Revival of Slave Trade...

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,626
Reaction score
4,544
Yes, this was a thing starting around 1839 for many reason like the cost of slaves and shortage of slaves for new territories. It had a political following up and until 1861 when the Confederate Constitution banned the importation of slaves from outside its borders.

It was an issue in Lincoln's famed "House Divided" speech in 1858. He(Lincoln) implied Douglas would not stop the revival of the African slave trade for Douglas voted to allowed slavery into the territories.

The movement never caught fire in the South because it divided the south along many fault lines that this paper I found will show.

Here is a concise paper on the topic and a easy good read read,

link: http://abolition.nypl.org/print/revival_of_slave_trade/

Snips...

The reopening was first advocated in 1839 in the New Orleans Courier, but the campaign to make that wish a reality started in earnest in the early 1850s. Within a few years, the cry for the revival of the transatlantic slave trade had reached the Southern Commercial Conventions, the Houses of Representatives, and the Congress of the United States and had come to dominate the southern discourse.

Snips... advocates...

William Lowndes Yancey, a former U.S. senator from Alabama

Mississippi senator Jefferson Davis was all for it but only in Texas and the western territories; he was firmly against the introduction of Africans into his own state, where the enslaved population was large enough, he asserted, although it was not well distributed.

Snips... one reasons...

They were also concerned that the Free states were expanding, while the South could not claim new lands due to the scarcity of enslaved labor to work them. In addition, they saw their region as losing political power within the nation, due in part to a strong demographic increase in the North fed by European immigrants, while the South was cut off from its traditional supply of manpower: deported Africans. Spratt calculated that–if allowed to do so–each time the South were to introduce 50,000 Africans, it would gain 30,000 federal votes, according to the "3/5 clause."

Snips.. cost...

To those preoccupied with cheaper labor rather than politics, the revival advocates had a ready argument: the domestic slave trade that had uprooted more than a million African Americans from the Upper South had cost too much to the Deep South. Enslaved labor had become too expensive, as one commentator explained: "The old rule of pricing a negro by the price of cotton by the pound—that is to say, if cotton is worth twelve cents, a negro man is worth twelve hundred dollars, if at fifteen cents, then fifteen hundred dollars—does not seem to be regarded. Negroes are twenty-five per cent higher now, with cotton at ten and a half cents, than they were two or three years ago, when it was worth fifteen and sixteen cents. Men are demented upon the subject. A reverse will surely come." In the 1850s, a male "prime hand" in the Gulf States could cost $2,400, or about $48,000 in today's dollars. A newly arrived African, on the other hand, could be purchased for less than $800 ($16,000), or a third of the cost.

Snips...

Southern slaveholders had become wary of the poor, who did not own slaves and thus had little economic stake in the system. Moreover, as the cost of purchasing enslaved labor increased dramatically, this group was hopelessly locked out of the market. Wealthy planters feared that the lower classes might support the Yankees, and so the revival propagandists tried to establish a solid white front across social classes. With more and cheaper Africans available, more people could have slaves, they argued, and the peculiar institution would thus have more supporters.

Finally, all revivalists agreed that banning the international slave trade on moral grounds made slavery itself look bad. Slavery was good and fair for all, including the enslaved, they maintained, and the banning of the international slave trade while the domestic slave trade was still legal not only did not make any sense, but it tarnished the slave system as a whole. By reviving it, the stain would be lifted from the institution.


Snip...

In the end, the revival never took place. It was too divisive an issue at a time when the South, on the verge of secession, needed unity. The Confederacy also wanted support from Great Britain and France in its upcoming war with the Union, and its leaders understood that they would never get it if they did reopen the international slave trade.

Well, I did leave off plenty of information so read the links and more more details on the South opponents to the revival of the slave trade and other details...
 

