This is interesting, isn’t it?

An estimation of the costs of Britain’s anti-slavery actions 1809 to 1869or so:

36 thoughts on “This is interesting, isn’t it?”

  1. This BLM thing is to protest too much.

    In other words, I am beginning to suspect its adherents, deep down, think the exact opposite, or believe they know the opposite to be true.

    Obviously, some are just rioting for the grins, tho.

    There is indeed a deal of ruin in a nation.

  2. That’s one of the things about slave reparations, Mr Yan: if we assume some identifiable loss to some identifiable group, can we offset against that loss, for instance, foreign aid?

    Obvs, the answer is ‘no’, because the object of this exercise is power and domination, so whitey must lose no matter what.

    But still, the slave reparations thing isn’t going away, and to those ambivalent about it, those of them neither stupid nor dishonest, it might prove a question worth asking.

  3. British raiders on the high seas were terrorists. What ships of other flags carried was none of their business.

  4. Never mind, Gamecock, at least it indirectly helped you have a civil war to decide that employers are not responsible for the keep of their employees.

  5. Bloke in North Dorset

    That’s now bookmarked as I suspect I’ll be making use of it elsewhere over the next few weeks.

  6. Makes you think the current stutters of racial disharmony hate white people and black people just about equally……

  7. Why would it lead to such a huge cist in reduced exports to West Indies? The population didn’t suddenly die, in fact there were now thousands more with an income (albeit tiny and nin disposable). Also a drop of exports to W Africa – we could speculate that goods were exchanged for slaves, but now they would be sold for specie.

  8. At a time when UK taxation was less than 10% of GDP, that means that some 25% of UK government income was spent on abolishing slavery.

  9. So Much For Subtlety

    Ottokring June 7, 2020 at 9:00 pm – “Why would it lead to such a huge cist in reduced exports to West Indies? The population didn’t suddenly die, in fact there were now thousands more with an income (albeit tiny and nin disposable).”

    The planters were bankrupted. Free labour was nowhere near as efficient as slave. There is even a book on the effects of manumission on the Caribbean economies called Econocide.

  10. A principal cause of the War of 1812 was impressment of sailors of other flags by the Royal Navy. Slavery. Piracy.

    The sanctimony of Britain’s anti-slavery actions is rich.

  11. British raiders on the high seas were terrorists. What ships of other flags carried was none of their business.

    Which is why Britain’s anti-slavery patrols didn’t stop them.

  12. The sanctimony of Britain’s anti-slavery actions is rich.

    Well, quite. One can’t both be a leftist and opposed to slavery. Pick one.

    On the other hand, it is entirely consistent – indeed axiomatic – for a right-winger to be anti-slavery.

  13. @Gamecock

    Yes, some RN ‘piracy’ if target deemed a threat, but less than other country’s Navy, iirc Spain was worst by far

    Septics didn’t do much as insignificant USN

  14. So Much For Subtlety

    Gamecock June 7, 2020 at 11:24 pm – “A principal cause of the War of 1812 was impressment of sailors of other flags by the Royal Navy. Slavery. Piracy.”

    The Denis-disease seems to be catching. Come on Gamecock. You used to be a sensible poster. The British were mainly interested in their own nationals. Their own deserters to be precise. At a time when international law in this area was not clear. They may have taken other people that were not British nationals. But I don’t think it was policy. Slavery? Then all conscription is slavery – TW thinks so but I don’t.

    “The sanctimony of Britain’s anti-slavery actions is rich.”

    Really? Because those boys who landed on D-Day were the same as those pickin’ cotton? Come on. Be sensible.

    wat dabney June 7, 2020 at 11:42 pm – “Which is why Britain’s anti-slavery patrols didn’t stop them.”

    Ummm, well they kind of did. The British were given the right to stop slave trade by various treaties. Countries granted the right of the British to stop and search their (that is, foreign) ships. Except for the Portuguese and Brazilians. The British had the right to stop and search them north of the equator. But the British started to stop them south of it as well. That was not really legal but I don’t think many people are going to complain about it.

    The British also condemned ships that went equipped for slaving which is just as dubious. I am sure that a practised eye could tell a slaver from a non-slaver but if there was a lot of money at stake, could you trust them?

  15. So Much For Subtlety

    Gamecock June 7, 2020 at 6:03 pm – “British raiders on the high seas were terrorists. What ships of other flags carried was none of their business.”

    The US Navy has illegally stopped Chinese ships carrying goods to Iran because they suspected they were carrying chemical weapons pre-cursors. They were not. The US Navy regularly stopped North Korean ships – and occasionally catches one moving military equipment to places like Cuba. The US Navy and Coast Guard regularly stop ships all over Latin America and the Caribbean suspected of smuggling drugs.

