Phil Robertson No Longer Suspended

[Andy Partridge]

Bokee Gngr

Andy Partridge

Bokee Gngr

I am speaking of the Irish slaves that were made slaves by those in Viriginia and further north.

When did this happened and how many was there and where specifically.

Early 1800's, more than black slaves and Virginia, northern states including NY, Illinois and New Jersey.

Yeah you're talking about indentured servants.
Not slaves or close. Mostly concentrated in Virginia's area.
I actually have a good North Carolinian friend descended from them. And they weren't mostly Irish, they were mostly English.

Irish Americans came over with the famine later, and then from poverty and political instability later later (my ancestors came over during the Irish civil war around 1920).

And mind you Irish is not the same thing at all as Scots-Irish.

[Andy Partridge]

Bokee Gngr

AliKat1988

Bokee Gngr

Andy Partridge

Bokee Gngr

I am speaking of the Irish slaves that were made slaves by those in Viriginia and further north.

When did this happened and how many was there and where specifically.

Early 1800's, more than black slaves and Virginia, northern states including NY, Illinois and New Jersey.

Are you talking about indentured servants? They might have been treated badly, but it was always clear that they would eventually be free after paying their debts. It is quite different from buying and owning people from Africa with no intention of ever freeing them.

There were groups of Irishmen and women (mostly women) who were hired as Indentured servants but later bought just like blacks and kept as slaves for years. This began in connection to the great Irish Hunger and the Irish having to become slaves to survive.

The Irish Potato Famine happened in the mid-1800's not the early, and no one became a slave because of it. The vast Irish population up in New England is a direct result of the Famine, and they weren't indentured servants.

[Ratttking]

AliKat1988

Bokee Gngr

Andy Partridge

Bokee Gngr

I am speaking of the Irish slaves that were made slaves by those in Viriginia and further north.

When did this happened and how many was there and where specifically.

Early 1800's, more than black slaves and Virginia, northern states including NY, Illinois and New Jersey.

Are you talking about indentured servants? They might have been treated badly, but it was always clear that they would eventually be free after paying their debts. It is quite different from buying and owning people from Africa with no intention of ever freeing them.

What debt is incurred by being a political prisoner, as many Irish slaves were? The English outright sold the Irish when it suited them, and most of the Irish slaves had no hopes of ever gaining freedom.

[Andy Partridge]

Ratttking

AliKat1988

Bokee Gngr

Andy Partridge

Bokee Gngr

I am speaking of the Irish slaves that were made slaves by those in Viriginia and further north.

When did this happened and how many was there and where specifically.

Early 1800's, more than black slaves and Virginia, northern states including NY, Illinois and New Jersey.

Are you talking about indentured servants? They might have been treated badly, but it was always clear that they would eventually be free after paying their debts. It is quite different from buying and owning people from Africa with no intention of ever freeing them.

What debt is incurred by being a political prisoner, as many Irish slaves were? The English outright sold the Irish when it suited them, and most of the Irish slaves had no hopes of ever gaining freedom.

The actual factual slaves that were Irish political prisoners were waaaayyy before the 1800's. Around the English Civil War era when Cromwell pulled his awful s**t. And there weren't that many of them sent to North America to say the least. Comparing this to the Atlantic Slave Trade and metric tons of black slaves and their descendents is absurd.

This is not at all the same thing as the indentured servants (who again were by and large English not Irish) that came later, AND not at all the same thing as the refugees of the famine that came even later than that which are the reason for the majority of Irish-Americans.

[Ratttking]

Andy Partridge

Ratttking

AliKat1988

Bokee Gngr

Andy Partridge

Bokee Gngr

I am speaking of the Irish slaves that were made slaves by those in Viriginia and further north.

When did this happened and how many was there and where specifically.

Early 1800's, more than black slaves and Virginia, northern states including NY, Illinois and New Jersey.

Are you talking about indentured servants? They might have been treated badly, but it was always clear that they would eventually be free after paying their debts. It is quite different from buying and owning people from Africa with no intention of ever freeing them.

What debt is incurred by being a political prisoner, as many Irish slaves were? The English outright sold the Irish when it suited them, and most of the Irish slaves had no hopes of ever gaining freedom.

The actual factual slaves that were Irish political prisoners were waaaayyy before the 1800's. Around the English Civil War era when Cromwell pulled his awful s**t. And there weren't that many of them sent to North America to say the least. Comparing this to the Atlantic Slave Trade and metric tons of black slaves and their descendents is absurd.

