Your Answer:
1) should be your explained opinion, supported by at least one cited specific historical fact (specific means specific names, dates, events, etc.!)
2) should address the points of the previous comment to yours (support their ideas and why, or refute their ideas and why) . . . please keep it civil . . . you don't want your response to be "lost" by the moderator (Mr. H.) . . . !
3) should be completed by 9/21/11 at 11:59 pm for 10 points
Comment to this post with your first name, last initial, and class period!
Good Luck!
37 comments:
I believe that the enslavement of Africans and their descendents was inevitable. When they had first arrived they were treated the same way as indentured. Some of them even owned land and had their own servants such as Antony Johnson who had 250 acres. However, after he died in 1670, the court said that he was "a negro and by consequence, an alien" and so took back his land (“Anthony Johnson (colonist),” par 1). The English had already made Native Americans slaves because they were different and they didn’t share the same culture. Even though Africans started as indentured servants they gradually lost their rights just like the English servants were cheated. Since the English couldn’t even treat their own countrymen right then there was no way they’d treat other races better.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist) paragraph 1.
Slavery in British colonial North America was inevitable for several reasons. As Lindsay said above, the English enslaved the Indians because they were different. I agree with this but would also like to add that the English did not want to do their own labor, and slavery was less expensive in the long run than indentured servitude. As with the Native Americans, it did not matter if the Africans were converted to Christianity, like the encomienda system utilized by the Spanish (Blacks as Slaves... par. 2). Even when the first generation of blacks and whites worked together, slavery was inevitable. The first generation of Africans was still forced from their home country, and the English would eventually see them as inferior, no matter what they would have done. The colonists wanted to maintain control and increase productivity for England as well as themselves, and the cheapest, most effective way for them to do that was via slavery.
Source: http://www.angelfire.com/mo/keefeblackhistory/slave.html (par. 2)
I agree with Curtis. Productivitey was on of the main motivations to increase slavery. Cheap labor was needed and the indentured servent movement had come to a slow crawl due to the negative responses of American conditions. That led to slavery and prejudice based on class and money. The landowners and the wealthy were considered the most important, while the lowly and poor were considered not as. As black slaves came to work the lands of the new world, they were generally poor, unhealthy, and unchristian – all factors of low social status. And since African slaves were of a different race and color, low social status and inferiority became significantly attached to black culture. And as inferior people, they were only good for one thing – slave labor. By the nineteenth century a spike in slave trade will send an estimated 12 million Africans to work tobacco and sugar plantations, permanently cementing the idea of the “inferrior black.” (Segal)
Source: Ronald Segal (1995). The Black Diaspora: Five Centuries of the Black Experience Outside Africa.
I disagree with Taylor, as African Slave labor was not cheaper than indentured servitude, rather much more expensive. One indentured servant cost about $2000 in current US dollars, while according to the "Tom Converter" Mr. Hoffman showed us in class today, one slave cost about $30000. This means that in order for one purchased slave to yield the same amount of labor as a servant, their family would have to be enslaved for 15 generations. This disparity in cost should have deterred any logical landowner from purchasing African Slaves, thus meaning that it was a tragedy that could have been avoided by simple economic evaluation.
My bad...
http://www.stmaryscity.org/history/Servants%20&%20Slaves.html
I believe that African slavery in the British colonies of North America was inevitable for several reasons. First, by the time Jamestown was founded in 1607, African slavery was already prevalent throughout Europe and European colonies in the New World. Europeans had been trading in slaves since the mid-15th century (Africa and the Transatlantic Slave Trade). The legal and moral precedents were already in place by the time the English colonists arrived in North America, so all they needed was financial motivation. This leads to my second point. If a colonist could afford the initial price of a few slaves, then they became cheaper than indentured servants in the long run. In this I disagree with Mike, because slaves would often produce more than one child each generation. Also, they could work for much longer than an indentured servant, who only had to work for around 5-7 years. That means that it would take several indentured servants to equal the length of service given by an African slave.
