https://www.thenational.scot/news/15151138.letters-ii-as-many-as-100000-scots-were-sold-into-slavery/

I WAS struck by the article on Scotland’s role in the African slave trade (No sugaring the pill of our country’s slave trade role, The National, March 7). As someone who has been campaigning for some time for greater education in Scottish schools on this matter, as well as for a statue to be erected in Glasgow to note our role in this cruel trade, it was very much welcomed to see this piece.

What is perhaps less well known are the large numbers of Scottish people, perhaps as many as 100,000, who were rounded up and transported to the West Indies and American colonies to be sold into slavery, a practice that occurred as early as 1630.

According to the Egerton manuscript, found in the British Museum and enacted in 1652: “it may be lawful for two or more justices of peace within any county, citty or towne, corporate belonging to the commonwealth to from tyme to tyme by warrant cause to be apprehended, seized on and detained all and every person or persons that shall be found begging and vagrant ... in any towne, parish or place to be conveyed into the Port of London, or unto any other port from where such person or persons may be shipped into a forraign collonie or plantation.”

The numbers taken as slaves must have been huge as, according to the Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, America and West Indies of 1701, we read of there being an estimated 25,000 slaves in Barbados, of whom 21,700 were white. The fair-skinned slaves were known as Redlegs or Redshanks by the locals because of their sunburned flesh.

Affluent and powerful local government officials, who likely had a stake in the plantations, slave trade and the associated benefits, were happy to oblige in this practice.

Merchants were also known to put in special requests to the city council to fulfil specific wants, with young women often on the wish list. In addition to this practice, political prisoners were routinely sold into slavery. Oliver Cromwell, for example, was responsible for sending thousands of Scots to slavery in the Caribbean, with prisoners from the Jacobite Uprisings facing the same fate.

Descendants of the Scots forced into slavery are now beginning to realise that this is a part of our history that has been quietly swept under the carpet, and as we note our role in the African slave trade, it is only right that there should be a greater awareness of this practice.
Alex Orr
Edinburgh

This is a topic in history that I have not seen before, so I offer my views tentatively. That said, you are quoting not the result of research but a letter to the editor of a Scottish newspaper. In other words, the material has not been vetted by scholars of the slave trade or Scottish history.

I ran across some credible work from Scottish academics who know the field and consider the argument fallacious. They explain that the story of Scottish slaves in the Caribbean stems from two accounts that are largely fictitious. In particular, there were groups of Scots who entered into indentured servitude to get a fresh start in other countries. They were no more "slaves" than the indentured apprentices working--and subject to abuse--in mills, and studios, and foundries all over Europe at the time.

Second, the indentured servants were to work for a set number of years at a certain rate of pay and then gain their freedom. That is not at all the same thing as the chattels slavery to which Africans were subjected.

One of the academics notes that the story of Scottish slaves was resurrected by reactionaries and has gained a following among American racists who want to belittle the trauma experienced by African Americans. That tendentious usage, along with the account's dubious provenance, suggest to me that it should be taken with enough salt to send a cardiologist to the hospital.



http://cscs.academicblogs.co.uk/the-public-history-of-scotland-and-caribbean-slavery/

http://sceptical.scot/2016/03/the-myth-of-scottish-slaves/

"Who want to belittle the trauma experienced by African Americans. "

Except it's not about that. It's about Britain and its Empire. It suits the current British establishment to play down this aspect of Scottish (and Irish!) history. You should look there before America. It is politically subversive there and not for the reasons you think. Some of these people are the ancestors of Caribbean people today.

It was common in those days for people to be removed forcibly to other countries, or to be forced into naval service.

* They were forcibly removed.
* They were unpaid labor.
* They were transported in terrible conditions (though not as bad as African slave ships).

Forms of slavery were not uncommon within Europe in the Middle Ages and later. Imperial Russia had slaves well into the late nineteenth century. The Ottoman Empire also had slaves, (both European and African).

I didn't know about this (and am appalled but not surprised). There are so many things in British history that have been conveniently forgotten. But we celebrate slave owners, etc.

while the French and Spanish generally did not.

French and Spanish colonials wanted to get rich through exploitation and go back home.

The British colonials were on one-way trips and they brought women and children with them.

That difference has shaped the modern American nations we see today.

> Except it's not about that. It's about Britain and
> its Empire. It suits the current British
> establishment to play down this aspect of Scottish
> (and Irish!) history. You should look there before
> America. It is politically subversive there and
> not for the reasons you think. Some of these
> people are the ancestors of Caribbean people
> today.

You don't understand the basic problem. You cited an unsubstantiated LETTER TO THE EDITOR.