This is not at all the same thing as the indentured servants (who again were by and large English not Irish) that came later, AND not at all the same thing as the refugees of the famine that came even later than that which are the reason for the majority of Irish-Americans.

So the thousands of Irish slaves sold by the English after the Irish Rebellion of 1798 don't count? Yeah, they probably died of cruelty before living another 2 years, if they weren't just dumped overboard in transit to the New World to save on food for the crew.

[UF6]

Andy Partridge

Ratttking

AliKat1988

Bokee Gngr

Andy Partridge

Bokee Gngr

I am speaking of the Irish slaves that were made slaves by those in Viriginia and further north.

When did this happened and how many was there and where specifically.

Early 1800's, more than black slaves and Virginia, northern states including NY, Illinois and New Jersey.

Are you talking about indentured servants? They might have been treated badly, but it was always clear that they would eventually be free after paying their debts. It is quite different from buying and owning people from Africa with no intention of ever freeing them.

What debt is incurred by being a political prisoner, as many Irish slaves were? The English outright sold the Irish when it suited them, and most of the Irish slaves had no hopes of ever gaining freedom.

The actual factual slaves that were Irish political prisoners were waaaayyy before the 1800's. Around the English Civil War era when Cromwell pulled his awful s**t. And there weren't that many of them sent to North America to say the least. Comparing this to the Atlantic Slave Trade and metric tons of black slaves and their descendants is absurd.

This is not at all the same thing as the indentured servants (who again were by and large English not Irish) that came later, AND not at all the same thing as the refugees of the famine that came even later than that which are the reason for the majority of Irish-Americans.

That would be 1619 with the Virginia colony for the English.

http://testaae.greenwood.com/doc_print.aspx?fileID=GR7529&chapterID=GR7529-747&path=books/greenwood

[Bokee Gngr]

Andy Partridge

Bokee Gngr

AliKat1988

Bokee Gngr

Andy Partridge

Bokee Gngr

I am speaking of the Irish slaves that were made slaves by those in Viriginia and further north.

When did this happened and how many was there and where specifically.

Early 1800's, more than black slaves and Virginia, northern states including NY, Illinois and New Jersey.

Are you talking about indentured servants? They might have been treated badly, but it was always clear that they would eventually be free after paying their debts. It is quite different from buying and owning people from Africa with no intention of ever freeing them.

There were groups of Irishmen and women (mostly women) who were hired as Indentured servants but later bought just like blacks and kept as slaves for years. This began in connection to the great Irish Hunger and the Irish having to become slaves to survive.

The Irish Potato Famine happened in the mid-1800's not the early, and no one became a slave because of it. The vast Irish population up in New England is a direct result of the Famine, and they weren't indentured servants.

And???

[Chibi Halo]

Okay people I'm going to clear up one major fallacy being tossed about this thread. Number one I'm Illinois born and raised. My grandmother's family came over here to the cities south of Chicago in the mid to later 1800s from IRELAND. They were not nor have they ever been indentured servants or slaves. They owned their own three story home, were one of the wealthiest families in town, had the first outdoor electric lights ever in our city, had enough room to take in relatives and neighbors when in need, and held huge fancy parties. Saying that every Irish person who came over to America was sold into slavery is wrong. Hell, even saying there was slavery in Illinois during the time frame you're talking about is wrong.

Now I'm not saying slavery didn't exist here. It existed in Illinois but that was mainly before we became a state when we were mostly a French territory. The French settlers in the mid to late 1700s dealt mostly in black Haitian slaves under the legal terms of Code Noir from the 1600s. A lot of French settlers in the US used that code to own black African slaves from Haiti. Now in 1787 the Northwest Ordinance forbade slavery in the Northwest Territories, which included Illinois, but territorial laws allowed human bondage to continue in some form or another. Illinois actually had a black code which restricted the movements of free blacks and at the same time we turned a blind eye to the kidnapping of free blacks and their eventual sale to slavers in the Missouri territory and any other state nearby that embraced slavery. Even in the early years of statehood we still tolerated and let slavery to continue within state boarders. It finally took a series of legal battles and the Illinois Constitution of 1848 before slavery was banned here in Illinois.

Around the time of the Great Famine of Ireland, the greater reason many Irish came to America, slavery was over with in Illinois. Any Irish who came to and settled in Chicago and the surrounding cities and towns were not put into indentured servitude or slavery. My Irish ancestors were among those people and it was either due to the Great Famine, probably the more likely reason though we're still researching that history, or the still existing Penal Laws in Ireland that condemned Catholics in Irish for not following the Church of England. So unlike a lot of my unfortunate black friends and relatives (I have two half black relatives) I can not trace my ancestry back to someone who was owned by another human being like a piece of cattle.