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/abolition/africa_article_01.shtml
The eventual enslavement of the African people in the colonies was inevitable. By this time, slavery had become a well known tradition. Unfortunately (but fortunately for human advancement) many civilizations had been built by slaves. Egypt, for example, was thought to have been built mainly by Hebrew slaves. I agree with Greg that slaves were an investment that would produce more income than indentured servants. Although the slaves were a lot of money then, each slave entitled the owner to that slave’s children, children’s children, and so on. African enslavement was inevitable because the financial opportunities that they portrayed were too good for the colonists to pass up. It wasn’t difficult for plantation owners to obtain the slaves, despite their price. George Washington had as many as 216 by 1786. Overall, the economic advantages of slaves overpowered the moral deficiency that they stood for.
http://home.nas.com/lopresti/ps.htm
Unfortunately, it was inevitable that our African neighbors came to be the slaves of the colonists in the 1700's. While it was true that colonists had other means of finding workers, such as indentured servants, African's held more of a promising economical benefit than the white, paid settlers flowing in from England. It can easily be compared to that of car shopping. While leasing a car might be nice for a while, it can eventually get expensive to renew contracts every few years. Buying a car, on the other hand, may be expensive at first, but in the long run will cost less and offer you more years of service. In response to Katelin, I couldn't agree more. Most of our basic civilizations were based on the knowledge and use of slaves. Even the Romans and Greeks, who flourished for years, had slaves that worked for them. At the time, I wouldn't be surprised if the idea of not owning slaves was almost more morally strange than owning another person. In addition, the rise of African slavery, as opposed to the European "slavery" that was already going on, was even more inevitable in the sense that upon arrival African's held more in their knowledge of agriculture than the sheep farmers of England. Not only were they sought after because of their eventual paid off prices, but also because of their skill and adaptability. Slavery was completely inevitable, the fact that it was Africans that got sucked into it was merely unfortunate.
http://www.slaveryinamerica.org/history/hs_es_overview.htm
It was inevitable that Africans would become permanently enslaved due to the situation the colonies were in. In the very long run, black slaves were cheaper and labor was in need when one of the main crops was tobacco, which required large amounts of labor. Permanent sounds much more like security than only five to seven years then they are released. There are a number of court cases concerning slave women who either killed their masters who forced them to have sexual relations or killed the children rather than have the children enslaved (Slavery and Indentured Servants, par. 5). This shows how valuable slave women became because they had children which made having children much more valuable than one indentured servant. I agree with Tina completely, especially with her analogy comparing buying a slave with car buying. Although the initial cost may be pricy, in the end it becomes beneficial to save money in the future. The Africans did hold much more of a use than the Europeans who came over to work for less than a decade. They were more reliable and last much longer and increased in supply. Although it is unfortunate that the Africans became enslaved, it was inevitable that it came to be.
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/awhhtml/awlaw3/slavery.html
I believe that the enslavement of African Americans was inevitable. Considering there was an extremely high demand for workers to work in the tobacco fields. Also not only was there a high demand for slaves but there was also a large supply especially from the Caribbean Most of the slaves, “if they survived the brutal passages from Africa, ended up in the Caribbean (West Indies) or in South and Central America”. The over population of Africans in the Caribbean allowed the African Americans to be sold cheaply. I agree with Daniel V. That slavery was inevitable, and I agree that slaves were cheaper in the long run compared to indentured servants, although I believe that the court cases regarding slave women have little relevance to the topic. http://www.slaveryinamerica.org/history/hs_es_overview.htm
1. I believe that the enslavement of a non-rebelious people had to happen to make the world what it is today, but it was by bad luck that the Africans were chosen as the ideal slaves. It could not be avoided for them because of their strategic location, making it cost efficient to sell rum to the war chiefs for slaves, then slaves for malasys in the West Indies, and then more rum later to make a successful profit. In West Africa, where most of the slaves were taken from, approximately 2.5 million were caught and enslaved, showing how badly a labor force was needed in the North American Colonies(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_slave_trade#Slavery_in_West_Africa).
