NF The Slave Trade

[wausaubob]

Hugh Thomas, Simon and Schuster, New York 1997.
The Story of the Atlantic Slave Trade 1440-1870.
The abolition movement which arose then was the consequence, first, of the diffusion of ideas made possible by the pamphlet and the book operating in conditions free of censorship, as was possible in Britain and North America and to a lessor extent in France; and second, the conversion to abolition of one Protestant sect, the Quakers, who had participated in the trade, and so knew exactly what it was they were against. It must be doubtful whether abolition would have carried the day when it did had it not been for the Quaker movement's capacity for organizing first their members and then others. p. 797
Mr. Thomas' overall conclusion is that the slave trade and slavery were not abolished because it did not pay. The moral objections to the physical suffering of the slaves was the consistent reason that both practices were eliminated.

 

[wausaubob]

p. 771
All the same, Senator Stephen Douglas, the Democratic leader, said he thought that 15,000 slaves had been landed that year [1859] in the United States by North Americans. He himself claimed to have seen 300 in a pen at Vicksburg, Mississippi, and also some in Memphis, Tennessee.

 

[wausaubob]

p. 775 With respect to the Civil War, Mr. Thomas cites October 5, 1861 as the date the British Foreign office advised the Admiralty in London that the US cabinet proposed to allow the British to have a right of inspection on US flagged vessels. Further the administration in the United States was not going to allow vessels to outfit for the slave trade from New York.

 

[wausaubob]

There were two British abolition programs, which accelerated after 1850. The conservative program was to eliminate the trans-Atlantic slave trade. The first target was Brazil and the second was Cuba. As this effort progressed, the ability of slave traders to smuggle slaves into Louisiana and Texas would be impaired.
The second program was railroad and industrial investment in the six state area, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Iowa. Under the American apportionment system, growth in these areas would automatically shift power in the American Congress towards paid labor.

 

[USS ALASKA]

There were two British abolition programs, which accelerated after 1850...The second program was railroad and industrial investment in the six state area, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Iowa.

Sir, am I to understand this as an 'official' British Government effort to encourage and / or underwrite investment in US industry in this area? To the detriment of her own subjects?
47

Thanks,
USS ALASKA

 

[wausaubob]

Sir, am I to understand this as an 'official' British Government effort to encourage and / or underwrite investment in US industry in this area? To the detriment of her own subjects?
47

Thanks,
USS ALASKA

No, I could have used more words. The second program was an unofficial program. People like John Bright and Richard Cobden were involved in the Illinois Central Railroad. Cobden even visited Illinois. The effect was the rapid growth of Illinois.
Mr. Thomas does not mention this, because it is not his topic.
What happened is the Illinois went from 7 house districts in 1840, to having 19 by 1874.

 

[wausaubob]

After reading Mr. Thomas' book it is difficult to accept that the market for coerced labor in Brazil, Havana and New Orleans were completely separated. The best return on involuntary immigrants was in sugar production in Cuba. As involuntary imports to Cuba consumed most of the supply, there was less incentive to smuggle slaves in the United States. There were some exceptions such as Charles Lamar and the Wanderer.

 

[wausaubob]

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1059-4329.2004.00084.x
I think that in the absence of the Civil War, the United States would have domesticated the British strategy and it would have begun to attack the transfer of the obligation of servitude across state lines. Someone like @Pat Young might be interested in the article.

 

[USS ALASKA]

No, I could have used more words.

Copy sir, reason I ask is because the Brits, and to a lesser extent western Europe, were investing more and more in US opportunities because the market for high-risk / high-return gambles...er...ventures...in iron / railroads / shipbuilding, other burgeoning industries, ( along with tariffs ), were becoming saturated on that side of the 'pond'. I wouldn't think that there would be any need for government 'encouragement' or any ideological determining factors to get them to invest in what they assessed as a good or savvy business decision.
72

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[wausaubob]

There were British investors in southern railroads, also. However I do not know in the southern railroads were performing.
The main freight would have been cotton, which is very durable. And the southern rural population is dispersed, with a large fraction enslaved.
In the south rivers are in all the right places and they don't freeze during the winter. Its a different situation.
Texas provides a third situation. It is made for railroads and opening up Texas could force the price of cotton downwards.
Texas may have involved risk factors that are difficult to perceive from our vantage point.

 

[wausaubob]

Mr. Thomas spends more time in discussing the increasing embarrassment of the US Navy with respect to the use of US flag to frustrate the British navy's anti slave trade squadrons. Even a few years of Republican administration would have led to severe restrictions of the slave trade, even without the Civil War. Some type of renewal of the 1840's cooperation treaties was probable.

 

[wausaubob]

Although there is some dispute about British motivations for repressing the Atlantic slave trade, the British concerns were mainly moral. Whether this was a concern about the enslaved, or was a concern about the brutalizing impact of the slave trade on British captains and sailors is a fair question.
My conclusion is that the British concluded that if the British empire was nothing more than a modern iteration of the Roman Empire, it would be overthrown and replaced by a military autocrat like Caesar.