O' Be Joyful

ohio hillbilly
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,491
Reaction score
3,136
To those preoccupied with cheaper labor rather than politics, the revival advocates had a ready argument: the domestic slave trade that had uprooted more than a million African Americans from the Upper South had cost too much to the Deep South. Enslaved labor had become too expensive, as one commentator explained: "The old rule of pricing a negro by the price of cotton by the pound—that is to say, if cotton is worth twelve cents, a negro man is worth twelve hundred dollars, if at fifteen cents, then fifteen hundred dollars—does not seem to be regarded. Negroes are twenty-five per cent higher now, with cotton at ten and a half cents, than they were two or three years ago, when it was worth fifteen and sixteen cents. Men are demented upon the subject. A reverse will surely come."
All I can say is Wow, just Wow. I have never seen an economic dissection such as this that you have presented upon the relation of cotton prices vs. that of slaves. Of course I have seen arguments/proposals that there would eventually have been a "crash" on both fronts, but nothing tying slave "prices" to that of cotton.

Well done Fish.
 

Joshism

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2019
Messages
488
Reaction score
587
It's remarkable that any elected official at the national level was seriously in favor of the international slave trade decades after it was outlawed. Did any western country still have it legalized in the 1850s?
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,626
Reaction score
4,544
Did any western country still have it legalized in the 1850s?
I think I found a good answer... never for humanitarian reasons...

Link:https://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/ism/slavery/europe/abolition.aspx

Despite the abolition of slave trading by Britain and other countries from 1807 onwards, illegal trading continued for a further 60 years. About a quarter of all Africans who were enslaved between 1500 and 1870 were transported across the Atlantic in the years after 1807. Much of this illegal trade was to the sugar plantations of Cuba and Brazil.

From 1815 to 1865, the British Royal Navy undertook antislavery patrols off the West African coast, seizing hundreds of vessels. Britain was forced to pay compensation for seized ships and to encourage countries such as Spain and Portugal to abolish slaving.

Although humanitarian considerations were important, economic interests were also at stake. Cuba and Brazil were competitors to British West Indian sugar production. Merchants developing the palm oil trade with West Africa, who were largely based in Liverpool, also feared illegal slaving would damage their interests.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,626
Reaction score
4,544
All I can say is Wow, just Wow.
Trans Atlantic slave trade... overview...

https://www.thoughtco.com/the-trans-atlantic-slave-trade-44544

snip... evil begins...

The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade began around the mid-fifteenth century when Portuguese interests in Africa moved away from the fabled deposits of gold to a much more readily available commodity -- slaves.

All three stages of the Triangular Trade (named for the rough shape it makes on a map) proved lucrative for merchants.
The first stage
of the Triangular Trade involved taking manufactured goods from Europe to Africa: cloth, spirit, tobacco, beads, cowrie shells, metal goods, and guns.
The second stage of the Triangular Trade (the middle passage) involved shipping the slaves to the Americas.
The third, and final, stage of the Triangular Trade involved the return to Europe with the produce from the slave-labor plantations: cotton, sugar, tobacco, molasses, and rum

For two hundred years, 1440-1640, Portugal had a monopoly on the export of slaves from Africa. It is estimated that during the 4 1/2 centuries of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, Portugal was responsible for transporting over 4.5 million Africans (roughly 40% of the total).

During the eighteenth century, when the slave trade accounted for the transport of a staggering 6 million Africans, Britain was the worst transgressor - responsible for almost 2.5 million.

Snip.. who... ethic groups...

Senegambia includes the Wolof, Mandinka, Sereer, and Fula; Upper Gambia has the Temne, Mende, and Kissi; the Windward Coast has the Vai, De, Bassa, and Grebo.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,626
Reaction score
4,544
elected official at the national level was seriously in favor of the international slave trade decades after it was outlawed
Think about either you bring slaves in form Africa or from the Slave breeding farms of the upper south... It was the cost of slaves going up forcing the lower south to find new sources... it capitalism...
 

O' Be Joyful

ohio hillbilly
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,491
Reaction score
3,136
For two hundred years, 1440-1640, Portugal had a monopoly on the export of slaves from Africa. It is estimated that during the 4 1/2 centuries of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, Portugal was responsible for transporting over 4.5 million Africans (roughly 40% of the total).

During the eighteenth century, when the slave trade accounted for the transport of a staggering 6 million Africans, Britain was the worst transgressor - responsible for almost 2.5 million.
But...but we keep being told, under the American flag .
...
 

