Transatlantic Slave Trade

Discussions on other historical eras.
User avatar
The_Enigma
Member
Posts: 2270
Joined: 14 Oct 2007, 15:59
Location: Cheshire, England

Transatlantic Slave Trade

#1

Post by The_Enigma » 11 Jun 2009, 23:44

Hi all i have just started reading about the Transatlantic Slave Trade as part of my uni studies (don’t worry i have to write an essay on economic growth nothing am about to talk about) and well to be perfectly honest i was surprised by quite a number of things.

Image

The source information for the graph comes from 'The volume and structure of the transatlantic slave trade: a reassessment' by David Eltis. If i haven’t made any mistakes transcribing the figures from his document to my excel spreadsheet it appears that 11 1/2 million people were transported from Africa to the New World.

Firstly i was shocked by how low this figure was i was always expected it to be higher; although as my uni book cynically points out later that doesn’t include people born into slavery i.e. 3.8% of transported slaves ended up in the American south by 1825 however about 25% of all slaves in the New World by 1825 lived in the US.

Some of the little oddities i noticed regardless of the number of overseas colonies the Spanish had it seems they didn’t really like the idea of transporting slaves - unless of course they took part in the inter-American trading of slaves to get theirs.
How few slaves the Americans themselves transported – obviously relying on the inter-American trading of slaves, home breeding and buying from other nationalities.
The sheer number the Portuguese transported it seems unbelievable considering the UK, France and Spain were the major maritime powers.
Eltis' tables don’t present a list of destinations by nationality of carrier so for example the Danes (bloody Vikings! :P ) are taking part but as far as i know they had no overseas possessions in the world; i guess business is business.

The final one for me, as pointed out in my uni book, there doesn’t appear to be any trends; the major world wars do not seem to even effect the trading when one would have thought these ships would have been sought out for the prise money or to effect the opponents economy (not the essay question don’t worry! :P ).

Any thoughts or input?

User avatar
Inselaffe
Member
Posts: 643
Joined: 29 Jul 2008, 00:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Transatlantic Slave Trade

#2

Post by Inselaffe » 12 Jun 2009, 11:23

Hello Enigma,
The_Enigma wrote:Eltis' tables don’t present a list of destinations by nationality of carrier so for example the Danes (bloody Vikings! ) are taking part but as far as i know they had no overseas possessions in the world; i guess business is business.


Actually the Danes did have a few overseas colonies, not on the scale of Spain/France/GB, but there were a few; An enclave in India, can't recall where but I know they sold it to Britain in the mid C19th and apparently you can still see Danish influence there today, also some trading posts on the West Coast of Africa and I think an island (or two?) in the Carribbean.
The_Enigma wrote:Some of the little oddities i noticed regardless of the number of overseas colonies the Spanish had it seems they didn’t really like the idea of transporting slaves - unless of course they took part in the inter-American trading of slaves to get theirs.
I'm assuming that the Spanish were able to get all the slave/pressed labour they needed from the indiginous people in South and Central America where their colonies were concentrated.


Cheers.
"It was like Hungary being between Germany and the Soviet Union. What sort of choice was that? Which language would you like your firing squad to speak?" Tibor Fischer 'Under the Frog'.


User avatar
Ironmachine
Member
Posts: 5821
Joined: 07 Jul 2005, 11:50
Location: Spain

Re: Transatlantic Slave Trade

#3

Post by Ironmachine » 12 Jun 2009, 12:01

Inselaffe wrote:
The_Enigma wrote:Eltis' tables don’t present a list of destinations by nationality of carrier so for example the Danes (bloody Vikings! ) are taking part but as far as i know they had no overseas possessions in the world; i guess business is business.
Actually the Danes did have a few overseas colonies, not on the scale of Spain/France/GB, but there were a few; An enclave in India, can't recall where but I know they sold it to Britain in the mid C19th and apparently you can still see Danish influence there today, also some trading posts on the West Coast of Africa and I think an island (or two?) in the Carribbean.
Yes, the Danes did have some small colonies around the world, including the Danish West Indies in the Caribbean.
Slavery in the Danish colonial system was introduced by the Danes in St. Thomas in 1672, in St. John in 1718 and in St. Croix in 1734. The Danish slave-trading system that accompanied the development of Denmark's tropical slavery, involving trade with Africa and the other islands of the West Indies, remained intact until 1803. At that time the edict for the abolition of the Danish slave trade (enacted in 1792) went into effect, making it unlawful to import slaves into the Danish islands. Nevertheless, a transit trade centering principally on St. Thomas, remained in effect until 1807, at which time it was banned by the British, who in that same year had taken possession of the Danish West Indies as a consequence of their involvement in the Napoleonic Wars.
The institution of slavery itself lasted another 41 years in the Danish West India islands. It was finally prohibited by law in July 1848 after a massive slave rebellion forced the government to grant emancipation. Questions of compensation and labor regulations emerged as a direct result of the end of slavery.
http://www.dpnr.gov.vi/dep/slave-trade.htm

User avatar
Ironmachine
Member
Posts: 5821
Joined: 07 Jul 2005, 11:50
Location: Spain

Re: Transatlantic Slave Trade

#4

Post by Ironmachine » 12 Jun 2009, 12:22

Inselaffe wrote:
The_Enigma wrote:Some of the little oddities i noticed regardless of the number of overseas colonies the Spanish had it seems they didn’t really like the idea of transporting slaves - unless of course they took part in the inter-American trading of slaves to get theirs.
I'm assuming that the Spanish were able to get all the slave/pressed labour they needed from the indiginous people in South and Central America where their colonies were concentrated.
Not exactly. Spain employed great numbers of African slaves, specially in the Caribbean area, but did not take part (at least, not a significant part) on its transport. German, Portuguese, French and British ships carried the slaves to the Spanish colonies. For example, IIRC the British had a monopoly on the slave trade with the Spanish America from 1713 to 1789.
On the other hand, Indians were free subjects, at least on paper. It was not legal to enslave an Indian at least since the Leyes Nuevas (20 November 1542), though of course reality was somewhat different and there is quite a controversy about the actual situation of the natives, but I think we can safely assume that their situation was much better than that of the African slaves.

Jon G.
Member
Posts: 6647
Joined: 17 Feb 2004, 02:12
Location: Europe

Re: Transatlantic Slave Trade

#5

Post by Jon G. » 12 Jun 2009, 12:52

Regarding Danish slave trade and Danish Caribbean and African possessions, it is true enough that Denmark-Norway banned slave trade, as the first country in the world, in 1792. However, that law can easily be dismissed as an exercise in hypocrisy - no less than 10 years were to pass until the law came into effect. So in the period after 1792, slave imports to the Danish Caribbean islands actually increased (as can be seen, just, on T_E's graph), only post-1792 imports centered on female slaves. Slave owners wanted and needed their slaves to breed; various restrictions on slave marriages were lifted at the same time.

The Danish enclave in India was known as Tranquebar. Ugh, there went a good pre-WW1 quiz question down the drains :D

Edited to add that the Danish Caribbean possessions were sold off to the USA in 1917 for the princely sum of 5 million $. A plebiscite was held in Denmark over the sale; nobody asked the inhabitants of the Danish West Indies which country they wanted to belong to.

User avatar
The_Enigma
Member
Posts: 2270
Joined: 14 Oct 2007, 15:59
Location: Cheshire, England

Re: Transatlantic Slave Trade

#6

Post by The_Enigma » 12 Jun 2009, 13:41

Wow fancinating info on the Danes, allot of stuff i didnt know - cheers for that!

User avatar
Dan W.
Member
Posts: 8518
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 02:53
Location: IL.

Re: Transatlantic Slave Trade

#7

Post by Dan W. » 13 Jun 2009, 18:28

You should listen to audio interview of this author for more information on the slave trade post Civil War in the United States. You can find one interesting and revealing interview of him podcast at "On Point" with Tom Ashbrook. That slavery remained in the United States after its official banishment under U.S. federal law would be an interesting addition to your presentation.

