American slavery / ending timeline

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,537
Location
Midwest
#1
The legal ends of the "peculiar institution" happened by fits and starts from 1807 to 1888:

England made it illegal to engage in the slave trade throughout the British colonies (including the American ones) in March of 1807, with the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act. England abolished slavery in June of 1833, with the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 (which excepted the territories of The East India Company, an exception not repealed until 1843).

The United States made it illegal to import new slaves from any foreign place (including Africa) in March of 1807, with the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves, which took effect in January of 1808. The United States abolished slavery in December 1865, with the passing of the 13th Amendment.

Cuba, a colony of Spain, made it illegal to import new slaves in 1822 per a treaty between Spain and England. Slavery in Cuba was abolished in October of 1886, by royal decree.

Brazil, a Portugese colony until 1822, which had imported more African slaves than any other country in the Americas, ordered the liberation of all slaves entering the country after November of 1831, via legislation. But Brazil didn't fully abolish slavery until May of 1888, with The Golden Law.
 
Last edited:

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Joined
Nov 27, 2016
Messages
831
#3
The legal ends of the "curious institution" happened by fits and starts from 1807 to 1888:

England made it illegal to engage in the slave trade throughout the British colonies (including the American ones) in March of 1807, with the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act. England abolished slavery in June of 1833, with the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 (which excepted the territories of The East India Company, an exception not repealed until 1843).

The United States made it illegal to import new slaves from any foreign place (including Africa) in March of 1807, with the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves, which took effect in January of 1808. The United States abolished slavery in December 1865, with the passing of the 13th Amendment.

Cuba, a colony of Spain, made it illegal to import new slaves in 1822 per a treaty between Spain and England. Slavery in Cuba was abolished in October of 1886, by royal decree.

Brazil, a Portugese colony until 1822, which had imported more African slaves than any other country in the Americas, ordered the liberation of all slaves entering the country after November of 1831, via legislation. But Brazil didn't fully abolish slavery until May of 1888, with The Golden Law.
Nice timeline. So in terms of the slave trade how far back do you think it went?? Long before the United States.
 

major bill

Colonel
Forum Host
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
15,387
#5
The first black slaves, that I am aware of, in what we now call the United States date back to 1526 in North Carolina. Someone else may know of earlier black slaves in what is now the United States. Black slaves were being brought to the Americas in the late 1400s but none to what is now the United States.
 

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,537
Location
Midwest
#6
Nice timeline. So in terms of the slave trade how far back do you think it went?? Long before the United States.
In terms of African slavery in the U.S. (actually called the "peculiar institution" as someone here helped me to correct) several decades as a quantity contract enterprise.

But American slavery overall, egads! Native Americans had been trading captured braves, squaws and children centuries before Euro settlement and the first African imports. The first French in the Americas took to the practice readily and were trading slaves with native tribes or between themselves perhaps a century or two before Americans even began to identify themselves as Americans, let alone before any thoughts of independence from Britain. The Spaniards had been enslaving and trading native Americans (including Carribeans) perhaps a century or two before US independence as well.

Also to keep in mind, that in pre-Euro times slavery in the Americas (or its equivelents indentured servants / bondsmen etc) could as well be a private matter, not following a national policy and not beholding to any public regulation or record-keeping beyond the settled areas of sea coasts. There were instances of private slave trading.

All that said, African Slavery in the U.S. under the "peculiar institution" became one of the harshest of slave usuries in the Americas.
 
Last edited:

Dedej

Retired User
Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
1,111
#8
The first black slaves, that I am aware of, in what we now call the United States date back to 1526 in North Carolina. Someone else may know of earlier black slaves in what is now the United States. Black slaves were being brought to the Americas in the late 1400s but none to what is now the United States.
From my knowledge, the earliest I know of was 1526 - in which 40 Africans were brought to the Americas by Spanish explorers - those same Africans escaped - in the first ever slave revolt. Not sure what happened to them - but I am guessing they stayed in that area - which wasn't yet called the Carolinas.

The Revolt was : San Miguel de Gualdape Slave Rebellion of 1526

The first group of African Americans to set foot on what is now the United States were brought by Ayllón to erect the settlement. The employment of African slaves in the 1526 colony is the first instance of African slave labor within the present territory of the United States. Upon political disputes within the settlers, there was an uprising among the slaves, who fled to the interior and presumably settled with the native American people. This incident is the first documented slave rebellion in North America.