Joshism

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2019
Messages
488
Reaction score
587
But...but we keep being told, under the American flag.
Prior to Revolution, slaves brought from Africa to the colonies would have been transported by the "British" whether the captain and/or ship owners were based in New England or old England.
 

O' Be Joyful

ohio hillbilly
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,491
Reaction score
3,136
Prior to Revolution, slaves brought from Africa to the colonies would have been transported by the "British" whether the captain and/or ship owners were based in New England or old England.
Und the Danish and Spanish, depending upon the location of their colonies, say Florida.

To think it was--and I know you do not ascribe to this--exclusively under the U.S.A. flag is a ludicrous Lost Cause lie.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,626
Reaction score
4,544
It was a big issue to reopen the slave trade in the late 1850's...

In the 1850's there was an effort in the South to reopen the African slave trade in America. The movement reached it's peak at an 1859 Southern commercial convention a resolution was passed advocating the reopening of African slave trade. A majority of Louisiana's delegates favored the reopening. Northern states took notice of this, and on March 25, 1859 the Chicago Tribune published an article entitled the "Reopening of Slave Trade". The tribune editor wrote "That the party favorable to the re-opening of the foreign slave trade is rapidly gaining ground at the South, we have not the slightest doubt. The measure is only the logical result of the doctrine, now almost universally proclaimed by Southern pulpits and presses, that slavery is in itself a right."

President Buchanan opposed this movement, and in his 1859 address to congress, set out to prove that it was not only unconstitutional but un-Christian. But today, his words sound condescending and downright racist (that is believing in the inferiority of a race). Buchanan wrote:

Link to his speech... http://www.stateoftheunionhistory.com/2015/07/1859-james-buchanan-reopening-slave.html

Here is a sample from the speech:

His condition is incomparably better than that of the coolies which modern nations of high civilization have employed as a substitute for African slaves. Both the philanthropy and the self-interest of the master have combined to produce this humane result. But let this trade be reopened and what will be the effect? .
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,626
Reaction score
4,544
Here is a case study of one African Kingdom that supported the slave trade and it cost them their kingdom... The link has other case studies on the Western slave trade effect on Africa... Here @Viper21, @Anderson1 and to others a case studies to read...

https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/atlantic-slave-trade

At the same time as Great Zimbabwe was powerful, there was a large and powerful kingdom along the Congo River in Central Africa, known as the Kongo. Kongo was ruled by a manikongo, or king, and was divided into six provinces, each administered by a governor.

The kingdom had an organised system of labour, taxation and trade, especially in iron and salt. It also had a currency, in the form of nzimbu shells from a nearby island. The Kongo Kingdom had been in place for around 200 years when the first Portuguese arrived on the coast.

In 1482, Diego Cão, a Portuguese explorer, visited the kingdom. The reigning manikongo, Nzinga Nkuwu, was impressed by the Portuguese and sent a delegation to visit Portugal. As a result, Portuguese missionaries, soldiers and artisans were welcomed to Mbanza, the capital of the kingdom. The missionaries targeted the Kongo leaders, and managed to convert Nzinga Nkuwu to Christianity. This led to divisions between the new Christians and followers of the traditional religions.

The next manikongo, Alfonso I, was raised as a Christian. He expanded trade links with the Portuguese, which included becoming involved in the slave trade. His people would raid neighbouring villages and states, selling the prisoners to the Europeans for a good price. This made the kingdom very wealthy for some years.

However, the slave trade eventually took its toll on the Kongo kingdom. Although the slave trade made some chiefs enormously wealthy, it ultimately undermined local economies and political stability as villages' vital labour forces were shipped overseas and slave raids and civil wars became commonplace. To meet the huge demand for slaves, the Kongolese began raiding further afield, and several groups fought back, including the Téké and the Kuba. This constant conflict distracted them from trade and weakened their defences. They soon became dependent on the Portuguese for assistance, especially in the Jaga Wars of 1568. The Kongo Kingdom never regained its former power. In the years that followed, the Kongo fought both for and against the Portuguese, eventually being colonised in 1885.

A breakaway group, the Ndongo, moved southwards. They called their kings angola. They were also later colonised by the Portuguese.
 
Top