Slavery is an African tradition which predates the transatlantic slave trade and which is practiced to this day in Africa whereby African slaves are sold to willing buyers in Asia, particularly in the Islamic countries.

The American slavery era ended years ago and yankees are still flogging the South over it. As always, the yankees have a deep desire to rule over others and to control their fellow men. That may have been what prompted Hammond’s remark about yankees changing the name of slavery without actually surrendering control over the enslaved.

“I was merely commenting on what civilized persons in the 20th century (and now the 21st century) *do* believe.”

So therefore anyone here who has expressed a contrary opinion to Mr. Toddard’s on the question of slavery is uncivilized.

Toddard, this is a simon-pure example of what is called Whiggery. It’s also a profound arrogance.

I also think slavery was wicked. But I’m not prepared to denounce everyone else here with a different opinion as “uncivilized.”

Also, let everyone note that in this post at 187 Toddard falls back on religious authority as his last resort. Do we have a Bible-thumper in disguise here?

The slave trade was early on abolished by the European powers. Even long before then, it was almost exclusively dominated by New England shippers under the English flag. After then, it was exclusively New England’s dominion.

Those who brought the trade to these shores, also bought them.

Because the Triangular Trade was exclusively in the hands of New England, slavery was a peculiarly New England institution.

New England forbade the South from abolishing the trafficking, as the South tried many times, because the whole of the New England economy was dependent on it. New England industry and finance were built exclusively on the returns of slavery, directly through the slave-trade and also through exclusive shipping rights over the agricultural products of the trade, enforced by tariff laws.

In other words, well-connected Northern abolitionists, whom history show were handsomely funded by New England elites beholden to slave-profits, were obviously gratuitous.

This is germane because it is clarifies what Dr. Wilson says:

Of course, Macon, like all the other Jeffersonians, knew without doubt that Northern attacks on slavery were malicious, counter-productive, and driven by lust for power rather than benevolence.

New England was, in practice, hostile to the abolition of its slave-industry. As noted above, it had forbidden the South to abolish it and its whole economy depended upon it.

Indeed, after the war, New England elites made sure that things remained much as before, but with the South plunged into a hundred years of abject poverty. This is malicious. New England treated the South literally as conquered territory and overthrew the Constitution permanently in order to deny the continent its rights as free states. This too is malicious. It is also demonstrably a power-grab.

That Northern abolitionism (as opposed to Southern abolitionism, which was active and healthy) was insincere is clear: the New England elites who bankrolled abolitionism, were utterly dependent upon slavery, and imposed financial grey slavery on the whole continent with the power they had gained from ages of running the Triangular Trade. But I repeat myself.

Thus, Dr. Wilson made no sweeping generalization in the above quote, but made a pithy summary of what every man should know. There was no space nor was it germane to connect the dots as any knowledgeable man can do – “malice and lust for power” – is.

Further, a discussion of the slavery in the South (which the North imposed) is not germane, but a discussion of New England disingenousness and perfidy is.

In contrast to that despotism is the example of Southern republicanism:

Good Americans of the Founding and for several generations thereafter praised the idea of “republican simplicity.” A free government of the people did not need the fancy costumes and ceremonies of European courts. This is why Jefferson walked to his inauguration in a plain suit, delivered his state of the Union message in writing rather than preaching to the assembled congressmen like a monarch on a throne, and made his White House social events as informal as possible.

Your reference at 199 was a reference to PcH at 197. There, in the post which you referenced, he did not seem to be addressing you. As you will note, I ceded that you may well know the thread pursuant to those who had addressed you better than I. Thank you for the actual PcH reference which elicited your response.

I do not believe that I misunderstood. I provided a quick summary narrative in which I included the answer. I believe that the 1860 census reveals that approximately 95% of Africa in the U.S. resided in the South. If I recall correctly, about twelve million Africans came to the New World between the 16th and the 19th centuries. Of those, 645,000 to 650,000 were brought to the territories which would later become the U.S. Since there were about 4 million slaves according to the 1860 census, most slaves by that date had been born here and were not direct results of the triangular slave trade, although their ancestors had obviously been so brought here.

Perhaps I am wrong, but there seems to hid an agenda behind your question. We Southerners have never denied the obvious, i.e. most slaves in 1860 in the union of constitutionally federated republics lived in and worked in the Cotton States and Border States. Those who have denied the obvious are those sections of the country which have buried their own slave-owning past, have denied their profits from the work of slaves and their profits from the slave trade which went well beyond 1866. It seems that when such facts are pointed out, their only retort is to say, “But where did the majority of slaves work in 1860?” It is certainly not a moral argument and not even a good quid pro quo argument.

Or to put it another way, Mr. Peters, in what region of the British colonies in North America was the greatest number of slaves kept?