Here is PBS's Timeline: http://www.pbs.org/thisfarbyfaith/timeline/p_1.html
 

Dedej

Retired User
Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
1,111
#9
In terms of African slavery in the U.S. (actually called the "peculiar institution" as someone here helped me to correct) several decades as a quantity contract enterprise.

But American slavery overall, egads! Native Americans had been trading captured braves, squaws and children centuries before Euro settlement and the first African imports. The first French in the Americas took to the practice readily and were trading slaves with native tribes or between themselves perhaps a century or two before Americans even began to identify themselves as Americans, let alone before any thoughts of independence from Britain. The Spaniards had been enslaving and trading native Americans (including Carribeans) perhaps a century or two before US independence as well.

Also to keep in mind, that in pre-Euro times slavery in the Americas (or its equivelents indentured servants / bondsmen etc) could as well be a private matter, not following a national policy and not beholding to any public regulation or record-keeping beyond the settled areas of sea coasts. There were instances of private slave trading.

All that said, African Slavery in the U.S. under the "peculiar institution" became one of the harshest of slave usuries in the Americas.
Natives were capturing other Natives - aka Enemies/other tribes with no connection to them - and most of the time selling them just like Africans did in different African countries.

Selling their enemies, other tribes - they had no connection to the Spanish and Whites for goods, weapons, etc. Like Africans - Natives are tribal and skincolor or "race" means nothing to them - it's about tribe affiliation. If you are not of ones' tribe you are not seen as someone to care about or like them. Being "Black" or having "Black" skin or I guess "Brown" skin - means nothing. Skin color is mute - even today.

Natives were also enslaved by Europeans.

In the North: In 1637, a group of Pequot Indians, men and boys, having risen up against English colonists in Connecticut and been defeated, were sold to plantations in the West Indies in exchange for African slaves, allowing the colonists to remove a resistant element from their midst. (The tribe’s women were pressed into service in white homes in New England, where domestic workers were sorely lacking.)

How common was it for Indians to be enslaved by Euro-Americans?
Counting can be difficult, because many instances of Native enslavement in the Colonial period were illegal or ad hoc and left no paper trail. But historians have tried. A few of their estimates: Thousands of Indians were enslaved in Colonial New England, according to Margaret Ellen Newell. Alan Gallay writes that between 1670 and 1715, more Indians were exported into slavery through Charles Town (now Charleston, South Carolina) than Africans were imported. Brett Rushforth recently attempted a tally of the total numbers of enslaved, and he told me that he thinks 2 million to 4 million indigenous people in the Americas, North and South, may have been enslaved over the centuries that the practice prevailed—a much larger number than had previously been thought. “It’s not on the level of the African slave trade,” which brought 10 million people to the Americas, but the earliest history of the European colonies in the Americas is marked by Native bondage. “If you go up to about 1680 or 1690 there still, by that period, had been more enslaved Indians than enslaved Africans in the Americas.”

Source: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ncover_a_chilling_chapter_in_u_s_history.html

Brethren by Nature: New England Indians, Colonists, and the Origins of American Slavery 1st Edition
 

major bill

Colonel
Forum Host
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
15,387
#10
What? I thought slaves were happy and loved their owners. The above statement must be a mistake. With slaves loving slavery so very much, perhaps the San Miguel de Gualdape Slave Rebellion of 1526 was about the local Native Americans stealing the loyal Spanish slaves.
 

major bill

Colonel
Forum Host
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
15,387
#11
Natives were capturing other Natives - aka Enemies/other tribes with no connection to them - and most of the time selling them just like Africans did in different African countries.

Selling their enemies, other tribes - they had no connection to the Spanish and Whites for goods, weapons, etc. Like Africans - Natives are tribal and skincolor or "race" means nothing to them - it's about tribe affiliation. If you are not of ones' tribe you are not seen as someone to care about or like them. Being "Black" or having "Black" skin or I guess "Brown" skin - means nothing. Skin color is mute - even today.

Natives were also enslaved by Europeans.

In the North: In 1637, a group of Pequot Indians, men and boys, having risen up against English colonists in Connecticut and been defeated, were sold to plantations in the West Indies in exchange for African slaves, allowing the colonists to remove a resistant element from their midst. (The tribe’s women were pressed into service in white homes in New England, where domestic workers were sorely lacking.)