Also, for the legal ramifications of the transatlantic slave trade in the abolitionist northern United States I suggest you research the slave revolt onboard the slave ship Amistad prior to the U.S. Civil War

http://www.amazon.com/Slavery-Another-N ... 204&sr=1-1

User avatar
princeliberty10311517
Member
Posts: 621
Joined: 05 Jun 2009, 22:26
Location: Alexandria Virginia - DC area

Re: Transatlantic Slave Trade

#8

Post by princeliberty10311517 » 13 Jun 2009, 19:56

Jon G. wrote:Regarding Danish slave trade and Danish Caribbean and African possessions, it is true enough that Denmark-Norway banned slave trade, as the first country in the world, in 1792. However, that law can easily be dismissed as an exercise in hypocrisy - no less than 10 years were to pass until the law came into effect. So in the period after 1792, slave imports to the Danish Caribbean islands actually increased (as can be seen, just, on T_E's graph), only post-1792 imports centered on female slaves. Slave owners wanted and needed their slaves to breed; various restrictions on slave marriages were lifted at the same time.

The Danish enclave in India was known as Tranquebar. Ugh, there went a good pre-WW1 quiz question down the drains :D

Edited to add that the Danish Caribbean possessions were sold off to the USA in 1917 for the princely sum of 5 million $. A plebiscite was held in Denmark over the sale; nobody asked the inhabitants of the Danish West Indies which country they wanted to belong to.
Hadn't Sweden already ended slavery before Denmark did?

User avatar
princeliberty10311517
Member
Posts: 621
Joined: 05 Jun 2009, 22:26
Location: Alexandria Virginia - DC area

Re: Transatlantic Slave Trade

#9

Post by princeliberty10311517 » 13 Jun 2009, 20:08

Dan W. wrote:You should listen to audio interview of this author for more information on the slave trade post Civil War in the United States. You can find one interesting and revealing interview of him podcast at "On Point" with Tom Ashbrook. That slavery remained in the United States after its official banishment under U.S. federal law would be an interesting addition to your presentation.

Also, for the legal ramifications of the transatlantic slave trade in the abolitionist northern United States I suggest you research the slave revolt onboard the slave ship Amistad prior to the U.S. Civil War

http://www.amazon.com/Slavery-Another-N ... 204&sr=1-1
I looked at the Amazon listing for the book. Now it states the re-enslavement of black, But to be sure the "leasing of prisoners" etc... was done both to blacks and poor whites.

It goes back to the problem of how after the end of the Civil war the south was dominated by a small elite that abused the south.

The sad truth is that small elite still dominates the deep south.

Jon G.
Member
Posts: 6647
Joined: 17 Feb 2004, 02:12
Location: Europe

Re: Transatlantic Slave Trade

#10

Post by Jon G. » 14 Jun 2009, 02:13

princeliberty10311517 wrote:Hadn't Sweden already ended slavery before Denmark did?
No. Sweden acquired a small bit of the Caribbean by purchase from France in the late 1700s, where a thriving (if short-lived) slave trade flourished.

Note that under the 1792 law, it was only slave trading which was banned (and that with a ten-year delay) Slavery as such was not banned until 1848 in the Danish West Indies.

User avatar
princeliberty10311517
Member
Posts: 621
Joined: 05 Jun 2009, 22:26
Location: Alexandria Virginia - DC area

Re: Transatlantic Slave Trade

#11

Post by princeliberty10311517 » 14 Jun 2009, 03:02

Jon G. wrote:
princeliberty10311517 wrote:Hadn't Sweden already ended slavery before Denmark did?
No. Sweden acquired a small bit of the Caribbean by purchase from France in the late 1700s, where a thriving (if short-lived) slave trade flourished.

Note that under the 1792 law, it was only slave trading which was banned (and that with a ten-year delay) Slavery as such was not banned until 1848 in the Danish West Indies.
But slavery in Sweden itself including serfdoom was ended before it was in Denmark.

In fact, Scandanavia was the first place it was ended.

Jon G.
Member
Posts: 6647
Joined: 17 Feb 2004, 02:12
Location: Europe

Re: Transatlantic Slave Trade

#12

Post by Jon G. » 14 Jun 2009, 08:52

princeliberty10311517 wrote: But slavery in Sweden itself including serfdoom was ended before it was in Denmark.

In fact, Scandanavia was the first place it was ended.
That is wrong too, on several levels. Firstly, serfdom is not slavery - at least not in the sense discussed in this particular thread. Unlike slaves, serfs weren't bought or sold as property - at least not in Scandinavia. Their farms were, and very frequently a serf would be in a position where he was tied to his farm by law. That law was abolished in Denmark-Norway in 1788, and in Sweden in 1861.

Secondly, slavery in the strict sense (where slaves are simply pieces of property) went out of fashion in Scandinavia at about the same pace that christianity surpassed the Norse gods as state religion.