    The US Navy are not pirates. Discuss.

  16. There. Found it. Knew I had it somewhere.

    “Sweet Water and Bitter: The Ships That Stopped The Slave Trade” by Sian Rees.

    It deals extensively with the legal frustrations of not being able to interdict foreign ships, requiring a commensurate effort by the Foreign Office to attempt to negotiate agreements with multiple foreign powers.

    As each treaty came into force, loopholes were discovered and exploited, and interested lawyers subverted the work of seamen who fought and died to bring slave-captains to court: detained ships were released under technicalities, rescued slaves were ordered re-embarked, and naval officers were sued for damages…

    So, not piracy then.

    Indeed, such were the continued legal issues around interdiction that a parallel initiative was instigated to use ‘force, bribery and negotiation’ to shut down the slavery operations within West Coast Africa itself. Wicked colonialism perhaps, forcing Africans to stop enslaving and selling other Africans.

  17. Gamecock

    Britain’s mpressment was limited to British sailors who had deserted and run to American ships and the practice had already stopped before the war started.

  18. “Britain’s mpressment was limited to British sailors who had deserted and run to American ships”

    Fantasy. Though I’m amused that Brits could pick the deserters from the rest of the American crews. Was it their teeth?

    Forcing ships of other flags to heave to and then board them and take sailors is piracy.

    ‘In The Evil Necessity, Denver Brunsman describes in vivid detail the experience of impressment for Atlantic seafarers and their families. Brunsman reveals how forced service robbed approximately 250,000 mariners of their livelihoods, and, not infrequently, their lives, while also devastating Atlantic seaport communities and the loved ones who were left behind. Press gangs, consisting of a navy officer backed by sailors and occasionally local toughs, often used violence or the threat of violence to supply the skilled manpower necessary to establish and maintain British naval supremacy.’ – https://www.upress.virginia.edu/title/3575

    ‘During the latter part of the eighteenth century, as England slugged its way through prolonged wars with France, the need for able seamen grew dramatically. During the peacetime that preceded the Napoleonic Wars, the Royal Navy had about 10,000 men; by the War of 1812, the number had risen to 140,000. The overwhelming majority of these men came from the press.’ – https://www.marinersmuseum.org/sites/micro/usnavy/08/08a.htm

    ‘Lord Nelson estimated that between 1793 and 1801 perhaps as many as 40,000 men deserted the navy.’ – ibid

    Escaped slaves were ‘deserters.’

    “and the practice had already stopped before the war started.”

    No, it hadn’t. It ended with the end of the war, but principally because Napoleon had been defeated.

    British press gangs kidnapped people off the street and put them in the
    Navy. The second largest group of slave labor in the world was British sailors.

  19. ‘You used to be a sensible poster.’

    Like Dennis, I have always been this way. You just agreed with me then.

  20. “The US Navy has illegally stopped Chinese ships carrying goods to Iran because they suspected they were carrying chemical weapons pre-cursors.”

    Whataboutery.

  21. @SMFS June 8, 2020 at 12:52 am
    +1
    I note Gamecock ignored

    Past is past, RN then as “World’s Cops” mostly did what seemed justified or good, as does USN now. Now, RN regularly stops, searches and confiscates ships worldwide if suspected smuggling, terrorism. We’re pirates too I guess. Legal? I’ve no idea, but guess some Int Law permits

    @wat dabney
    +1

  22. So Much For Subtlety

    Gamecock June 8, 2020 at 10:07 am – “Sorry, guys, WE get to write the history book on that war.”

    It is a rare war that has a former US President write on it. The good Roosevelt – the good Teddy come to that – wrote a rather unusual account of this war. I believe it is free on Gutenberg. C.S. Forester spends some time politely disagreeing with him in his book on the war.

    Gamecock June 8, 2020 at 6:51 pm – “Though I’m amused that Brits could pick the deserters from the rest of the American crews. Was it their teeth?”

    I believe even back then people from the US had accents.

    Gamecock June 8, 2020 at 10:45 pm – “Like Dennis, I have always been this way. You just agreed with me then.”

    No. I have neither always agreed with you or with Dennis. But there are degrees of wrongness.

    Gamecock June 8, 2020 at 10:48 pm – “Whataboutery.”

    Indeed. But then again no. It is something else, something more. It is a warning about double standards. If you think the Royal Navy were pirates, then fine. We can agree on that. But the same standard means that the US Navy are pirates.

    If Howard Zinn would endorse a view I usually think it is wrong.

  23. “But the same standard means that the US Navy are pirates.”

    Which has FA to do with this thread.

  24. So Much For Subtlety

    Gamecock June 8, 2020 at 11:53 pm – “Which has FA to do with this thread.”

