|
Nenonen posted:it's the portrait of a hook-nosed, hunchbacked, tiny-limbed man who has died of terrible wounds to his head King Richard the Third?
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 12:21 |
|
|
Tias posted:Says an American? You bought them off us Other than the fact I have been there the only other reason I know the US bought the Virgin Islands (well our part) from the Danish is because a Victoria event always fired asking if I wanted to buy them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:They were 'apprenticed', technically. Was supposed to be 6 years; there were enough protests that that ended after 4. If anyone wants to learn more about this, the askhistorians_podcast has a pretty good summary of how white planters in the British Caribbean tried to pull of the same sharecropper+Jim Crow system that the US South would establish after the end of US slavery, and why they weren't as successful in doing so. Basically, the British Caribbean had more land that was farmable, but not profitable for plantations, compared to most of the Southern US. Also, the colonial government did not get along with the former planter elite, unlike the southern state governments of the early 20th century. What is it with racially-charged slavery where the only response to full abolition is to try to create racial slavery 2.0?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
golden bubble posted:
Haters gon hate
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
golden bubble posted:
Cheap labor unprotected by laws presents a maaaaaasive economic incentive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
golden bubble posted:If anyone wants to learn more about this, the askhistorians_podcast has a pretty good summary of how white planters in the British Caribbean tried to pull of the same sharecropper+Jim Crow system that the US South would establish after the end of US slavery, and why they weren't as successful in doing so. Always kinda bums me out when the answer to "why don't (guys) do (evil thing)" is just "wasn't worth it in that place and time".
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
golden bubble posted:If anyone wants to learn more about this, the askhistorians_podcast has a pretty good summary of how white planters in the British Caribbean tried to pull of the same sharecropper+Jim Crow system that the US South would establish after the end of US slavery, and why they weren't as successful in doing so. Also also, most Caribbean islands (except Barbados iirc) were below replacement rate - slaves died quicker than new slaves could be born (despite the, ah, 'heroic' efforts of people like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Thistlewood to keep the birth rate up) - so once the slave trade was abolished, it was never going to be practical to keep things too close to the way they were long-term.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
That's covered in the podcast: the replacement rate problem mostly exists because A. Plantation owners bought alot more male slaves than female slaves, which obviously isn't viable long term, and B. lack of ability for slave mothers to care for their children before being forced back to work.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:That's covered in the podcast: the replacement rate problem mostly exists because A. Plantation owners bought alot more male slaves than female slaves, which obviously isn't viable long term, and B. lack of ability for slave mothers to care for their children before being forced back to work. Both those things were true in the US South before the abolition of the trade too, though. There's more going on than that. (Shittier climate, shittier work since they were farming sugar not cotton/tobacco).
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
It wasn't just low birth rates, mortality for adult slaves was also insane. I don't have my book in front of me right now ("Avengers of the New World" if you're curious). But IIRC 10-15% of slaves in Saint-Domingue died of disease or overwork each year, and mortality tended to increase over time as physical exhaustion reduced resistance. Most individuals died within five years of their arrival on the island, agricultural labor was basically a death sentence, even minor shows of resistance were met with horrifically extreme reprisal, and long-term survival hinged on collaborating your way into some less labor-intensive position (e.g. L'Ouverture was a supervisor) or absconding to a maroon encampment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
Schenck v. U.S. posted:It wasn't just low birth rates, mortality for adult slaves was also insane. I don't have my book in front of me right now ("Avengers of the New World" if you're curious). But IIRC 10-15% of slaves in Saint-Domingue died of disease or overwork each year, and mortality tended to increase over time as physical exhaustion reduced resistance. Most individuals died within five years of their arrival on the island, agricultural labor was basically a death sentence, even minor shows of resistance were met with horrifically extreme reprisal, and long-term survival hinged on collaborating your way into some less labor-intensive position (e.g. L'Ouverture was a supervisor) or absconding to a maroon encampment. How the hell was slavery still profitable with that level of mortality? Could they just buy slaves for pennies on the dollar?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
golden bubble posted:How the hell was slavery still profitable with that level of mortality? Could they just buy slaves for pennies on the dollar? IIRC Sugar was insanely profitable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
Sugar was so profitable that Britain was willing to risk losing the American Colonies to protect their sugar plantations. During the War of Independence, despite the fact that the Royal Navy was already pushed to the limit with convoy duty (due to the Continental Navy, the French Navy, the State Navies, sanctioned privateers, and unsanctioned privateers the naval part of that war was essentially a 1770s version of the Battle of The Atlantic, and equipment captured on the high seas saved the Revolution on multiple occasions) and defending core possessions such as the British Isles, powerful and desperately needed battle squadrons were sent to protect the sugar plantations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
Jamaica was more profitable than the thirteen colonies combined.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:I'll take your Danish West Indies and raise you Courland's colonization of Tobago. I know about that one but only because a chunk of my ancestors were smug wealthy German Kurlanders.  Relatedly, guess my favorite underappreciated Russian Empress
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 02:00