What it's about is credibility. You have provided none. If you want to demonstrate any point at all, you need to offer us credible evidence.

But the numbers given are "all over the place," and the dates are inconsistent with British colonial actions in the New World.

>What is perhaps less well known are the large numbers of Scottish people, perhaps as many as 100,000, who were rounded up and transported to the West Indies and American colonies to be sold into slavery, a practice that occurred as early as 1630.

That's utter nonsense. This looks like a Scottish version of a British tabloid (blushing because all my Scots ancestors). And some "revealing" self-disclosure:

>> IN response to ‘Big fuss over Big Bang: It’s not such a bad idea...’ (Letters, March 10), the character from The Big Bang Theory is a stereotype that a lot of Aspies do not like. Personally, the detectives in The Bridge and Chasing Shadows are much better representations of some of us. I say some of us as Asperger’s Syndrome can present very differently in different people.

>>It was clear from the article that this was all the “training” that the person had been given, which is appalling. There are many resources available from places such as the National Autistic Society and Autism Initiatives.

>> I was not diagnosed ‘til I was 25, perhaps if my teachers had had some training it would have been noticed earlier.

Far be it from me to attack Asperger's or Autism victims (my daughter's brother has been diagnosed as autistic; he's in his 20's now and self-supporting), but they can frequently be off-the-wall with their observations.

There are informal control networks in Scottish academia about a lot of this. I know a Scottish academic who was told years ago by his school, he should drop his support for independence if he wanted to go further. That was in a medical faculty. I suspect in a history school they wouldn't have even given him a word in his ear but just shut him out without telling him. At least the LDS are more open when they exclude subversive ideas.

If a Scottish academic dealt with these things properly, s/he would be either ripped to shreds or out on their ear.

Ah, now it's clear. British academics are part of the leftist conspiracy that dominates the United States. The only place that a "True Scot" can discover the truth is in unevidenced blogs and letters to editors.

I'll bet George Soros is behind this conspiracy too.

That explains all those signs in old photos of drinking fountains, restrooms, and hotels "White" and "Scots". Not to mention the "one drop rule" if you had one drop of Scottish blood you couldn't vote, marry a white person... /s

Now is not the time for this kind of whataboutism.

This is a variation of the "both sides do it" argument that white supremacists are so fond of using.

Wasn't the argument last time that it was the Irish that were slaves?

Exactly.

Sceptical Scot is a good place for information.

I have no idea how factual the claim is that 100,000 Scots were sold into slavery. However, what I have discovered through 30 years of family history research is that some Scots were indeed transported to America and the West Indies as slaves. My earliest known Scottish ancestor William Niven (Nevin) was one.

William Niven was a Covenanter who was imprisoned for attending an illegal conventicle, and was one of several who attempted an unsuccessful escape from Dunottar Castle and was later banished to the Plantations 9 October 1684. Transported from Leith to East New Jersey by George Scott of Pitlochie on the ship "Henry and Francis" master Richard Hutton, 5 September 1685.

After four years servitude, he finally made his way back to Scotland after being captured by a French Man O' War followed by a forced March across France and a period of imprisonment there.

Some references -

https://www.immigrantships.net/v5/1600v5/henryandfrancis16851200.html

http://www.covenanter.org.uk/dunnottar_castle.html

"Scots Banished to the American Plantations 1650-1775" by David Dobson. Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc. Baltimore. 1983. pg. 174.."

That is incorrect.

Your first source proves the point when it states that the "imprisoned" Scots "were ordered to be transported as slaves [indentured servants]" to the New World.

"Indentured servitude," is not chattel slavery, and William Nevin was not a slave.



https://www.immigrantships.net/v5/1600v5/henryandfrancis16851200.html

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That is incorrect.
>
> Your first source proves the point when it states
> that the "imprisoned" Scots "were ordered to be
> transported as slaves " to the New World.
>
> "Indentured servitude," is not chattel slavery,
> and William Nevin was not a slave.

.....

You are correct in saying that indentured servitude is not chattel slavery which in most cases meant being owned for life.

As you are no doubt aware, indentured servitude was a way for for those who could not afford it to pay for the cost of their immigration to America and it appears that although technically not chattel slaves the unpaid labour of indentured servants could still be bought and sold.

For those who did not choose to go to America of their own free will and were transported because of their religious beliefs, being an indentured servant was a form of slavery which seems to be implied in Section 4 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948.

You may not agree with me on this but that's OK, we are both entitled to see things differently. Cheers.

> As you are no doubt aware, indentured servitude
> was a way for for those who could not afford it to
> pay for the cost of their immigration to America
> and it appears that although technically not
> chattel slaves the unpaid labour of indentured
> servants could still be bought and sold.