2. Patrick O. is completely accurate with his ideas. Because of the need of intense laborers that wouldn't revolt, and could resist disease in the climate of the colonies, slavery was a very popular choice for rich plantation owners (though at first they costed them a fortune to get).
1. I believe that the enslavement of the African race and tragedy that followed was a catastrophie that could have been avoided. Going back to the 1600's, there were Africans coming to America as indentured servants, just as many Europeans had had immigrated over. The slaves that existed in the West Indies could have been set free and indentured servants take their place. One of the main causes of this tragedy was the debacle over money, slaves were cheaper and overall a better economic choice for America. That being said, plantation owners could have easily bought indentures servants instead of slaves, but were selfish and greedy, not wanting to spend money, while simultaneously creating one of the largest genocides in history. An indentured servant would cost around 10 pounds to purchase, a fair amount yet more expenisve than the slaves. If Americans would have seen the complete wrong in slavery, and instead stuck the their ways of indentured servitude, slavery could have been avoided. They had given the Africans basic human rights only to take them away.
2. I disagree with Joe, slavery could have been avoided had the right people taken the right steps toward action. A needed labor force could have been provided by indentured servants and the triangular trade could have still existed between Africa, the West Indies, and America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant#Costs_and_wages
I believe that African slavery was unfortunate, however it was inevitable for the Americas. Europeans began to explore Africa and settle America soon after, opening two brand new markets full of potential profit. The need to expand America's economy through physical labor exposed the new work market. Indentured servitude was more of a temporary solution, because 1) Economic distress in Europe was temporary, as are all recessions 2) The need to populate America would soon be handled by the citizens 3) IS's became increasingly difficult to train when they went from job to job. For those three reasons, America HAD to turn to African slavery due to nothing but sheer necessity. Also, the potential for profit was very attractive to the early American land-owners. Not only did they purchase a slave, they purchased a future family that could be sold like a commodity. Although I do not agree with Beata's claims that African slavery was avoidable, I must agree that it was a tragedy. However, without African Slavery, America would have struggled after events like Bacon's Rebellion that damaged the reputation of an indentured servant. The fall of IS with nothing to replace it might have destroyed the yet forming nation of America before it was able to bloom into what it is today.
Source:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1narr4.html
The enslavement of the African race was unfortunate, but inevitable. As the Americas began to expand they needed more workers for more labor intensive work, and with the European wages improving, indentured servitude was decreasing. Also, the Americas were beginning to harvest more crops like rice and tobacco- rice was also a crop that Africans had experience harvesting unlike most indentured. The Africans were also more immune to diseases like malaria because their climate conditions were more similar to the Americas than Europe's, making them a better choice for most American land owners. In addition, slavery was a better option for the land owners in America because they ended up making money in the long run, unlike indentured servitude because they only had the indentured servants for 5-7 years and had to pay them freedom dues at the end of their service. I agree with all of Brian's arguments and that slavery was inevitable, because with the decrease in indentured servitude, if it weren't for the slaves America might not have become what it is today without their help.
http://www.history.org/almanack/people/african/aaintro.cfm
The hold slavery took on the British colonies was inevitable, as there was no way that slavery could have bypassed America as it grew into a new nation. The need for labor to support the growing industries of the young colonies, especially in the hard conditions of the agricultural South, meant that slavery was bound to be used. Enslaving Africans was already a deeply established commercial industry around the world, thanks to the Portuguese in the 1400s, so when the Americas were discovered, it was not a radical or surprising change (Slavery and Servitude, par. 12). For these reasons, along with the fact that, after the initial cost, slavery was cheaper than indentured servitude, slavery in the colonies was all but guaranteed. I agree with Katherine that the fall of indentured servitude in comparison with slavery was unavoidable due to the fall in price of slaves, their lifelong sentence of labor, and their potential children meant that this practice really could not have been avoided, since the ultimate motivation for the landowners was making profits.