Thirdly, you still fail to see the distinction which everybody else has made in this thread - namely that practically all countries discussed here abolished slave trading long before they abolished slavery.

South
Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007, 10:01
Location: USA

Re: Transatlantic Slave Trade

#13

Post by South » 14 Jun 2009, 09:43

Good morning all,

Don't forget Denmark's Faroe Islands. There's another referendum scheduled for 2012. In 2001, the negotiations for independence failed. From what I understand the Faroses want both independence and continued subsidies from Denmark.

Don't forget Greenland. Greenland's Hans Island has been in the news recently. The EU seeks to use Denmark's Hans Island location to determine sovereign claims to far northern areas. Those of use into the geopolitics stuff thrive on studying important places like the Danish Hans Island !

Warm regards,

Bob

South
Member
Posts: 3590
Joined: 06 Sep 2007, 10:01
Location: USA

Re: Transatlantic Slave Trade

#14

Post by South » 14 Jun 2009, 10:29

Good morning Princeliberty,

You are presenting 2 points that are both incorrect.

After the US Civil War there was the era labeled "Reconstruction" (1865-1877). The South was not dominated by a "small elite that abused the South". The states that had been in rebellion were under military occupation for various periods during Reconstruction. Much "abuse" did occur but this is partly a function of the human condition; eg greed, exploitation, theft, etc. I acknowledge the former Confederacy was kept somewhat impoverished up to the US official entry into WWII, but this did not relate to a "small elite".

The "deep South" is too vague a term for discussing slavery. The slave markets of Virginia were never part of the deep South because Virginia is not in the deep South.

Here is the historical situation:

After the Civil War ended, there were major political problems concerning the South. Lincoln's Republican Party won the war and saved the Republic.

If the states of the former Confederacy were allowed to reenter the Union (some political and legal theorists say that they never left) without a change to their historical leadership, the South (the former Confederacy) would be a Democratic political bloc again. This Democratic Party bloc, coupled to the Northern Democratic bloc, would yield a political party with more power ( - and the same, if not similiar - political positions as prior to the War- ) than prior.

To resolve this "dilema", it was considered to give the Freedmen - the emancipated slaves - the vote. This could then allow for the establishment of a Republican Party in the former Confederate states.

The problem that arose was that many Northern (repeat: Northern) Republicans did not want to give blacks the right to vote and several of the Northern (repeat: Northern) states voted against this. A national referendum would also have failed.

President Andrew Johnson was a "onfederacy"Southerner. He made efforts to block Reconstruction (I'm omitting much). He got impeached.

Some say the failure to impeach and convict President Johnson led to the racial segregation (such as the schools and bus terminals) that continued until circa mid 20th century.

It must be fully understood that America's experience with slavery was a NATIONAL matter.

To conclude, let me say something about the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). When first established in 1817 it's name was "New York Stock and Exchange Board". Besides stock the board also was a commodities market. One of the commodites was slaves.

Warm regards,

Bob

Jon G.
Member
Posts: 6647
Joined: 17 Feb 2004, 02:12
Location: Europe

Re: Transatlantic Slave Trade

#15

Post by Jon G. » 14 Jun 2009, 18:00

South wrote:Good morning all,

Don't forget Denmark's Faroe Islands. There's another referendum scheduled for 2012. In 2001, the negotiations for independence failed. From what I understand the Faroses want both independence and continued subsidies from Denmark.
There's plenty of scope for perfidious comment here - but Faroese calls for independence are intimately connected with the current economical climate on the islands, especially the prospects of finding oil in Faroese waters. Also, the recent economical implosion in Iceland, independent since 1946, may have dampened current popular interest in Faroese independence.
Don't forget Greenland. Greenland's Hans Island has been in the news recently. The EU seeks to use Denmark's Hans Island location to determine sovereign claims to far northern areas. Those of use into the geopolitics stuff thrive on studying important places like the Danish Hans Island !
The EU certainly has no authority or say in the Hans Ø affair. However the Hans Ø issue will be resolved, it will be resolved between the sovereign states of Denmark and Canada.

Of course, none of this has any relevance to a discussion about trans-atlantic slave trade. Except perhaps to the most die-hard North Atlantic nationalists :)

Post Reply

Return to “Other eras”