Agreed. And that was typical of apprentices and many other categories of people throughout Western Europe. There were many differences between that indentured servitude and chattel slavery. IS were controlled for a number of years whereas slaves were controlled for life. The children born to slaves were also the property of the owners and could be alienated at will whereas none of that was true for IS. Also, the IS had most legal rights of citizens while slaves did not.

Was IS a bad thing? I think so. But it was nowhere near as bad as chattel slavery.


------------
> For those who did not choose to go to America of
> their own free will and were transported because
> of their religious beliefs, being an indentured
> servant was a form of slavery which seems to be
> implied in Section 4 of The Universal Declaration
> of Human Rights 1948.

I agree with you that IS would meet the 1984 standard for slavery. But that's not the right standard. The question is, were IS and slaves in the same situation when slavery existed? Obviously not. Slavery was far worse than IS.


-------------
> You may not agree with me on this but that's OK,
> we are both entitled to see things differently.
> Cheers.

Yes, cheers to you as well.

Being a white indentured servant is a far cry from being a black skinned person who spent his whole life as a purchased human being.

Devoted Exmo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Being a white indentured servant is a far cry from
> being a black skinned person who spent his whole
> life as a purchased human being.

We really should put a stop to that

Without having read any of the other comments I predict a coincidentally (of course) yet somehow consistent attempt to downplay, diminish, excuse, and ultimately dismiss the suffering of these people due to their whiteness. There seems to be a pattern of some sort.

Yes. It's very similar to elevating obscure incidences of white suffering to much more prevalent and ongoing suffering of blacks.

Devoted Exmo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes. It's very similar to elevating obscure
> incidences of white suffering to much more
> prevalent and ongoing suffering of blacks.


"obscure incidences of white suffering"

I think the families of

Daniel Shaver
Andrew Thomas
Michael Parker
Dylan Noble
Brandon Stanley
Justine Damond

might want to have a word about that

Is it your contention that those people were killed because of their white skin? Are you telling us that white people are victimized by the police as frequently and brutally as black people?

This pretty much makes my point. How about listing the black families harmed by slavery. Go ahead. I'll wait.

Devoted Exmo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This pretty much makes my point. How about
> listing the black families harmed by slavery. Go
> ahead. I'll wait.


Not the topic of the post. The posted listed (some of the) white people killed by police in recent years.

Wait--

You were replying to DevEx on black versus white "suffering." Your response was to list the latter using a quotation from DevEx's post.

Now you are saying that DevEx's response to yours is irrelevant. But how is that possible when you were replying to him and even quoting his words?

It wasn't his post that was off topic: it was yours.

Keep digging, xxMoO.

BTW, Lot's Wife. I'm a she and a her.

Thanks, DevEx! Sorry for the confusion!

+xxMo0:
"Without having read any of the other comments I predict a coincidentally (of course) yet somehow consistent attempt to downplay, diminish, excuse, and ultimately dismiss the suffering of these people due to their whiteness. There seems to be a pattern of some sort."

==Actually, I have received the opposite impression.
The first time I heard about the Scotts being used as slaves was when black slavery was being discussed.
A gentleman mentioned it to me. I was surprised since I had not heard about it before but then again, once in a while, I hear surprising aspects of history.

Anyway, the point that was being advanced was why do african americans act like victims when people of scottish descent don't discuss their slavery. Why does back history month exist and not a Scotts history month? Why do some blacks demand an apology and payment from the USA?

This seemed oddly similar to the Turks vs Armenian case.
You see, there is the genocide event of 1915. It actually started with the hamidian massacres of 1890 and when WW1 came around, it was used as a cloack to displace lots of armenians, (assyrians and greeks and other christian groups).

Turks have tried to defend their action using a few methods:
1. It was war. It's normal.
2. Both sides did the same amount of damage to each other
3. Armenian gangs killed entire villages and attacked the turkish army.
4. Armenians are traitors and were working with russians.

Turks mostly focus on armenians bc armenians are very vocal about the first genocide of the 20th century that has gone unrecognized by a lot of major countries. A few countries recognized it after 2000 (so about 80 y when the genocide occurred).
So those old excuses are still present all over the internet. They are pieces of half-truths. The goal is to classify justify genocide and mark the victims as attackers.