[Andy Partridge]

Ratttking

Andy Partridge

Ratttking

AliKat1988

Bokee Gngr

Early 1800's, more than black slaves and Virginia, northern states including NY, Illinois and New Jersey.

Are you talking about indentured servants? They might have been treated badly, but it was always clear that they would eventually be free after paying their debts. It is quite different from buying and owning people from Africa with no intention of ever freeing them.

What debt is incurred by being a political prisoner, as many Irish slaves were? The English outright sold the Irish when it suited them, and most of the Irish slaves had no hopes of ever gaining freedom.

The actual factual slaves that were Irish political prisoners were waaaayyy before the 1800's. Around the English Civil War era when Cromwell pulled his awful s**t. And there weren't that many of them sent to North America to say the least. Comparing this to the Atlantic Slave Trade and metric tons of black slaves and their descendents is absurd.

This is not at all the same thing as the indentured servants (who again were by and large English not Irish) that came later, AND not at all the same thing as the refugees of the famine that came even later than that which are the reason for the majority of Irish-Americans.

So the thousands of Irish slaves sold by the English after the Irish Rebellion of 1798 don't count? Yeah, they probably died of cruelty before living another 2 years, if they weren't just dumped overboard in transit to the New World to save on food for the crew.

I'm getting the feeling that you think the New World = The US.
The British owned much more direct colonies in the Carribbean, Irish slaves being sent to the New World doesn't mean they were largely sent to the US.
What would they even do in the North? Black slaves were sparse up there, and abolition well on it's way around 1798 making it illegal in most of those states.
You don't seriously think this entertains the notion Bokee Whatever is trying to make right?

[Ratttking]

Andy Partridge

Ratttking

Andy Partridge

Ratttking

AliKat1988

Bokee Gngr

Early 1800's, more than black slaves and Virginia, northern states including NY, Illinois and New Jersey.

Are you talking about indentured servants? They might have been treated badly, but it was always clear that they would eventually be free after paying their debts. It is quite different from buying and owning people from Africa with no intention of ever freeing them.

What debt is incurred by being a political prisoner, as many Irish slaves were? The English outright sold the Irish when it suited them, and most of the Irish slaves had no hopes of ever gaining freedom.

The actual factual slaves that were Irish political prisoners were waaaayyy before the 1800's. Around the English Civil War era when Cromwell pulled his awful s**t. And there weren't that many of them sent to North America to say the least. Comparing this to the Atlantic Slave Trade and metric tons of black slaves and their descendents is absurd.

This is not at all the same thing as the indentured servants (who again were by and large English not Irish) that came later, AND not at all the same thing as the refugees of the famine that came even later than that which are the reason for the majority of Irish-Americans.

So the thousands of Irish slaves sold by the English after the Irish Rebellion of 1798 don't count? Yeah, they probably died of cruelty before living another 2 years, if they weren't just dumped overboard in transit to the New World to save on food for the crew.

I'm getting the feeling that you think the New World = The US.
The British owned much more direct colonies in the Carribbean, Irish slaves being sent to the New World doesn't mean they were largely sent to the US. Plus of course there's the matter of the New World also technically covering the main penal colony of the British, Australia.
What would they even do in the North? Black slaves were sparse up there, and abolition well on it's way around 1798 making it illegal in most of those states.
You don't seriously think this entertains the notion Bokee Whatever is trying to make right?

You shouldn't trust in such feelings.
Are you in denial that Irish slaves were sold to the US? rolleyes
What would they do? Menial labor, as slaves have done since antiquity.
International slave trade was prohibited by the US in 1808, but domestic trade was not. Slavery was not abolished in all parts of the North until 1865. NH and NJ were the last Northern states to free their slaves then.

[Andy Partridge]

Ratttking

You shouldn't trust in such feelings.

Then why would you bring up something that proportionally would have largely fallen outside of the areas of debate.

Quote:

Are you in denial that Irish slaves were sold to the US? rolleyes

No, that wasn't the discussion.
The discussion was whether this was a large relevant thing comparable to the Atlantic slave trade, and the northern equivalent to southern black slavery. This was Bokee's argument.

Quote:

What would they do? Menial labor, as slaves have done since antiquity.