How common was it for Indians to be enslaved by Euro-Americans?
Counting can be difficult, because many instances of Native enslavement in the Colonial period were illegal or ad hoc and left no paper trail. But historians have tried. A few of their estimates: Thousands of Indians were enslaved in Colonial New England, according to Margaret Ellen Newell. Alan Gallay writes that between 1670 and 1715, more Indians were exported into slavery through Charles Town (now Charleston, South Carolina) than Africans were imported. Brett Rushforth recently attempted a tally of the total numbers of enslaved, and he told me that he thinks 2 million to 4 million indigenous people in the Americas, North and South, may have been enslaved over the centuries that the practice prevailed—a much larger number than had previously been thought. “It’s not on the level of the African slave trade,” which brought 10 million people to the Americas, but the earliest history of the European colonies in the Americas is marked by Native bondage. “If you go up to about 1680 or 1690 there still, by that period, had been more enslaved Indians than enslaved Africans in the Americas.”

Source: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ncover_a_chilling_chapter_in_u_s_history.html

Brethren by Nature: New England Indians, Colonists, and the Origins of American Slavery 1st Edition
I believed that most Americans knew that Indians enslaved each other. I also believes that most American knew that almost as some as Europeans arrived here the were enslaving the native people.
 

Dedej

Retired User
Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
1,111
#12
What? I thought slaves were happy and loved their owners. The above statement must be a mistake. With slaves loving slavery so very much, perhaps the San Miguel de Gualdape Slave Rebellion of 1526 was about the local Native Americans stealing the loyal Spanish slaves.
Sadly, as you know the "happy" slave is a narrative that has been pushed in our history books, textbooks, media and publishing for a very long time. It's simply untrue - just like the myth of the enslaved not fighting back and not resisting enslavement.

I have to say I thought that too, until I started researching myself, my education at a HBCU and many threads on CWT.
 
Last edited:

Dedej

Retired User
Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
1,111
#13
I believed that most Americans knew that Indians enslaved each other. I also believes that most American knew that almost as some as Europeans arrived here the were enslaving the native people.
Yeah, it wasn't the slavery we know as slavery in America though between Natives. It was very similar to African Slavery, except for the alleged Native cannibalism - which I don't really believe.

Many Native American tribes practiced some form of slavery before the European introduction of African slavery into North America.[1]

Native American groups often enslaved war captives whom they primarily used for small-scale labor.[1] Others however, were used in ritual sacrifice,[1] usually involving torture as part of religious rites, and these sometimes involved ritual cannibalism.[2]

There is little evidence that the slaveholders considered the slaves as racially inferior; they came from other Native American tribes and were casualties of war.[1] Native Americans did not buy and sell captives in the pre-colonial era, although they sometimes exchanged enslaved individuals with other tribes in peace gestures or in exchange for redeeming their own members.[1]Most of these so-called Native American slaves tended to live on the fringes of Native American society and were slowly integrated into the tribe.[1] The word "slave" may not accurately apply to such captive people,[1] for all the Iroquoian peoples (not just the Iroquois tribes) adopted captives, but for religious reasons, there was a process, procedures and many seasons when such adoptions were delayed until the proper spiritual times. Such delayed adoptees, were held to add to the spiritual power of the clan group, and while performing forced labor as part of their ritual rebirth, were actually the antithesis of slaves in the white mans world.

In many cases, new tribes adopted captives to replace warriors killed during a raid.[1] Warrior captives were sometimes made to undergo ritual mutilation or torture that could end in death as part of a spiritual grief ritual for relatives slain in battle.[1] Adoptees, ironically were expected to fill the economic, military and familial roles of the departed loved one; to fit societal shoes of the dead relative and maintain the spirit power of the tribe.

Some Native Americans would cut off one foot of captives to keep them from running away. Others allowed enslaved male captives to marry the widows of slain husbands.[1] The Creek, who engaged in this practice and had a matrilineal system, treated children born of slaves and Creek women as full members of their mothers' clans and of the tribe, as property and hereditary leadership passed through the maternal line. The children did not have slave status.[1] Cultural practices of the Iroquoian peoples, also rooted in a matrilineal system with men and women having equal value, any child would have the status determined by the womans clan. More typically, tribes took women and children captives for adoption, as they tended to adapt more easily into new ways.

Several tribes held captives as hostages for payment.[1] Various tribes also practiced debt slavery or imposed slavery on tribal members who had committed crimes; full tribal status would be restored as the enslaved worked off their obligations to the tribal society.[1] Other slave-owning tribes of North America included Comanche of Texas, the Creek of Georgia; the fishing societies, such as the Yurok, who lived in Northern California; the Pawnee, and the Klamath.[3]

When the Europeans made contact with the Native Americans, they began to participate in the slave trade.[4] Native Americans, in their initial encounters with the Europeans, attempted to use their captives from enemy tribes as a “method of playing one tribe against another” in an unsuccessful game of divide and conquer.[4]

The Haida and Tlingit who lived along southeast Alaska's coast were traditionally known as fierce warriors and slave-traders, raiding as far as California.[5][better source needed][6] In their society, slavery was hereditary after slaves were taken as prisoners of war.[5][6] Among some Pacific Northwest tribes, as many as one-fourth of the population were slaves.[5][6]
 

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,537
Location
Midwest
#14
Can you explain? I am trying to understand the reason for this thread. Thanks :smile:
The reason for the thread is merely to remind us of the actual (successive) dates on which the African slave trade legally ended in the Americas, and the actual (successive) dates that slavery itself legally ended in the Americas.

As an aside, it was pointed out that illegal slave trading and slavery has not ended in the Americas, still practiced to this day. In other words illegal slave traders or slavers have never recognized or obeyed any of those legal proclamations, including before and during the historical heyday of American slavery.
 
Last edited:

Dedej

Retired User
Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
1,111
#15
Understood. But, "Chattel Slavery " (legal or illegal) is not practiced today -- thank God.

chat·tel –noun
  • 1. Law: A movable article of personal property.
  • 2. Any article of tangible property other than land, buildings, and other things annexed to land.
  • 3. A slave -- Slaves were actual property who could be bought, sold, traded or inherited.

If it is, in terms of "Chattel Slavery" - the kind that was practiced in the North and in the Antebellum South - the kind the Civil War was fought over - does it still exist in the Americas?

I am Black and a descendant of the slaves - and I haven't heard about it.

Illegal slavery can be anywhere - because it's illegal.

I don't know anywhere in the World - Countries and Continents - including the Continent of Africa were slavery is "legal" in terms of law. If you do, can you share?
 
Last edited:

major bill

Colonel
Forum Host
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
15,387
#16
Legal slavery did hang on until the 1970s in some nations. The last Christian nation outlawed slavery in 1942. So legal slavery in some areas did exist during my life time. By 1950s most of the world had somehow came to the conclusion that slavery was morally wrong but did not want to abruptly end slavery in the places it still existed.
 

Dedej

Retired User
Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
1,111
#17
Legal slavery did hang on until the 1970s in some nations. The last Christian nation outlawed slavery in 1942. So legal slavery in some areas did exist during my life time. By 1950s most of the world had somehow came to the conclusion that slavery was morally wrong but did not want to abruptly end slavery in the places it still existed.
Understandable. :smile:

But, I am not a fan of "slavery is everywhere" and "slavery still exist today" conversations. Sure, it does. It will always exist in some form - somewhere. But, though I care, bringing it up here is kinda mute for me.

The type of slavery practiced during the Civil War and in America was Chattel Slavery. So, I really never understand the point in bringing other forms up here.

If one chooses to do so, I would implore that they would do due diligence and list the types, differences, locations, after affects and other pertinent factors. Compare and contrast Chattel Slavery to other forms and explain it's importance or reasoning in the context of the Civil War or Slavery in America.

That is what this forum is built around. No Chattel slavery - no Civil War.
 

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,537
Location
Midwest
#18
Understood. But, "Chattel Slavery " (legal or illegal) is not practiced today -- thank God...in terms of "Chattel Slavery" - the kind that was practiced in the North and in the Antebellum South - the kind the Civil War was fought over - does it still exist in the Americas? I am Black and a descendant of the slaves - and I haven't heard about it...
To the 13-year old black girl being held as a sex slave or unpaid laborer (not uncommon in the Americas or even the US specifically) it makes zero difference what the word chattel means. I admit though that a discussion about the modern slavery problem is not particularly appropriate on a CW forum.