http://franklaughter.tripod.com/cgi-bin/histprof/misc/slavery1.html
I would agree with Daniel. The need for labor during the pre-revolution era made slavery inevatible. The cost of indentured servants was very high and the servant had a time where he or she would be set free. Slave labor was cheaper and more economicly smart. Due to the knowledge of agriculture and the resistance to the climate. Many natives were gone from the area. The trade with Africa gave oppertunities to purchase slave labor was available. With the tobacco industry as well as many other industries needed labor due to a growing nation and changes in economy. "Tobacco was an eleven-month crop," (History.org). Although seeming irrevelant to the topic, this quote shows the need for slave labor. With crops like this that fueled the colonys' economy, the slave labor was at a high demand year round. "Slavery was the foundation of Virginia's agricultural system and essential to its economic viability" (History.org) The need for slavery is again shown that in order for the economy to grow, there was a need for slave labor. With this growth in economy the colony would in turn prosper. Slave labor was needed due to the lack of labor in the colonies, a new soon to be thriving nation, and to drive the economy upwards in profit.
Merchants and businessmen will always be looking for ways to make the biggest profit. To do this products must be made with as little expense as possible. This is one of the reasons most American products are now made in other countries. Labor is often cheaper outside the US. There are also no American labor laws to protect the foreign workers, no unions to stand up for their rights. American farmers and merchants had the same mentality during the colonial times. Slavery became more popular because it was cheapr (in the long run), and endentured servitude proved to cause problems. Servants were angry when their freedom dues were not paid to them. Bacon's Rebellion is another example of endentured servant rebellion. The merchants looked to their best option: slavery. It was cheaper, slaves belonged to their masters for life,and caused less rebellion. Slavery at that time was inevitable. It was the next step in making the best profit. Therefore I agree with Ben, in order for the economy to prosper slave labor was needed at that time.
(http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/americanprosperity.htm).
I completely agree with Ben from eighth hour in saying that slave labor was inevitable because of economic reasons particularly cost of indentured servants.Personally, I think that it was inevitable permanent enslavement of Africans stemmed from the dying out of indentured servitude in the British colonies. Indentured servitude prospered in the first place because there was a large mass of poor English people who wished to come to the colonies in exchange for 5-7 years of labor. As a matter of fact, about one third of the populace in England was considered to be poor and the number of destitute in the colonies was quite a bit smaller than that. This very thing made indentured servitude seem like a wise choice. However, as time wore on,wages in England rose and more people who years earlier would be in the group of people likely to become indentured servants were deciding to stay in England.Being built on a foundation of indentured servitude, the colonies simply could not prosper economically without cheap labor. Permanent slave labor,although expensive up front, was cheaper in the long run than hiring an indentured servant.With owning a slave,the slave owner would own the person for life instead of the 5-7 year contract an indentured servant had and so only had to train them once. Also,the children and grandchildren of a slave were also considered to be owned by that same slave owner.I would also add that the Africans were much more accustomed to tropical diseases present in the southern colonies such as malaria whereas the English were not.Epidemics in general were a constant struggle for the colonists.Smallpox affected one of five people in the American colonies(The American Pageant,pg.90).
The enslavement of Africans in the British North American colonies, although out of bad luck, was an inevitable occurrence. Prior to its permanent establishment, Bacon's Rebellion of 1676 and the lost monopoly within the Royal Africa Company were both factors that led way to the inevitability of enslavement. While the rebellion both made indentured servitude unpopular and indirectly encouraged slavery as an alternative, the lost monopoly made slaves more affordable. In a matter of time, slavery could not be avoided due to these and further economic factors. As America grew into a more powerful nation, slaves were needed in the work force. Cheap, easily obtainable, and not requiring freedom dues, slaves proved to truly support the nation economically. Not only did British North America colonies thrive through this enslavement, but they also did not have to fear rebellion or guilt. It was because of these reasons that African enslavement could not have been avoided. I agree fully with Kate's points in that it was, in fact, mainly the economic aspects of the situation that led to slavery.
http://www.slaveryinamerica.org/history/hs_es_overview.htm
The eventual "permanent" institution of slavery is certainly inevitable. At this point, it should be pretty obvious the new colonies needed labor. They were growing rapidly and there was a larger demand of tobacco and other crops grown in the colonies. The reason slavery had to happen was because indentured servants and other forms of labor were simply not cutting it. The population could not procreate fast enough and the indentured were being released (as stated in their contracts). In addition, Bacon's Rebellion of 1676 served as a warning of the power of roaming whites without a fulfilled promise of freedom dues like land. Indentured servants may have costed less than slaves, but slaves eventually costed less because their children were owned by the same master. In modern money, a slave in the South would have costed $40,000. But what the land owner was actually buying was perhaps decades of slaves that payed off the money he had spent.
