Posted on Aug 22, 2017
hidden-history-white-slavery-us-norman-mccreary
4.74K
134
72
15
15
0
As I search for the slave owner of my grandfathers families I usually come across some interesting reads. But this one seems to have more detailed numbers and origins of the world slave trade. Interesting to me anyways.
"The Irish slave trade began when James II sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat (70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves at this time)."
"The Irish slave trade began when James II sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat (70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves at this time)."
hidden-history-white-slavery-us-norman-mccreary
Posted from linkedin.com
Slavery
What Would You Do
England
International Trade
World History
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 15
7
7
0
Very interesting read SFC (Join to see) I'm still reading it now, but I love history and the real facts of what happened in the past and why! Thank you!
(7)
(0)
Sgt Kelli Mays
SPC Kevin Ford - what historians? with what proof? Liberal professors who are trying to erase all history to suit their needs/wants...ha! Show me the proof that it aint so....Oh my GOD!..... I have documents written by my ancestors writing about their lives as "servants." they were called servants...but they were slaves...just because they were referred to as "SERVANTS." I am going to scan parts of this document and put it up here so you can read what my ancestor went through..not slaves my foot! look up the definition of SLAVE/SLAVERY....one who is owned by another and does what they are told...and are oppressed...THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE! COL Mikel J. Burroughs SFC (Join to see) PO3 Donald Murphy
(2)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
Sgt Kelli Mays - That's not how the burden of proof works. The idea that there was Irish slavery is a positive assertion. It is up to the person making the positive assertion to provide evidence for it.
If you want to provide sources with contemporary evidence, knock yourself out. Be forewarned, I've seen a lot of these sites in the past and so far they have all fallen apart when it comes to tracing the claims back to original source material.
For a little history, this story of Irish Slaves got it genesis as far as I've read has not exactly been savory. Neo-nazi sites like Stormfront area big pusher of this idea. That's not to say anyone here got it directly from that source, I'm just letting you know where it seems to have originated.
Certainly endentured servitide isn't a good thing, but it wasn't chattel slavery either. Endentured servants may not have had a lot of rights but they were still people in the eyes of the law. Chattel slaves, such as what the African Americans endured were property in the eyes of the law, had no rights and could be disposed as the owner wished.
As for what historians:
https://medium.com/@Limerick1914/open-letter-to-irish-central-irish-examiner-and-scientific-american-about-their-irish-slaves-3f6cf23b8d7f#.tb66klcft
If you want to provide sources with contemporary evidence, knock yourself out. Be forewarned, I've seen a lot of these sites in the past and so far they have all fallen apart when it comes to tracing the claims back to original source material.
For a little history, this story of Irish Slaves got it genesis as far as I've read has not exactly been savory. Neo-nazi sites like Stormfront area big pusher of this idea. That's not to say anyone here got it directly from that source, I'm just letting you know where it seems to have originated.
Certainly endentured servitide isn't a good thing, but it wasn't chattel slavery either. Endentured servants may not have had a lot of rights but they were still people in the eyes of the law. Chattel slaves, such as what the African Americans endured were property in the eyes of the law, had no rights and could be disposed as the owner wished.
As for what historians:
https://medium.com/@Limerick1914/open-letter-to-irish-central-irish-examiner-and-scientific-american-about-their-irish-slaves-3f6cf23b8d7f#.tb66klcft
We could not find what you were looking for on Medium.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
Slavery, as heinous as it is, was perpetrated upon every race and every continent. Reaching back to antiquity, the vanquished were enslaved. The depths of depravity that mankind can inflict upon others, sadly, knows no bounds.
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
“A wise Woman or Man may not know all the facts or have all the knowledge, nor may they understand everything. Yet they recognize the basic premise that truth is truth and is not false regardless of their lack of knowledge, belief or understanding. Therefor they will endeavor to keep and open mind and to learn. He or She must base their conclusions on what they do know, yet be prepared to change them when they become more enlightened.”
For those that say that slavery can only apply to those of color, I say quite drinking the Kool-Aid. (P.S. - I have said this before.)
For those that say that slavery can only apply to those of color, I say quite drinking the Kool-Aid. (P.S. - I have said this before.)
(5)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
SSG Robert Webster - The Sally Muller case (Miller v. Belmonti (1845)) is an interesting one as it exemplifies the racial bounds of slavery. The people trying to keep her in bondage claimed she was mixed race and not from Europe.
The state Supreme Court decision stated:
"That on the law of slavery in the case of a person visibly appearing to be a white man, or an Indian, the presumption is he is free, and it is necessary for his adversity to show that he is a slave."
In other words only Africans and their descendants could be slaves, if they looked white and couldn't be proved to be mixed race, they were presumptively free too. Why? Because "pure" whites weren't slaves and they didn't want to set up a situation of white slavery.
The state Supreme Court decision stated:
"That on the law of slavery in the case of a person visibly appearing to be a white man, or an Indian, the presumption is he is free, and it is necessary for his adversity to show that he is a slave."
In other words only Africans and their descendants could be slaves, if they looked white and couldn't be proved to be mixed race, they were presumptively free too. Why? Because "pure" whites weren't slaves and they didn't want to set up a situation of white slavery.
(1)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
Sgt Kelli Mays - The difference is killing a servant is murder. Take the case of Elizabeth Browning. I'm not saying that many masters didn't do it anyway and get away with it. I'm saying the legal difference is profound. With chattel slavery there was no "getting away with it" because there was no crime committed in the first place.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Brownrigg
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Brownrigg
Elizabeth Brownrigg - Wikipedia
Elizabeth Brownrigg (1720 – 14 September 1767)[1] was an 18th-century English murderer. Her victim, Mary Clifford, was one of her domestic servants, who died from cumulative injuries and associated infected wounds. As a result of witness testimony and medical evidence at her trial, Brownrigg was hanged at Tyburn on 14 September 1767.
(1)
(0)
SSG Robert Webster
SPC Kevin Ford - You know as well as I do that what is stated and what actually occurred are two entirely different things.
As far as the killing or murder aspect, you may want to study other concurrent legal cases and previous dating back to say 1500. You should note that the majority of such cases were never tried in the cities but at the manor level, do not restrict yourself to the cities, you might be surprised. And yes there is a legal difference in being a servant in a city as opposed to being a servant outside of a city, and is so designated in English law of the time period (and in a number of other jurisdictions as well).
As far as the killing or murder aspect, you may want to study other concurrent legal cases and previous dating back to say 1500. You should note that the majority of such cases were never tried in the cities but at the manor level, do not restrict yourself to the cities, you might be surprised. And yes there is a legal difference in being a servant in a city as opposed to being a servant outside of a city, and is so designated in English law of the time period (and in a number of other jurisdictions as well).
(1)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
SSG Robert Webster - What is stated and what actually occurred? Other than what is stated in historical records any musing about "what actually occurred" is idle speculation without some sort of corroborating evidence.
If we start looking at law prior to the Enlightenment during the Reformation what you are going to find a lack of rights in Western Europe has nothing to do with being Irish, black or an indentured servant but quite frankly just being poor. It's not particularly relevant to this discussion unless we want to examine if every non-monied member of society was actually a slave.
If we start looking at law prior to the Enlightenment during the Reformation what you are going to find a lack of rights in Western Europe has nothing to do with being Irish, black or an indentured servant but quite frankly just being poor. It's not particularly relevant to this discussion unless we want to examine if every non-monied member of society was actually a slave.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google