The Confederacy was About Slavery

Just goes to show you how far people will go to protect their income . They didnt do it because they thought the world would fall apart without slavery .

WTF ???

Given that Cuba was a large producer of sugar they had a large need for slaves themselves so where do you get the leap that because slaves was taken to Cuba that any numbers of them ended up in the US?

In fact long as in decades after the US civil war Cuba still have slavery.

Footnote the sugar crop needed such a large supply of slaves that at one point Haiti alone was running through 30,000 slaves a year.

Now you hate everyone in Texas ? I would think they would wear your opinion with pride .

The price of slaves was worth it in the US. 1700$ (estimate from Boatner) was some value, and the "coastal slave trade was not really forbidden (as was the importation of Africans). The value of cotton alone was about 2 Billion a year just prior to the Civil War. I did earlier state that the klargest number of slaves were "shipped south" from the border states where slavery was no longer as critical as it was for indigo, cotton (especially cotton), sugar and rice. Louisiana was a big sugar AND cotton AND indigo growing state.

COTTON was the big driver where slaves were critical to the mix and with mechanical handling of the staple, the growing and tending of the plants was not mechanized till the late 1870's, But picking was still by hand well into the 20th century. (Im not certain of the date but Ive got pictures of people picking cotton from a South Carolina tourist book that showed life in Edgefield South Carolina in the days of Strom THurmonds teenage years.

Im amazed that, as e sit here and discuss the aspects of southern life with the institution of slavery, how the issue of slavery as the root reason for the Confederacy could be denied by anyone xcept thse with , might I say, racial agendae.??

The subject is "The Confederacy was About Slavery." That would include all slaves in the US, the majority of which resided in the south (and thus the Confederacy).

Comprende?

I am also amazed that anyone can think that slavery was so important that it took a back seat to the money it made . I think anyone who believes slaves were THE issue has delusions of being lovely . Oh, and dont you have a spell checker ?

Now we have the stupidity of insisting the Confederacy fought for Union states as well .

UH, there was this war that started as a slave revolt in Haiti in the very early 1800's. Gen Leclerc had sought reprisals that cost the lives of 30000 or so Haitian slaves in 1802. (Just this one year) . BUT having removd the Frem=nch Haiti is the oldest black republic in the Americas. It gained its independence arounf=d the time of the Louisiana purchase when the French got the shits out of a feudal system. Haiti was pretty ok until the early 1910's when they entered a bloddy revolution.

Recall Toussaint Louverture or Henri Christophe? from yer High school civics?

So you are just assuming that slaves was imported from Cuba given the economic value of slaves?

Oh and under the theory that any slave ship would not get it crew hung because of a Transshipment point?

Do you have any and I mean any records that show that slaves were being import from Cuba?

After all if it was not illegally then it would not had been hidden and the papers of the time would publish slave auctions of fresh arriving slaves from Cuba.

You let a few little details out first it was the French revolution that cause the French to tell their Haiti colony that they could not have any slaves any more.

This is fine except that the whites was only a few percents of the total island population and this little news from the home country set off a slave rebellion that kill almost all the whites who could not get on ships fast enough.

After the whites was kill or driven off then the ex-slaves kill most of the half breeds and turn to fighting among themselves for power.

In the mean time Napoleon had assume power in France and decide he wish Haiti back and then……….

To sum up it was a bloody mess and was one of the examples for the south as what could happen to them if they did not keep the slaves under control.

I stated before that I will try to clip the article presented by UNESCO in 1977 as a investigation into slavery in the AMericas in 1500;s till the 20th century. I couldnt clip it because of some format issue. I could crop it but not paste it.



YEh sure, you think that, after being engaged in what was termed piracy (unless it was a "coastal transfer " which was legal until the civil war, then Id imagine that clandestine was the word of the day. I cant spculate and neither can you. Im only reporting what the good UNESCO agency stated.

ANYWAY, as I said numerous times, the northern slave states became the feedstock for the southern states slave needs as the slaves were required for the rpwing industry of cotton production.

Your point about sugar cane. Sugar cane was much more amenable to mechanical harvesting and processing. Drey stock pulled the cutter bars and ran the grinding mills with animals, water , or later, steam. Sugar cane is planted by hand but it, being a bigass grass, doesnt need weeding and bug picking like cotton. And harvesting of cotton is one person , one boll of cotton. Sugar cane could be sickle barred or reaped and gathered without micro picking.

Also, Was the sugar cane crop worth 2 billion /year in one country alone? I dont think so.

Only tobacco is almost as labor intensive as cotton. Toacco requires careful tebding bug picking and hand harvesting and poling for drying and stripping. But even tobacco isnt as much a labor intensive understaking.

Without slaves, there would have been no confederacy and India would have been the big cotton growing land (brazil was still undeveloped jungle at the time). and we would be wearing the long staple cotton which is a much finer weave.

I can see that youve quickly looked up the history of Haiti since you made the silly statement that they needed to "use up"30000 slaves a year in Haiti. I didnt leave out details that were the key feature. You were trying to bullshit us by asserting the big need for slaves in AHiti all the time Haiti was busy fighting for independence

Your busted.
If ya want to make this a wiki fest, why not argue with the Australian. He wont catch any little glaring errors.

What the hell are you talking about the 30,00 figure I gave had nothing to do with a rebellion it was the numbers of slaves that was work to death every year on that island and needed to be replaced.

No wonder the slaves went mad and kill every white they could get their hands on.

And I had no need to google the information as it been known by me for years.

That poor island never had a moment of peace to this day.

Didn't know Haiti was part of the Confederacy.

Lord I been googling like mad to get a link to the 30,000 or any replacement numbers for Haiti slaves without luck and the book I read that contain that shocking number had long been return to the library.

Still the slave population were 500,000 to 700,000 on that island at it peak and the death rate was indeed higher then the birth rate so a 30,000 yearly numbers to maintain such a population should be in the ball park.

Google leave you down at the strangest times it would seem.

.

Will you did no know that the border states and it 400,000 slaves was not part of the confederacy so my little error is no big deal.

Perhaps your memory could relate which years those numbers were reported. My point is that, during the period of 1802 and on, Haiti was no longer a colony in which the French were using the habitues as "Slaves", the slaves were busy trying to fight a war and to start a nation that endured pretty well until the 1910's.

The 30,000 numbers related to the ten to fifteen years period or so when the French slave colony of Haiti was at it peak just before the rebellion.

I did find by googling that the slave poputaltaion on that small island was at least 500,000 to perhaps 700,00o at the time and the death rate was an amazing 3 to 4 percents over the birth rate so the math would be in the low ballpark range for just maintaining the same level of population.

That is one sad island with a sad sad history and even nature seem now to be punishing them.