I completely agree with Jehan in saying that Bacon's Rebellion caused people to realize that the slaves were needed and very necessary at the time.
Source: https://www.freetheslaves.net/SSLPage.aspx?pid=301
I Believe that the use of slavery in the Eastern British Colonies was unavoidable. Sadly there was just no way around it when the whole world is raiding Africa's coasts for slaves. The fact that it took so long to reach the Colonies is actually puzzling when you think about how the Spanish 200 years earlier had enslaved the civilizations of South America. It has even been around since the time of the Romans. Also with out slavery our country would have never been as powerful or prosperous as it is today, to as much as i hate to say it, it was a good thing that it did happen. In the end, slavery was a unavoidable thing that was going to come to the colonies, especially when the colonies are that of the largest empire in the world.
I also agree with what Ian about how Slaves cost less in the long run, when you think about it if you pay a large sum up front you will get a big return in the end.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States
Despite the majority opinion of the class being that slavery was inevitable, I feel as though, in dissent, that the future hold of slavery upon the United States could have been avoided. From readings of indentured servitude, specifically Lerone Bennett’s article The First Generation, it was known that blacks did not start as slaves and were a pivotal part of colonial society during the mid 1600’s. Obviously, the opinion of whites originally was that of equality and limited differences as exhibited by permissible African landownership, indentured servant ownership and positions within government. My stance is simple; if they had accepted Africans and welcomed them into society then, they could do the exact same thing in the 1775 world. In addition, the necessity of outside labor was diminished according to the textbook, as “Americans” had begun to produce offspring in record numbers and began to support themselves. Consequently, this inflating population and amount of accessible labor could have lessened the necessity of laboring Africans as they [white colonists] could utilize their own people.
In response to Caleb, I can’t help but to disagree with his points. In his response he said that, “there was just no way around it,” when in fact we had started utilizing African labor without the title and wrongdoings of slavery attached to them. In addition, Caleb said that the entire world was doing this as well and I say to that the colonists were doing a lot of things that weren’t by the book so why would the colonists follow the rest of the world into slave usage.
In regards to the permanent enslavement of Africans in the British American colonies, I believe it was an unavoidable occurrence. This was due in part to several reasons, one being the fact that indentured servants were becoming less and less reliable as workers, and they were also more likely to revolt or become competition to wealthy landowners after they were freed and given their freedom dues. Also, as was mentioned towards the end of the article “A First Generation”, poor Whites became scarcer, and planters began raising the work load of indentured servants. African Americans were unprotected in British North American colonies at the time, so they were easier to manipulate. English Parliament declared in 1698 that any British subject could trade slaves, thus breaking up the Royal African Company monopoly. This lowered the price of slaves, which made them more popular.