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:Sugar was so profitable that Britain was willing to risk losing the American Colonies to protect their sugar plantations. During the War of Independence, despite the fact that the Royal Navy was already pushed to the limit with convoy duty (due to the Continental Navy, the French Navy, the State Navies, sanctioned privateers, and unsanctioned privateers the naval part of that war was essentially a 1770s version of the Battle of The Atlantic, and equipment captured on the high seas saved the Revolution on multiple occasions) and defending core possessions such as the British Isles, powerful and desperately needed battle squadrons were sent to protect the sugar plantations. Let's face it, it was mostly the French navy in this one. Also, yes, slaves were way cheaper compared to eg the 1850s when the slave trade was still in operation. Equivalent to buying, I dunno, a particular nice strimmer today. And if it breaks, well, then you go buy another one, cost of doing business.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 10:51
|
|
|
Pontius Pilate posted:Jamaica was more profitable than the thirteen colonies combined. And wasn't St Domingue/Haiti even more profitable than that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 10:59
|
|
|
are there any good alternative histories where charles 5 hapsburg and totoyomi hideyoshi successfully invade the ming dynasty and rule it together?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Let's face it, it was mostly the French navy in this one. The primary contributions of the French Navy in the War of Independence were tying down the British fleet in the Channel and the West Indies, and breaking the blockade of the Colonies. Quite substantial contributions, of course, but the Continental Navy, the state navies, and privateers also made critical contributions that have been largely overlooked by naval historians, mostly due to the influence of Mahan. British commerce was so badly ravaged during the fighting that a huge amount of British trade wound up traveling in Dutch ships for fear of attack, insurance rates skyrocketed, and Parliament was practically besieged by merchants demanding an end to the losses. Lloyds of London records 3087 ships taken by American privateers, of which 879 were retaken. A rough estimate of the value of this lost shipping is in the range of $70,000,000; which Britain's already strained finances couldn't afford. Not only this, but the cargoes of those ships were vital to sustaining the Revolution itself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 15:10
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:British commerce was so badly ravaged during the fighting that a huge amount of British trade wound up traveling in Dutch ships for fear of attack, insurance rates skyrocketed, and Parliament was practically besieged by merchants demanding an end to the losses. Lloyds of London records 3087 ships taken by American privateers, of which 879 were retaken. A rough estimate of the value of this lost shipping is in the range of $70,000,000; which Britain's already strained finances couldn't afford. Not only this, but the cargoes of those ships were vital to sustaining the Revolution itself. This was also a factor in the British decision to end the War of 1812. American privateers and commerce raiders inflicted enormous damage to British trade and seriously embarrassed the Royal Navy - not decisively so in absolute terms considering just how wealthy Britain was and the overall military strength of the Royal Navy, but more than enough to get the British public loudly wondering why this war was necessary at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
Pontius Pilate posted:Jamaica was more profitable than the thirteen colonies combined. Another example: At the end of the Seven Years War, the French were given the choice of keeping either New France(a swath of territory extending from Newfoundland to Mississippi), or Guadeloupe and Martinique. They chose the latter and it made perfect sense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:This was also a factor in the British decision to end the War of 1812. American privateers and commerce raiders inflicted enormous damage to British trade and seriously embarrassed the Royal Navy - not decisively so in absolute terms considering just how wealthy Britain was and the overall military strength of the Royal Navy, but more than enough to get the British public loudly wondering why this war was necessary at all. It was also ruinous for the American merchant marine, hence furious opposition in New England. The war was pretty pointless for all involved.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:It was also ruinous for the American merchant marine, hence furious opposition in New England. The war was pretty pointless for all involved. On the upside, the War of 1812 did a lot to establish American-British relations as friendly rather than adversarial. Both nations concluded that war between them was economic disaster for them both and it made a hell of a lot more economic sense for both to be trading partners.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
Shame it cost two promising British Army generals and the veteran soldiers coming back from it across the Atlantic would have been well appreciated at Waterloo. Sorry, I am a musket half cocked kind of guy.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
Dust off those crazy counterfactuals fellas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:On the upside, the War of 1812 did a lot to establish American-British relations as friendly rather than adversarial. Both nations concluded that war between them was economic disaster for them both and it made a hell of a lot more economic sense for both to be trading partners. I wouldn't call America and Britain friends at that point yet. They just realized that while both wanted to get stronger that both parties optimal path did not interfere with the other.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
 Subtle. Let's see if it's fake news or if he's also gay.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
/\ YOU CLAIMJUMPING HOOLIGAN This is not a photoshop. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
I didn't know much about the American Revolution until reading "Struggle for Seapower" recently. It was a really interesting read. It discusses the naval aspect of the war. Never knew France and Britain fought off the coast of S Africa and India or that France and Spain attempted an invasion of England, directly due to the Revolution.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
The True Finns have a bunch of candidates with immigrant backgrounds and every single one of them so far has either quit the party or been a basket case. I wonder which one he'll be!