So, be careful what you believe.

~~~~iceman9090

iceman9090 Wrote:
--------------------------------------------------
>
> Anyway, the point that was being advanced was why
> do african americans act like victims when people
> of scottish descent don't discuss their slavery.
> Why does back history month exist and not a Scotts
> history month? Why do some blacks demand an
> apology and payment from the USA?

Well that's a whole other twisty can of worms.

Also I think the Irish would have made a better comparison, having suffered terribly at the hands of the English (and later, Anglo-Americans) for centuries. I haven't heard talk of Eire demanding reparations from the UK, though maybe they have (I wouldn't blame them if they did.)



> Turks mostly focus on armenians bc armenians are
> very vocal about the first genocide of the 20th
> century that has gone unrecognized by a lot of
> major countries. A few countries recognized it
> after 2000 (so about 80 y when the genocide
> occurred).
> So those old excuses are still present all over
> the internet. They are pieces of half-truths. The
> goal is to classify justify genocide and mark the
> victims as attackers.

Yep the Armenian vs. Turk situation is another good example.

We could also talk about the Barbary pirates and their enslavement of Europeans for a long time. They were the first "jihadis" (so to speak) that the newly-born U.S. had to deal with. That's where the "shores of Tripoli" line in the Marines hymn comes from. They were put down when the Europeans finally got fed up with them.

(Interesting that we're still dealing with North African problems today.)


Wiki:

The Barbary pirates, sometimes called Barbary corsairs or Ottoman corsairs, were Ottoman and Berber pirates and privateers who operated from North Africa, based primarily in the ports of Salé, Rabat, Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli.

Their predation extended throughout the Mediterranean, south along West Africa's Atlantic seaboard and into the North Atlantic as far north as Iceland, but they primarily operated in the western Mediterranean.

In addition to seizing merchant ships, they engaged raids on European coastal towns, mainly in Italy, France, Spain, and Portugal, but also in the British Isles, the Netherlands, and Iceland. The main purpose of their attacks was slaves for the Ottoman slave trade as well as the general Arab slavery market in North Africa and the Middle East.

As a result, residents abandoned their former villages of long stretches of coast in Spain and Italy. Between 100,000 and 250,000 Iberians were enslaved by these raids.

The raids were such a problem coastal settlements were seldom undertaken until the 19th century. Between 1580 and 1680 corsairs were said to have captured about 850,000 people as slaves and from 1530 to 1780 as many as 1,250,000 people were enslaved. (Exact numbers subject to some dispute)

The Barbary threat led directly to the United States founding the United States Navy in March 1794. While the United States did secure peace treaties with the Barbary states, it was obliged to pay tribute for protection from attack. The burden was substantial: in 1800 payments in ransom and tribute to the Barbary states amounted to 20% of United States federal government's annual expenditures.

(Wikipedia, "Barbary Pirates")

The pattern is your repeatedly evidenced belief that you can arrive at truth without looking at facts. It's unfortunate when one leaves a cult like Mormonism but keeps the faith-based epistemology and on that basis embraces a new cultic movement.

That is not recovery.

I've been posting nothing BUT facts. I'm getting headaches looking up all these statistics and links and sources and trying to find more or less legitimate sources. The Quillette article seemed well balanced and covered a lot of detail. Not that anyone will bother to read it.

I miss the days when this forum was about Mormonism though.

Well, recovery means not only leaving an organization but also abandoning the thinking that underlay the affiliation. So you can't really ask others to treat cultic thinking as if it were something else.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, recovery means not only leaving an
> organization but also abandoning the thinking that
> underlay the affiliation. So you can't really ask
> others to treat cultic thinking as if it were
> something else.

The "thinking that underlay the affiliation" involved mostly a lack of thinking. I spend a lot of time looking up sources and links on whatever topic is at hand and trying to make sense of the statistics and various rationalizations and so forth. Same habit that eventually led me out of the church.

> The "thinking that underlay the affiliation"
> involved mostly a lack of thinking.

My point exactly. Good luck on the next step in your recovery.

There is abundant information that the slave trade of whites was a common practice in the early 1600s, taking victims from the British Isles and other European countries. Here is one raid that took hundreds of slaves (for both sale and to ransom) from Iceland . . .

“The early decades of the seventeenth century were the great heyday of the Barbary corsairs. Not only did they swarm the Mediterranean, but with the help of European renegados they also attacked both ships and coastal settlements all along the Atlantic seaboard of Europe, from Spain to the British Isles and beyond.

“In the summer of 1627, Barbary corsairs descended upon Iceland, killing dozens of people and abducting more than 400 to sell as slaves in Salé and Algiers. The sheer audacity of this raid—it was a 3,000 mile sail from North Africa to Iceland, a 6,000 mile roundtrip—makes it exceptional.”

https://jddavies.com/2017/02/20/the-barbary-corsair-raid-on-iceland-1627/