I would have to disagree with Hank when he said that if they welcomed Africans in the society when they first arrived, they should have been able to do the same in 1775. Unfortunately, this could not have happened because of the shifting social views. The colonists once believed in enslaving those who weren’t Christians, but they realized that those people could convert and become free. The colonists would lose their workforce, so they decided that enslavement should be based on skin color, so they would never lose their workforce.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1narr3.html
I would have to disagree with Thomas, because though he makes a good point that the economic needs of the colonies required a steadier and more reliable labor source, he assumes that it was inevitable for the colonies, and therefore the US, to continue on the same economic path. I believe that the tragedy that was slavery could have been avoid if the colonist had allowed their morals to overcome their greed. In order for the South in particular to become as successful as it was agriculturally and economically, they would need slaves. But what if instead of a few families owning great plantations, there were many small families owning small plots of land, and making what they needed. This would have solved several social problems of the time. The USA today would be barely recognizable, but it at least could have happened. After all, slavery was contested or limited plenty of times in the colonies. In 1652, Rhode Island passed a law limited slavery to ten years. In 1688, the Quakers of Germantown, Pennsylvania protested the existence of slavery, calling it immoral. The Quakers continued to oppose slavery, threatening to kick any slave owners out of the church in 1696. An anti-slavery book was published in 1700 by Samuel Sewall. In 1739, citizens of Georgia petitioned to continue the ban of slavery that existed in their colony. These ideals might have prevailed if the colonies and their occupants kept their focus on creating a good place to live, instead of simply making money. I admit that it was unlikely for slavery to be nonexistent in the colonies, but that doesn't mean that it was not possible to stop it. (http://www.blackpast.org/?q=timelines/african-american-history-timeline-1600-1700)
I believe that slavery was inevitable considering the evolution of the colonies into an independent nation. A main source of profit for colonists, especially ones in the South that operated plantations, was agricultural produce, and it required labor to be harvested. Sure, indentured servants initially filled the laborer role, but that era came to an end after some notable events. Bacon's Rebellion of 1676 showed the higher classes that indentured servants were capable of widespread revolt, so landowners started looking for a new source of labor. Wages were also increasing in England in the late 1600s, so many potential indentured servants never went to the colonies. This left the landowners in the colonies in desperate need of labor. In 1698, the Royal African Company monopoly on slave trade dissolved, so any merchant could capture African slaves for a profit. By 1689, the RAC had already transported some 90,000 slaves to the colonies and the Caribbean. This was important for Triangular Trade and it boosted economy in the colonies. There is no way that slaves could not find their way into the colonies with these events occurring. Even though the slaves were more expensive than indentured servants, they were still in high demand because of the lack of laborers and they turned out to be cheaper in the long run.
I disagree with Alyssa because the events contributing to permanent slavery could not have been avoided, so therefore neither could the arrival of slaves. It is true that some colonies opposed slavery initially, but there was no way the farmers and plantation owners could produce enough crops to sell with just indentured servants. I agree that if events had ended differently then permanent slavery would not be profitable or smart, but if one looks at the situation from the colonists' point of view, they would see how events unfolded and how many decisions would still be the same if they had the chance to go back in time.
(http://www.royalnavalmuseum.org/info_sheets_slavery.htm)
I must disagree with Alyssa, however she makes a good point, especially with the fact that it could have been avoided if people's morals overcame their greed. But one very true but sad fact which human nature has taught us is that greed can easily overpower our morals. For example, someone can do a lot of work and earn a certain amount of cash, or he can work very little (taking a shortcut) and still make as much. Basic knowledge tells us that he would take the shortcut. As the amount of morals and values increases, the tendency of people to cheat and take the shortcut decreases, but there is always someone who is willing to do it, and in most cases it is someone of power. Back to the topic, I must say that the enslavement of the Africans was inevitable. The nature of greed will create large plantation owners who want to add more to their plots of land, and would recquire more labor. "Greed is the ultimate desire for domination" (Greed is Part of Human Nature, par. 7). These are not purely my opinions, but rather just the sad but true facts. In the end, I must say that greed played a role in the ultimate enslavement of the African race. The enslavment of Africans would have led to a quicker growth (a shortcut from greed!) to the American economy instead of other methods without slavery.
http://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/greed-is-part-of-human-nature/
1. Unfortunately, I believe that slavery of the Africans and Natives was completely inevitable. This is because almost every civilization up to that point in time had used slavery at one point or another. "By use of the Hammurabi Codes in ancient Babylon, slavery started to gain momentum as a culturally acceptable practice throughout the world" (History of Slavery, par. 6). Also, at the time, it made economic sense to the colonists due to the fact that indentured servitude was becoming less of a popular choice for the British. This was caused mainly by economic growth in the England.