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 17:14
|
|
FastestGunAlive posted:I didn't know much about the American Revolution until reading "Struggle for Seapower" recently. It was a really interesting read. It discusses the naval aspect of the war. Never knew France and Britain fought off the coast of S Africa and India or that France and Spain attempted an invasion of England, directly due to the Revolution. Churchill pretty much stated that the 7 Year Wars that happened before was technically the 1st World War before the Great War being a truly sort of global conflict now. It's one of those rare moments where he was right. The American Revolution and Napoleonic Wars also had conflict of the same at sea.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
Yea I had a history teacher in high school that made that comparison and it's always stuck with me. Seven Years War is one I've been meaning to really get into detail on studying. I've got a hell of a backlog right now; working on a book on Wellington's artillery, then a study of ACW generals and then I don't even know what to start on in my pile.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Shame it cost two promising British Army generals and the veteran soldiers coming back from it across the Atlantic would have been well appreciated at Waterloo. The outcome of Waterloo would not have changed anything because it pretty much would've reset Napoleon's situation to 1814 but it does let the British feel more manly having directly fought Napoleon for once.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
golden bubble posted:How the hell was slavery still profitable with that level of mortality? Could they just buy slaves for pennies on the dollar? People have already given the brief "sugar was valuable response," so I will elaborate a little bit. Profits from commodities produced in the Caribbean--by the late 18th century this was principally sugar, coffee, & indigo--were very high, but this is only part of the story. Slaves were valuable but only to the extent that they were agricultural equipment. That is, their value was what you got out of them in form of those commodities. There are also upkeep costs in food, housing, and medical care to keep them working. You can work them harder and spend less on their upkeep, but that results in increased mortality and cost to replace the dead. In Saint-Domingue the French found that their profits were maximized with a system that produced the mortality rates I described. They did not discover this by accident, either. There was a deliberate long-term process of experimentation: using different cultivars, importing different foods for the slaves, improving "management" techniques. They found the point on the chart where productivity gains and mortality intersected at maximum profit. There was an important element of continuous innovation that is often obscured in discussion of slavery. Historians coming from the old-school Whig perspective of continuous human progress liked to think of New World slavery as some kind of historical throwback or aberration. And apologists for slavery also justified themselves by drawing the distinction that they were benevolent aristocrats rather than ruthless capitalists. More recently there has been some great work on slavery as a capitalist enterprise--e.g. efficiency moves like mid-19th-century Southern US cotton planters adopting cultivars that were taller, making the movements required to pick the boll faster and easier to boost production. The particular trick with African slavery was that the costs of continuously importing people were unsustainable, but for the most part borne not by the importer but by the communities the slaves were sourced from. 1-5 man-years of sugar production, though valuable, was probably still a fairly lovely payoff for the costs to society of raising an individual human being to working age, and the damage suffered by having huge numbers of people pulled out of society to be rapidly worked to death. That's why they paid one African kingdom to steal humans from another. The costs are externalized. As a bonus, payment was usually rendered in either slave-related commodities (e.g. rum) or in tools the slavers would use to steal more humans (e.g. firearms). Very efficient. This calculus obviously changed after the Atlantic Slave Trade ended.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:The primary contributions of the French Navy in the War of Independence were tying down the British fleet in the Channel and the West Indies, and breaking the blockade of the Colonies. Quite substantial contributions, of course, but the Continental Navy, the state navies, and privateers also made critical contributions that have been largely overlooked by naval historians, mostly due to the influence of Mahan. You are, ah, downplaying this a hell of a lot. No Battle of the Chesapeake (won entirely by the French, no yanks involved), no surrender of Cornwallis. No surrender of any British army ever that is anywhere near the coast. Commerce raiding is a thing but in and of itself it doesn't win wars; this is not 1940, Britain is not dependent on Atlantic commerce to survive, and merchants always bitch about wars with, generally speaking, little effect (see also New England and 1812, as previously mentioned). America did not have first rate ships of the line and France did. The difference matters. feedmegin fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Mar 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
Schenck v. U.S. posted:You can work them harder and spend less on their upkeep, but that results in increased mortality and cost to replace the dead. In Saint-Domingue the French found that their profits were maximized with a system that produced the mortality rates I described. They did not discover this by accident, either. There was a deliberate long-term process of experimentation: using different cultivars, importing different foods for the slaves, improving "management" techniques. They found the point on the chart where productivity gains and mortality intersected at maximum profit. jesus christ
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:The outcome of Waterloo would not have changed anything because it pretty much would've reset Napoleon's situation to 1814 but it does let the British feel more manly having directly fought Napoleon for once. When else were the British supposed to fight him?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 20:04
|
|
Panzeh posted:The outcome of Waterloo would not have changed anything because it pretty much would've reset Napoleon's situation to 1814 but it does let the British feel more manly having directly fought Napoleon for once. A lot less British soldiers would have died and half the KGL wouldn't have been sacrificed to hold a stupid farm.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 12:21 |
|
|
Koramei posted:jesus christ Chattel slavery: Turns out that, yes, it's really bad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 20:09
|
|