creoles themselves were born in the americas.

http://www.everyculture.com/multi/Bu-Dr/Creoles.html#b and http://www.frenchcreoles.com/CreoleC...20Creoles.html

Creoles in the new State after the La Purchase were just the latest generation of creoles, together with Haiatian creoles, with less internal reproduction cycles, the point was that Creoles did not come from Angola in Africa. Creoles are not only found in the US but cover a wide range:http://www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/staff/ma...rce/creole.htm

[Kitsunegari]

La State Pen was built on a slave planatation that housed slaves from Angola, hence its nickname.

No Creoles were from a different region of Africa, http://africanhistory.about.com/libr...ery-stats4.htm

Oh no, I'm not saying the creoles were from Angola, trust me I am from La. and took the boring state history classes lol. My point is that La. had more a more stratified social structure than the formerly British colonies. Roughly Europeans born in the Old World were at the top of the pyramid followed by creoles, mestizos, mulattoes, etc. It was similar to Latin America in this way. British colonies were more sharply divided between the races since the colonists brought their own families on a larger scale.

[Hanny]

Not for your benifit, as it turns out!, but i was making the point that La does not fit generalizations about slavery and demographic origins in the US, being already settled before statehood.

Scale is actually intresting, a English French Plantataion would contain 180 slaves ( mostly males) on average for sugar production, while at the same point in time a US plantatation had 16, ( more balanced pop mix) economies of scale were more important in sugar production as the process was more complex.

[Kitsunegari]

Yeah the slaves in the cotton plantations of the black belt were, on average, much better off than their counterparts in sugar and rice growing areas of south La. Today only the embargo on Cuba and protectionist policies keep the sugar industry somewhat relevant. Imagine if the US (or CSA) had annexed Cuba, it would have almost cornered the world market and made slavery too profitable to abolish.

[Duptar]

So supposedly slavery needed westward land in the US because cotton depleted the soil of nutrients such as nitrogen and potassium (does anyone know at what rate?) (Time on the Cross page 169), plus there was no method of crop rotation so the problem could not be remedied. Whether this would actually be beneficial is debatable because the increase in supply resulting from more acreage for farming would lower the price of cotton, and in turn lower profits. As long as slavery could adjust to market conditions, the peculiar institution would be fine.

Now I do believe slaves in the Caribbean did not need any additional land since sugar did not have the same effects on the soil as cotton did. However, did sugar have a price elasticity similar to that of cotton? Additionally, why did the Confederacy ban the slave trade in its constitution?

Here's some excerpts from this article: http://univhistory.tripod.com/apush/...__Ramsdell.htm

The most powerful factor in the westward movement of slavery was cotton, for the land available for other staples - sugar, hemp, tobacco - was limited, while slave labor was not usually profitable in growing grain.

But by 1849-50, when the contest over the principle of the Wilmot Proviso was at its height, the western limits of the cotton-growing region were already approximated; and by the time the new Republican party was formed to check the further expansion of slavery, the westward march of the cotton plantation was evidently slowing down. The northern frontier of cotton production west of the Mississippi had already been established at about the northern line of Arkansas. Only a negligible amount of the staple was being grown in Missouri. West of Arkansas a little cotton was cultivated by the slave holding, civilized Indians; but until the Indian territory should be opened generally to white settlement - a development of which there was no immediate prospect - it could not become a slaveholding region of any importance. The only possibility of a further extension of the cotton belt was in Texas. In that state alone was the frontier line of cotton and slavery still advancing.

[Hanny]

So supposedly slavery needed westward land in the US because cotton depleted the soil of nutrients such as nitrogen and potassium (does anyone know at what rate?), plus there was no method of crop rotation so the problem could not be remedied.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2139666?seq=3 Cotton corn fallow cotton corn fallow was the usual cycle of rotation. You got a good cotton crop every 4 years in this inferior crop cycle

Slavery had to expand to maintain Senate representation, not to increase cotton production, acres under cotton increased in old states while expansion west to fresh lands took place, of course new States had fresh land that return top dollar cotton returns so was easier to make money in the short term.

Whether this would actually be beneficial is debatable because the increase in supply resulting from more acreage for farming would lower the price of cotton, and in turn lower profits. As long as slavery could adjust to market conditions, the peculiar institution would be fine.

It was a world drop in US cotton 1870-1890 that crippled income for US cotton producers post war, while acerage increased, see Senate report on Agriculture and forsetry 1895 who looked at that very problem. Otoh ToC shows that slave value in 1890 would be 52% higher than in 1860 due to acerage avaialble expanding at 3% per annum while population increase was far lower resulting in land available for cotton double between 60-90 and doubled again 1890 1925 while the avaiable manpower did not match that.

Natural limits to slavery and cotton, ie it had to expand or perish, is a myth. Even the Estern seaboard depleted cotton still produced a profit, just not as much a profit as fresh soil in newly opened states that gave you free land to work for profit.

Now I do believe slaves in the Caribbean did not need any additional land since sugar did not have the same effects on the soil as cotton did. However, did sugar have a price elasticity similar to that of cotton? Additionally, why did the Confederacy ban the slave trade in its constitution?

Sugar was a luxury item, you can take coffee without it, ( 12-24 month to end product and 14% death rate per decade) while cotton was a neccisity ( crop each year with pop expansion in the US) for textile production of basic clothing, Sugar depleted the soil even more than did cotton, hence more larger islands were turned to for cultivation and spread out all over S America, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History..._the_New_World

Why would slaves be unpritible in growing grain?, who was it that grew the southern grain crop to sustain men and animals?. Every Southern farm was more efficent than free farms, by 35% if slave or 7% if free. seeToC

Ramsdal error ( see ToC pages 95 onwards on the naturalits thesis and why it was flawed for full details) was an asumption that slavery was doomed if it could expand was predicted on land to labour ratio in cotton would grow and not decline, history showed he was wrong, and so was his entire argument.

[Duptar]

acres under cotton increased in old states while expansion west to fresh lands took place, of course new States had fresh land that return top dollar cotton returns so was easier to make money in the short term.

OK but is Ramsdell right when he argues that slavery had reached its limit geographically, since there was no chance of developing it in the arid lands of the west and lack of transport and the presence of immigrants in Texas?

larger islands were turned to for cultivation and spread out all over S America, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History..._the_New_World

Speaking of, was there any attempts by the British or Americans to start a slave colony in Cuba (or Brazil)?

Why would slaves be unpritible in growing grain?, who was it that grew the southern grain crop to sustain men and animals?. Every Southern farm was more efficent than free farms, by 35% if slave or 7% if free. seeToC

He does say it is less labor intensive, grain growing has a seasonal character, and country settlers already grew the grain needed. I don't know if this is true, which is why I am asking. But he also claims that the supply of other staples was limited.

[Kitsunegari]

One example of cotton expansion: when the Mississippi delta (between Memphis and Vicksburg) was cleared of forestry it provided huge tracts of alluvial 'black' soil that was superior to the encroaching iron rich red soil stretching from eastern mississippi to Georgia. Also the cotton in the delta was more resistant to the boll weevil. The problem was that the Delta only began to be settled a couple of decades before the war. Interestingly, after the war the landowners tried to get Italians and then Chinese to take the negroes' place (of course they would be wage earners), but they were largely unsuccessful.

[Menelik_I]

http://www.everyculture.com/multi/Bu-Dr/Creoles.html#b and http://www.frenchcreoles.com/CreoleC...20Creoles.html

Creoles in the new State after the La Purchase were just the latest generation of creoles, together with Haiatian creoles, with less internal reproduction cycles, the point was that Creoles did not come from Angola in Africa. Creoles are not only found in the US but cover a wide range:http://www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/staff/ma...rce/creole.htm

La State Pen was built on a slave planatation that housed slaves from Angola, hence its nickname.

No Creoles were from a different region of Africa, http://africanhistory.about.com/libr...ery-stats4.htm

IIRC Creoles is not an ethnicity or tribe, it is just a linguistic phenomenon of mixture of African and European languages, besides the English ones a significant Creole currently is that of Portuguese in Cabo Verde and Sao Tome of West Africa. So these "creoles" might have come from all different sides in Africa, their unity is just the language they developed in isolation from Africa and of course after some time they won't remember from where they came from.

As for Angolan Slaves in the US I am not familiar with this place in particular, but there was a revolt led by Angola Bakongo Slaves in South Carolina in 1739, see Thornton "Warfare in Pacific Africa." I would copy the text but the DRM on my Kindle Reader is downright retarted.

[Hanny]

OK but is Ramsdell right when he argues that slavery had reached its limit geographically, since there was no chance of developing it in the arid lands of the west and lack of transport and the presence of immigrants in Texas?

He was wrong, slavery for cotton production is but one use of slavery, the Wilmot Provisio was to preserve free whites from competing against the slave gang system that ment they could never beat it, teh geographical limits to slavery did not exist, the Constitution protected it over the entire Union, what States did was to politicaly limit slavery. A slave run lugging industry in Alaska would exploit slaves and make the owners rich, a free man staffed logging company would still exploit the workers but at a far lesser rate, its the unfair competition of slave labour thats the probem poloicaly.

Speaking of, was there any attempts by the British or Americans to start a slave colony in Cuba (or Brazil)?

US wanted to purchase Cuba or the philibusters would take control by armed force was about it.

Uk expansion to include cotton sugar usage by importing it a staple crop here:http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3...page&q&f=false

[Duptar]

slavery for cotton production is but one use of slavery

Ok now I see where you're going, Tredgar Iron Works is an excellent example of how slaves could work in industry, and Fogel and Engerman show how it can be employed in cities. But was this kind of industrial work readily available at the time out west?

that slave value

And this was determined how? Before the transatlantic slave trade, the common method of sale was via auction, in which case market mechanisms would play no role. Was slave pricing similar to this kind of bidding operation afterwards, or was it actually supply and demand?

Here's a more relevant critique of slavery, the economic portions are from pages 33-36: http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae7_2_2.pdf

[Hanny]

Ok now I see where you're going, Tredgar Iron Works is an excellent example of how slaves could work in industry, and Fogel and Engerman show how it can be employed in cities. But was this kind of industrial work readily available at the time out west?

Depends what you mean by industry, but the point is the owner of a workforce simply moves it to where the demand for labour exists, slave labour works in almost all forms of work then required, skilled or unskilled, this advantage a slave owner had over employers who had to use incentives to attract a workforce.

And this was determined how? Before the transatlantic slave trade, the common method of sale was via auction, in which case market mechanisms would play no role. Was slave pricing similar to this kind of bidding operation afterwards, or was it actually supply and demand?

Supply and demand played a role, ie cotton grower in newly opened lands would be a premium, as did the expected lifetime profitability of the slave, ie a trained cotton grower of early 20s, the current returns from market value of the expected use of the slave, ie same grower is valued less in regions where cotton production is lower than in regions that produce more cotton. ToC shows the corelation between slave purchase price, regionaly, and market profitability, and compares slave owning to be as profitable as owning a bank, ie the most profitable enterprise of the time.

Here's a more relevant critique of slavery, the economic portions are from pages 33-36: http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae7_2_2.pdf[/QUOTE]

[Duptar]

Depends what you mean by industry

I was thinking of metalworking like they had in the Tredgar.

ToC shows the corelation between slave purchase price, regionaly, and market profitability, and compares slave owning to be as profitable as owning a bank, ie the most profitable enterprise of the time.

Page 73 he looks at the price of a slave, male and female, relative to its age. Is that what you are referring to, or is it in the previous pages?

[Hanny]

I was thinking of metalworking like they had in the Tredgar.

Why would the Uk require that?, it had that back home to sell to markets it controlled, anyways, the UK Sugar industry was done on an industrial scale, the worlds sweet tooth was fed from quite a small geographical region untill exported to a far wider growing catcment area. The actual process of turning cane into end product was quite industrial in nature and mechanized, as was the rum produced and then exported, again arguably a industrial scale enterprise, you could argue its not what i mean by industry, and thats what i refered too.

http://wwwchem.uwimona.edu.jm/lectures/sugar.html and http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/i...ribbean33.aspx

Page 73 he looks at the price of a slave, male and female, relative to its age. Is that what you are referring to, or is it in the previous pages?

Chapter starting page 67. See also http://books.google.co.uk/books/abou...UC&redir_esc=y

[Ludicus]

Isee Thornton "Warfare in Pacific Africa." I would copy the text but the DRM on my Kindle Reader is downright retarted.

See Thorton in "Warfare in Atlantic Africa"

there was a revolt led by Angola Bakongo Slaves in South Carolina in 1739

There were many slave revolts in Americas. (North ,South and Central America) . A pretty good memory, Menelik, congratulations,

brief quote, "...Kongo- led revolt at Stone in South Carolina in 1739"

---
Warfare in Atlantic Africa 1500-1800, Chapter "African Soldiers in America"
Conclusion, Page 147,

"African warfare had an important Atlantic dimension in that wars and slave trade were inseparable. The dimension not only includes the problematic relationship between war and the slave trade, but the fact that so many africans who served in these wars took this experience with them to the Americas.

Africa was far too independent and complex to be simply a source of slaves that Europe could draw on at will. Wars and related struggles produced the slaves, though not without changes in organization and tactics that the possibilities of slave trade opened up.

The fact that wars produced slaves had as an unintended consequence that these slaves might also make good rebels if conditions permitted. While the situation in America did not allow African armies to re-form, and local conditions changed the military possibilities considerable; Africans often found revolt a possibility and some times drew on African roots to drive them"