Manual labor was a sparse purpose of slavery in North America with the exception of agriculture. While cultural differences influenced Northern aversion to slavery (Puritan and Quaker moralism), it was also certainly a matter of them not having land and cultures based off huge cash crops.
The demand was lacking in the first place. Unlike the tobacco of the Virginia zone, and the cotton and sugar of the Deep South (and plantations of the Caribbean).

This is all pretty moot in the face of the fact that slavery was either illegal or outright shriveled up in the Northern states around the time of that rebellion you're citing.

Quote:

International slave trade was prohibited by the US in 1808, but domestic trade was not.

You're speaking of the federal government, I'm speaking of states. And the Northern states were done and finishing up with slavery already by that point.
Their domestic slavery had always been pretty small to begin with.

Quote:

Slavery was not abolished in all parts of the North until 1865. NH and NJ were the last Northern states to free their slaves then.

New Hampshire had begun gradually killing it off in 1783. Basically ending the sale and freeing children of current slaves. Do you know how many slaves were still slaves in New Hampshire in 1800? I'd love to hear your guess on this.

As for Jersey, that's the one true exception in the North. But even there it was in rapid decline with the dawning of the 1800's. And was abolished outright in 1846.

I'd love to hear what parts of the North you imagine had slavery up until 1865.

[GunsmithKitten]

Bokee Gngr

GunsmithKitten

Bokee Gngr

Actually, Racism was as bad in the North as the south and yes it was still going on for years on. This is a fact. In fact, way up into the 70's it was still an unwritten law of segregation in places in the north. Those suggesting such a thing are those who know the facts (including many northerners who have stories of their own) Also, there were lynchings in the North..of course it is not ok to talk about those... From things my northern family have told me there are even places today that require blacks to be across a river bridge after 10pm...not so in the south now.

You haven't been through much of the South, girl. I know the places where the shitkickers look for any uppity "******" to give them an excuse to start something. I know the particular old roads you don't go to, the pool halls and roadhouses where if you aren't white and southern and local, you don't walk out. I got ******** Klansmen, the real deal, as customers in the store. My own boss talks about how he loved pummeling "uppity niggers" in school.

Yea, the people up north won't talk about the lynchings, down in some parts here in Blue Ridge Mountain country, people BRAG about it!

I have grown up in the south with much of my family being born and raised in the north. I have witnessed racism etc. in all areas and history doesn't disagree with me.

I don't live in the north, so I'm taking the words of others on it for the most part.

But don't you DARE tell me what goes on the south, especially in southwest Virginia, southern West Virginia, east Kentucky, and northeast Tennessee.

[Ratttking]

Andy Partridge

You mean why would I use a term that describes a large slave-importing area of which the US is a part? To be correct, obviously.

Yeah, the discussion was originally about a reality TV star. I find it highly amusing how far it's been wrenched off-topic.

Don't know the difference between menial labor and manual, eh? Or did you once again fail to understand what you read? lol

No idea about the number in 1800, but as long as there was one single slave in NH, there was still slavery there. PA had hundreds of slaves listed in the 1850 census. NJ did not free its remaining slaves until 1865. Although they supposedly abolished slavery in 1846, any slave born before then was considered to be a so-called indentured servant who was bound to his/her master for life.

[sweetharmonylove840]

A&E is a good show Phil should have kept his comments to his self.He doesn't have to like homosexuals, blacks or anyone else. But we are tired of hearing what they say.

[UF6]

Slavery in New England was far different then any of the southern colonies. Many slaves often took up skilled labour and had a higher education to southern slaves due to the demand of skilled labour. Almost all colonial slave ships that were made were made in New England shipwrights by slaves or indentured servants. Newport, Rhode Island was the capital of slave trade in the British colonies by the mid 18th century with most slave ships coming from Rhode Island.

New England itself did triangular trade in exchange for raw goods as cotton, textiles, books, ect for slaves in Africa. During the Pequot War the American Indians that were captured that were male, they all got sent to the Caribbean as they were seen as too dangerous. This was due to the lack of any real commodity to trade due to poor farming soil over the southern colonies in the south.

The stagnation of immigration in the 17th century in the southern colonies promoted a change in the labour force that increased slaves in the colonies due to the lack of labour. New England lost a sixth of its male population in the 1640's due to the War of Three Kingdoms were many joined New Model Army.

Massachusetts had the most server punishment for slaves from the growing fear of the increasing population that often prompted a limit on slaves to the amount of children a slave could have. Massachusetts was one of the few colonies at the time that had codified racial laws on mixed race relationships.

http://archives.lib.state.ma.us/actsResolves/1705/1705acts0010.pdf

http://www.greatmigration.org/new_englands_great_migration.html