I am not a fan of "slavery is everywhere" and "slavery still exist today" conversations
Though this is a real problem affecting real people right at this moment, there's no doubt avoidance and denial are more comfortable than embracing and spreading the news. For me contributing to an anti-slavery fund is a good middle ground for being able to sleep at night.
 
Last edited:

Dedej

Retired User
Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
1,111
#19
To the 13-year old black girl being held as a sex slave or unpaid laborer (not uncommon in the Americas or even the US specifically) it makes zero difference what the word chattel means. I admit though that a discussion about the modern slavery problem is not particularly appropriate on a CW forum.
I understand. It's terrible. But, that is not Chattel Slavery nor the type of slavery that was practice during America Slavery or the CW and can't be compared.

Thanks.
 

diane

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
20,372
Location
State of Jefferson
#20
The matter of Indian slavery is complicated. One has to separate the enslavement of Native populations by conquest, their adoption of another form of slavery - as might be seen among the so-called Civilized Tribes, and the original concept of tribal people. There was no real difference with their slavery than anyone else - they were complying with laws regulating it as well - with the exception that they were more likely to recognize their children by the slaves, and these children might well be inheriting everything the old man had. This was one of the major conflicts in the South - American law said that couldn't be done and non-American laws from the Indian nations said otherwise. Removal forced changes for those very few bands and remnants who remained. Still, a color based slavery was easily done. One could simply claim an Indian and nobody asked about that Indian's status as free or not. Many times Indians had their race noted as colored or Negro so that they could be enslaved. About a quarter of the slaves in the South were actually Indians.

I can't speak for eastern people but can a little for the west coast people. Slavery was a status issue among the Pacific Coast tribes. If you could capture people you would gain status. These people could be destroyed along with the rest of your wealth at a potlatch. That was the idea of getting rich - to get rid of it and gain status by doing so. The Haida, by the way, were feared along the coast - they would take on anybody and even sank some Spanish and English ships...from their canoes! They did not venture too far into the interior, however, because there were mountains and people who knew how to fight in them. (In some cases they were meaner than the Haida and that's going a ways...!)

Capturing women and children was very important in raids - in fact, that was mostly what a raid was about. They seldom took food and other goods but the children in particular were valuable. It was not about slavery as these kids would usually be adopted right away, and a captured woman might become very high ranked. For instance, my ggggrandmother was captured by the Modocs - they dearly loved raiding Shasta villages - at about 5 with a few cousins. They were sold to the Klamaths, who dickered with the Northwest tribes at the Dalles, an important trading place where various tribes, mountain men, soldiers and who knows who all would gather. A Rogue River headman bought them and eventually they married into the tribe. They were an investment that paid good dividends in the real treasure - children. By the marriage, and the price that was paid, there was a large amount of status received and the next generation was paid for with a higher bride price. (That is something VERY misunderstood but probably not pertinent here.)

In California, the Spanish were positively evil in what they did to the tribes in the south. The mission system was nothing less than slavery, convert or die, and all the brutality that would be expected of people like the conquistadors (and most of their religious minions were more self-righteous than the religious tyrants in New England). They were greedy, mean and ignorant - which is why they could only be soldiers of fortune. After the tribes were busted, then the ranchos and hacienda system took over. There's something very strange about someone tromping over somebody else's land acting like they're the only person who has ever 'discovered' anything like bays, lakes, civilizations and all else, and then feeling they have the right to appropriate everything including the people for personal gain. That's what sets aside the type of slavery found in the New World. It was unique to this hemisphere. If the Indian population kicked the bucket, the African population could replace them. One wonders what would have been Africa if so many of her people were not taken away.

The Mexicans abolished slavery and made the tribes Mexican citizens - they mostly left everybody alone. After the Mexican War, the US had other plans and in 1850 (think that's the date for the first one) California passed the Indian Welfare Act, which was slavery plain and simple. Any white could pick up any Indian and put them to work for their own welfare, or acquire orphans for the same purpose - even if you had to make them orphans. California likes to tout the fact that they were admitted to the Union as a 'free state'...but I beg to differ when the same year they enacted this law. I know, I know...technicalities, technicalities!
 
Last edited:



Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top