679
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 48:
Line 48: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:American History Lecture One (view source)
Revision as of 19:00, April 21, 2007
, 19:00, April 21, 2007You asked
: Support, please? By the way, I note how you slipped in "dealt in slaves." No one denied that there was a slave trade.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:58, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
: Support, please? By the way, I note how you slipped in "dealt in slaves." No one denied that there was a slave trade.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:58, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
::Actually, I was trying to be fair. While Massachusetts dealt in slaves, mostly in Indian slaves and slaves from the West Indies, they were soon overtaken in that trade by Rhode Island. I do find myself musing, however, about the presumed moral superiority of a colony that you claim "did not allow slavery" (In fact, it did for well over a century) not being averse to making a few bucks off it.
::On to the cites:
::From THE PILGRIM READER,George Willison, Doubleday and Company 1953
::"For years later, in 1641, the Bay formally recognized the institution of slavery in its CODE OF FUNDAMENTALS OR BODY OF LIBERTIES, anticipating Virginia by many years in legally instituting the "peculiar institution" being the first of the English colonies to do so.
::There were Indian and Negro slaves in the Plymouth colony as early as 1646, when the authorities threatened to sell Indians or exchange them for Negroes as punishment for offenses..In 1706, Cotton Mather noted in his diary, "Received a singular blessing in the gift of a likely slave, which was a smile of heaven on this family."...slaves continued to be sold in the Boston market as late as 1788, when the traffic was forbidden."
::In short, Massachussets not only allowed slavery -- they were the first colony to institute it. Your later claim about the "Virginia institution of slavery" "spreading to the colonies of Maryland, Carolina" etc., as if Virginia had been responsible for introducing that "peculiar institution" is misleading.
::From NARRATIVES OF THE WITCHCRAFT CASES (1648-1706), edited by George Lincoln Burr, Charles Scribner Sons, 1914 Note:
::Notes: "The Rev. Samuel Parris (1653-1720)..had lived for a time in Barbadoes whence he had brought back with him THE TWO SLAVES, John and Tituba...Sara Good, who with Sarah Osburn and Parris's SLAVE-WOMAN TITUBA..."(Emphasis added)
::"...where an Indian Man attended us, he shewed several Scars, tht seemed as if they had been long there, and shewed them as done by Witchcraft, and acquainted us that is Wife WHO ALSO WAS A SLAVE (emphasis added) was imprisoned for Witchcraft..."