2. Furthermore, I agree with what Iavor previously posted and I like that he says that people were greedy and would rather take the easy and most economical approach to a situation. Obviously in this case, the easy way was to enslave Africans and Native Americans. Of course slavery was a terrible thing, but worst of all, it was inevitable.
http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ac41
I believe that the enslavement of all the African population was completely inevitable, for several reasons. For one, when the practice of indentured servitude began falling out, slavery was the only labor that could continue to support the colonies. Also, when society in the colonies began to garner it's own identity, it had an extremely racist point of view. Non-whites were all considered less than a human being, and Africans were sure to be included in this generalization as well. In short, I believe that slavery was completely inevitable because of the colonists' racist nature. I agree with Parker's comment prior to my own because he believes that slavery also was inevitable. In ancient times, slavery was utilized by almost all of the most towering civilizations, not limited to just the Babylonians. Another thing though, is back in ancient times, there were less people on the planet. Now that our planet has over 7 billion people, labor is not an issue at all. So although slavery was totally inevitable, cited by Parker's reference to Hammurabi's Code, it ended up spurring on the manufacturing industry in the colonies, giving them more independence from Britain.
http://africanhistory.about.com/od/slavery/tp/TransAtlantic001.htm
1.)I believe that the enslavement of West Africans in the British North American colonies was undeniably inevitable. The British were a much more economically, financially, militarily-advanced people. In order to participate in the triangular trade route, West Africa had no choice other than to sell slaves. Besides man-power, Africa had very little to no other goods to offer to the British North American colonists and the peoples of the West Indies. If they wanted to be included, they needed to have something to bring to the table. In addition to this, West Africans had highly developed agriculture skills specifically linked to the colonists' needs. No other people had these particular skills mastered as highly and as precisel, and the colonists knew this. "The African captives who were brought to the American colonies carried knowledge and skills with them that they used to cope in their new conditions and passed on to subsequent generations of Americans. Wherever Africans settled in the colonies they contributed to the growth and success of the local economy and the wealth and status of their owners with their labor. When permitted, they influenced the form and function of pottery, basketry, wood-working and textiles they produced for others." (Contributions to American Culture paragraph 1).
2.) I agree completely with the perspective Parker brings forth to the argument. Slavery had already existed for thousands of years, so why wouldn't it have existed in the North American colonies if it did in mainland England itself, as well as the rest of the world? Having slavery in the British colonies was not specific to the British, but commonly accepted by the globe as a whole during the time period.
http://www.frontiermuseum.org/WestAfrica.html
Okay David beat me by 4 minutes... I disagree with what David had to say about racism being a cause of British North American colonial enslavement of West Africans. I believe racism developed in the British North American colonies as a result of African enslavement, not as a cause. The colonists didn't seek the West Africans for labor purposes because they were West Africans, because they were black, or because they were different culturally. They sought them purely because they were the most available source of labor, period. They were there, there were many of them, and they held specific skills relevant to the colonists' most pressing needs.
I agree with Dave’s comment that slavery was the only labor that could continue to support the colonies. Plain and simple the colonies needed to grow tobacco to make money, and with growing tobacco they need labor, and lots of it. The number of Indentured Servitudes was declining, and with the need of labor being so high it was easy to enslave people from Africa to do their labor. Several other reasons slaves were chosen over Indentured Servitudes were: the slaves were immune to Malaria, and they only needed to be taught how to do something once. Rush Limbaugh once said, ““I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back…” It’s sad to think how long we kept slavery, but it’s the truth we needed labor to produce tobacco in the South. http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/top-10-racist-limbaugh-quotes/
http://www.directessays.com/viewpaper/39339.html
I didn't refresh my computer so I didn't see that Abby posted. I agree with Abby that West Africa had to give up something if they wanted to be involved in the triagular trade route. So giving up pepole who eventually turned into slaves was a way for them to recieve other goods from the colonies and the British.
Unfortunately, I beleive that slavery in this country was inevitable because the Africans were far less advanced than the English were at this time. The idea of slavery began roughly 10,000 years ago because captives of war and criminals were forced to work on the farms of the place that they were sent to (Par. 3). It shows that no idea is forgotten throughout time, and I think the English used this idea to increase revenue. Not only this, but the English really had no other option to find the "workers" that would tend to the farms and keep the income of the colonies growing. Also, the number of indentured servants was not increasing or decreasing, creating no increased amount of work per year. As PK (Patrick Kelly) said, the Africans were used to the climate in the south and were immune to the malaria disease, setting the stage that Africans were better than IS in this area of the colonies.
2.) http://franklaughter.tripod.com/cgi-bin/histprof/misc/slavery1.html
It is very unfortunate, but slavery was 100% necessary for the colonies to grow and succeed in the new world. Before slaves, indentured servants were the main source of labor in the colonies. This labor force proved to be expensive and unreliable. Indentured Servants tended to die off before their contract was up, run away, revolt, and they were entitled to serve their "master" for an average of 7-12 years. Slavery became a much more productive and convenient form of labor. Slaves were resistant to malaria and used to the hot conditions of the South. Also with a slave, the owner additionally owned all descendants of the slave for their entire life. This means that theoretically for (modern day) $30,000 a plantation owner could accumulate several tens of slaves for no additional cost. These descendants also tended to be well trained workers because of their many ancestors working in the fields along with them.
Without slavery, the colonies 2 main resources, cotton and tobacco, would have never been produced at the rate necessary for success. If the colonies hadn't created revenue and a name for themselves through tobacco and cotton, the United States could very well be a third world country and still be clinging to the Atlantic Coast.
Edmund Burke once said, "slavery is a weed that grows on every soil" (#1). I believe that Burke was hinting at the fact that slavery existed all over the world. Slavery had existed in many parts of Europe, Northern Africa (Egypt), and in many European colones. The English had even been trading slaves since as early at the 15th century (#2). This goes to show that slavery was a proven form of labor and had been for hundreds of years prior to 1775.
I agree with Patrick when he stated that labor was the one thing the colonies/ plantations needed and how slavery was the cheapest and most efficient form of labor in the long run. Until tractors and other more efficient machines were invented, slaves were LITERALLY the only way for the colonies to grow enough tobacco and cotton to make enough money to succeed.
source #1 http://en.proverbia.net/citastema.asp?tematica=1126
source #2 http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/abolition/africa_article_01.shtml
There are a few circumstances that made slavery an inevitable occurrence in American history. Indentured servitude was efficient and generally cheap labor. After indentured servants were freed, they were often forced to work for meager pay back at their former owner's home. In theory, the "skill curve" that benefited slavery could also benefit indentured servants should they never actually escape that cycle of poverty, contrary to Gunnar's point.
However, the real issue lied with the general consensus of the white population. As slavery became a growing trend, slaves worked alongside indentured servants. In some cases, they even were treated like indentured servants rather than slaves. However, the stigma that "different is bad" set in quickly and people assumed African slaves to be morally and intellectually inferior. As indentured servants stopped coming over, people began to lean more towards slavery. The big shift to slavery came in Virginia during 1676. People realized that slaves could not run away, did not openly desire to be treated as people, and never came from any working-class back home. Because of the social differences between European servants and African slaves, American slavery was destined to reach the horrifying height that it did.
Daniel B. Period 7
I believe that many factors led up to slavery, and if a couple of them never happened, or went down differently, then slavery in the British North American colonies might have never happened. If it weren't for Bacon's Rebellion, for example, then indentured servitude wouldn't have fallen out of favor with the rich landowners and they never would have had to turn to slavery, or the change to slavery would have been much slower then the rate we see. I believe that indentured servitude would have been able to allow the colonies to prosper sufficiently and if it weren't for many of the factors that led up to the switch to slavery, America could have developed without it.
I completely agree with what Andrew said about how skin color factored in to the popularity of slavery, however if it weren't for slaves being first introduced to the colonies or indentured servitude becoming unpopular, then this factor wouldn't have mattered and slavery wouldn't have developed.
Post a Comment