How was slavery introduced into America

That is true, but a maid isn't a slave. The system in the South required slaves to be considered less than human. Brutal discipline was enforced, families were broken up on purpose, armed gangs roamed the country looking for runaways. I mean read a book or something.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The book is written depending on the side of the writer. I suppose if the slave works for a corporation , a corporation doesn't have a face . The breaking of family would be more by the merchant who sale slaves '

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

C'mon, give this shit up. Brazil did not lose its slaves to attrition because it industrialized, and neither did any other country in the Western Hemisphere. The only country in the Americas that industrialized concurrently with losing its slaveholding institutions was the US, and we had to fight a war to separate the slaveowners from their very profitable chattel.

For a hundred years after the Civil War, States in the old Confederacy enforced de facto slavery via the police and the law to supply US Steel, various mining interests, and other industrial entities, with very profitable slave labor. The Germans made good money via slave labor in completely modern industrial setups - without even feeding or caring for their chattel, literally working them to death. So did the Russians in their Siberian labor camps, China in its various endeavors over the centuries (recently: rubber). Modern industry is fully capable of utilizing slave labor profitably, if permitted.

And the slaves in Brazil, as in the rest of South America, won their freedom by disease and violence, not "attrition". The escaped slaves in South America fought pitched battles with the official armies and police of the State, remained behind when the whites fled the fevers and hardships, hid from the slavecatchers, etc. Their big advantage was that they greatly outnumbered the slaveholding Europeans (mostly due to disease). The slaves in North America enjoyed no advantage of number, had no disease ridden rain forest with locals of allied interests to hide in and among. Where they did, as in Florida, they too escaped by "attrition".

The writer is often a descendent of slaves, with family stories and accounts to retail. You can read the account of Malcolm Gladwell, for example, of the owner's technique (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derby's_dose) for handling escaped slaves on the plantation where his ancestors were enslaved.

Slaveowners must be extraordinarily brutal and fearsomely intimidating, punishing, or their slaves will revolt and flee. It's that simple. Plus, many slaveowners were sadistic bastards - it comes with the territory, with the types of people who choose to own slaves or fit naturally into the role of slaveowner.

Re the OP: slavery was already in America, among several of the city dwelling agricultural nations. Various combinations of slave and owner were tried over the first few decades of European colonization (whites, reds, yellows, blacks, were all enslaved - the main ethical dilemma was whether to allow the enslavement of Christians such as the Irish, the compromise being indentured servitude) - until the combination of African disease resistance and large scale plantation agriculture was hit upon and the money started to roll in.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am not sure every slave owner was brutal . There were black slave were after emancipation remained working for their masters as part of the labor force, and there were black who saved money to buy some land

don't assume every Black person was a slave. In 1830 Federal census free Blacks owned slaves, about 10,000 for sugar cane work. Although some free blacks would buy their family members to ensure legally that families could stay intact. Cherokee Indian tribes owned slaves. And not everyone participated in the census, many families were migratory.
See statistics for Us census sense 1790 http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0056/tab10.pdf

 

OK - so?

And many couldn't - didn't have the money.

So did the Incas and Aztecs and so forth, as I mentioned above. So?

Plantation slavery, like industrialization in general, was a new thing in the world, however. The scale was unprecedented - most of the early resident immigrants to the Americas were slaves from Africa The first new people most red tribes saw in any numbers were black, not white.

 

In 1654, John Casor, an African, became the first legally recognized slave in the present United States. In his freedom suit, he claimed that he was an indentured servant who had been held past his term. A court in Northampton County ruled against Casor, declaring him property for life and "owned" by his master, the free black colonist Anthony Johnson. Since persons with African origins were not English subjects by birth, they were considered foreigners and generally outside English Common Law.

 

i was a slave in aprevious life. i can tell you you are partially right. Some people that owned slaves werent half bad. each person (white person) was like his own king. in that respect, some kings can be good, and other can be bad. it better now with federal law, just legalize my weedz.

 

So?

He was not the first slave - the resident tribes had slaves, the early explorers had them, it was a common institution. The plantation slavery that developed in the Americas (mostly in the Caribbean and South, but a big and important fraction in present day US) was not unique in its slavery, but in its scale and organization.

 

I don't agree with slavery, but it would be nice to have someone to whip when things go wrong.

 

Have you looked into the History of Brazil , if not , I invite you to do so, Beside In Africa black conquering tribe sold their own blacks into slavery to the Portuguese plantation in Brazil

 

So what?

You keep repeating the common and irrelevant point that all the US conventional races kept slaves. Why?

 

Slavery did not disappear anywhere due to industrialization - in the first place, physical history, that is not what happened in the US or anywhere else; in the second, economic theory, factories and mechanized agriculture are easily adapted to slave labor, as the Germans during WWII and the Russian labor camps and US Steel plants in the 1940s (Siberia, Alabama) proved.

My apologies for misleading phrase: read "in the area of the present day US" as distinguished from the South (of the Americas) and the Caribbean.

 

The irony is that when the USA returned slaves to Liberia after the practice went out of vogue, the returning slaves established slavery in their home country.

Demand for labour has always been perennial ....

 

Every on who can afford a maid will hire a maid . What is the difference between a slave and a in-house maid ? I had in house baby sitters from Mexico for 8 years . You have to feed them, clothe , give a shelter in the house , all that cost money , if she did not performed you get rid of her . Now in case slavery it has some similarity , You have to purchase , the person, the seller will charge you a fee for transportation , and a resale fee.
Don't be surprised things like that are continuing taking place now in the USA and in other places in the world .
Take nurses from the Philippines . They get a contract , say for 6 months from hospitals called a sponsor , the hospital pays for transportation ,housing . And they are not allowed to change employer otherwise they will be deported . How much different is that from so called slavery.
Dammit stop crying about slavery for your ancestors and stop pitting yourself .

 

That about sums it up with you. "So-called slavery?" Unreal.

Do you really not see the difference between option labor and forced labor?

 

I don't understand what you mean . So is the bringing nurses from were ever with a binding contract , do you consider this slavery ?

 

Again with this, from another source - what is the point of this irrelevancy? Did I miss some post where somebody here claimed that no black people ever owned slaves?

Most people do not describe the Civil War as in "vogue", or slavery as a fashion of the times, btw. It takes a particular frame of mind to trivialize such matters with that kind of language.

Further clues as to the nature of that worldview:

One is hired and paid, the other is captured and forced. For starters.

btw: The assertion is false. Many people who can afford a maid will not hire one, because they value their privacy and recognize servants as fellow human beings and strangers in the house, and because they do not want to be the agents of abuse: As people with experience have pointed out, if servants were not abused the only people who could afford them would be people whose time was in fact that much more valuable in money than that of the servants.

 

I don/t understand you , The fact that I give them a job is because I can afford it.