    That may be true. But I oppose Howard Zinn wherever I see him. It is like a public duty.

  25. “Though I’m amused that Brits could pick sailors who had deserted and run to American ships. Was it their teeth?”

    Probably theirlack of ignorance historical, geographic etc.

    “No it hadn’t“

    Yes it had.

    The British made their greatest concession to the United States in June 1812. On 16 June 1812, two days before the United States declaration of war

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_in_Council_(1807)

    The Orders in Council were rescinded in June 1812 as no longer being necessary to Royal manpower needs, before the fighting in America had really gotten underway. Furthermore, the terms of the Treaty of Ghent, which ended the war, were Status Quo Ante Bellum. In other words everything went back to exactly how it was before the war, with no concessions. The British never gave up the right to reinstate their right to search American ships at any time. The Americans achieved nothing, but had half their frigates captured and their economy brought to a halt by a British naval blockade. On top of that, America lost twice as many personnel killed in action as the British, or four and a half times as many dead, all causes. Britain achieved it’s objective, America achieved neither of it’s objectives, and the Americans paid a higher price in blood and treasure. Sounds like a clear-cut British victory to me.

  26. Gamecock

    The Americans burnt York. By burning the White House, (when AndrewJackson fled) the British were demonstrating, “Look actions have consequences. You burn our towns, we burn what we please in your capital city.”

    The British were demonstrating just as much as by what they didn’t burn as what they did. The American looted and burnt the whole town of York, individual residences and all. The British only burned American government buildings, and enforced strict discipline to protect private property. The residents of Washington D.C. were surprised and impressed that there was very little crime committed by British troops, and what little there was resulted in immediate hangings of British soldiers. This was Britain’s way of saying “Look. This is how a civilized nation and civilized army behave. We make war with governments, not people. We don’t tolerate our soldiers behaving like bandits.”

    This of course brought into question the whole American war effort, and what it was really about. Why were we fighting this nation, who were significantly more powerful than us, but still exercised restraint? Who were the villains here?

    British restraint also conveyed another lesson, which nets to the final point. The British were saying, “Look we could hurt you a lot worse if we fancied to do so. Maybe it’s time to stop before we lose all patience and become so inclined?”

    The third reason was the irrationality of the whole American venture. The British were really struggling with how to handle what seemed to be an utterly insane policy the American part. Our official pretext for the war was the Orders in Council, with Britain stopping American ships to look for and impress British subjects into Royal Navy service. However the British had rescinded the Orders in Council on 16 June 1812, two days before the American declaration of war. Still the Americans attacked. Now it was two years later and the Americans were still fighting. The American government was really after Canada, but wouldn’t admit to it,so how was one to negotiate? How do you negotiate with someone who demands tha you stop doing sow,thing you aren’t doing?

    Of course, the British knew the US wanted Canada, but that was insane too. The a United States of America was at that time a rather insignificant and backward nation whose entire navy in 1812 consisted of 20 vessels, nine heavier than a large frigate, and only 3 of those, 3 lesser frigates, and the rest less than that.

    Two years in, with the Royal Navy firmly in control of the American coastline, the US economy wilting rapidly, half its Navy captured or sunk, the rest doing all they could to stay out of British reach, they were still fighting. London was at a loss how to treat such irrationality, so they settled on simply trying to find ways to inflict increasing amount of pain and demonstrate British power until the Americans finally awoke from their delusional state. Burning the capital was simply one more way to do that, one more chance to say “Are you quite done yet?”

    While Madison had finally agreed to start negotiating in January, it hasn’t often anywhere principally because of American fixation on expansion into native lands to the west. As Lord Bathurst put it: “Till I came here I had no idea of the fixed determination which there is in the heart of every American to extirpate the Indians and appropriate their territory.”

  27. During the Vietnam war the US government forced people to join the military. The largest group of slave labour in the World were conscripted American soldiers.

  28. Gamecock

    During the Vietnam war the US government implemented the draft and forced people to join the military. The largest group of slave labour in the World were conscripted American soldiers.

  29. “Sounds like a clear-cut British victory to me.”

    Damn, John, I was feeling pretty good til I read all that. At least we kicked your heiny at New Orleans. (Okay, okay, I know that was actually after the war.)

    American histories say the decisive American victory at Plattsburg Bay led to British acceptance of a treaty. John P’s narrative sounds like “Why are we having this war in the first place?”

    Taking Canada was a political goal. The people backed the war because they thought Britain thought of us as a wayward colony. Dissing our sovereignty. Harassing our ships at sea. Blocking trade with France and other European countries.

    So you Brits were taught history from a British perspective, while American schools teach from an American view point.

    “During the Vietnam war”

    More whataboutery.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *