How did slave revolts affect slavery?
613358
In reality, not all that much. Most slave revolts were relatively small and ineffectual. The most significant ones did scare southern slaveowners, but that only increased their repression of slaves.\n\nGood timeline of African slave revolts:\nhttp://www.swagga.com/revolts.htm\n\nArticle on slave revolts\nhttp://www.rit.edu/~nrcgsh/bx/bx04b.html\n\n\nThe definitive book on the subject was written in 1963 by a historian named Herbert Aptheker.\n\nAmerican Negro slave revolts \nAptheker, Herbert (b. 1915, d. ----)  \nInternational Publishers  (New York; 1963)
592384
It was not just about slavery but that is about all most people know about it. Of course it is good that slavery was abolished but slavery continued in the North even during the Civil War. In the south, most cotton farmers faired little better than the slaves, picking cotton along side them. It was not just about big Plantations and rich white slave masters in red coats and top hats!\n\nThe south was destroyed.\nThe war was primarily an economic war just like most wars. In this case, over cotton.\nThe South was threatening to have their cotton sent to Europe and bypass the East. The East would have been hurt tremendously and used the slavery issue as a way to garner public support.\n\nThe pros were that the East kept their manufacturing and slavery was abolished.\nThe cons are too numerous to mention. People's lives and livelihoods were destroyed for decades to come. Carpet baggers made it even worse after the war was over. Many blacks stayed on the farms and helped with the recovery.\n\nThis is an interesting war to study and I hope you enjoy your research. It seems like the slavery issue is all people know about it.
666123
slavery and colonization
581591
slavery influences a lot of stuff around the world.  you have to remember that slavery is not a new concept.  it's been around way before africans were brought to the west.  let's also not forget that almost 1,000 years before africans saw the west, the Muslims in the east were trading them near what is now the Persian Gulf.\n\nthen before that, you have the Jews being enslaved by the Egypytians.
594652
Here is what I found about the information you described.\n\n1764 In this year, the captain of a new London brig from Connecticut lost his life in a slave uprising at Goree, a slave port located off the coast of Africa. The upraising occurred at night while most of the ship’s crew was asleep. \n\nHere is the link.\nhttp://www.slaveryinamerica.org/history/hs_es_insurrection.htm\n\nWhat all this means to me is, they did this operation at night to cover up what they were doing.  Supposely, if they came during lighted (daytime) hours, lives would have been lost.\n\nIt is kind of like drug operations.   I don't know this for sure, but I would guess that drug operations are performed during the night when it is hard to tell what people are doing.   It is hard to see stuff at night, and not as many people are out during the night.\n\nAlso, that last sentence at the very top that says they unloaded at night while the other ship's crews were asleep.  That statement sounds like other ship crews would kill to steal other people's slaves.  So they had to find a way to get the slaves in and out without other people in the business taking them away.\n\nNot sure if this helps, but that is what I found according to the information that you provided.
251411
the slave is the colonists. They have no choice but to stand and fight. Refuge is a place to hide. so there is no place to hide, just "face the music"
151961
Good link check it: http://www.iabolish.com/slavery_today/\n\nHistory\nAlthough it is commonly held that slavery was rare among primitive pastoral peoples and that it appeared in full form only with the development of an agricultural economy, there are numerous instances that contradict this belief. Domestic slavery and sometimes concubine slavery appeared among the nomadic Arabs, among Native Americans primarily devoted to hunting, and among the seafaring Vikings. Some ascribe the beginnings of slavery to war and the consequent subjection of one group by another. Slavery as a result of debt, however, existed in very early times, and some African peoples have had the custom of putting up wives and children as hostages for an obligation; if the obligation was unfulfilled, the hostages became permanent slaves.
532664
OSome do but I did not have that problem. Yes many suffer from the effects of slavery. I came across this trying to figure out some of the conditions that blacks are in today. When I traced it's origins it does go back to slavery and segregation. Here's what Dr. king had to say\n\n"Whenever this issue [compensatory treatment] is raised, some of our friends(Whites) recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree, but should ask for nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but is not realistic. For it is obvious that if a man enters the starting line of a race three hundred years after another man, the second would have to perform some incredible feat in order to catch up." \n"A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis." \n"... for 15 centuries the Negro was enslaved and robbed of any wages — potential accrued wealth which would have been the legacy of his descendants."
214477
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays_Rebellion
327460
Unfortunately, slavery was a vital institution for the economic well being of the South. Whenever the issue of slavery came up during the drafting of the Constitution, arguments between North and South arose, which was one of the precursors to the Civil War. The Missouri Compromise, the 2/3 Compromise, both dealt with the issue of slavery and how far north it could extend. Southerners referred to it as a "necessary evil", a bad thing, but nevertheless it was vital to the South's economy, and also the nation as a whole.
569247
These are very common subjects. You may consider doing research or checking class notes. For lack of that,\nthere was a big burst of industry after the civil war. Things became more advanced. More people moved to the United States and of course, emancipation of slaves had a great effect on the diversity of the population. Maybe these facts can help you to understand what sort of development you're looking for?\n\nSorry I couldn't be more helpful!
205921
The Fugitive Slave Act was part of the Compromise of 1850 and said that if a slave from the south escaped to the north, the northern people would have to return it. People in the north didn't like this law (or slavery) so they often disobeyed it. It also caused the Underground Railroad to change its route to Canada so the escaping slaves wouldn't be returned.
625165
I think so. It was definitely helped along by radicals on both sides but I don't think either the issue of slavery or that of whether or not states had a right to secede (A major point of debate and contention since the ratification of the Constitution), would ever have been resolved otherwise. It's unfortunate but sometimes that's just the way it is. In the end our country was much better off though.
429703
It was one of the contributory causes. The North wanted to weaken the institution while the South wanted to preserve it. The South believed that President Lincoln intended to end it contributing to secession. \n\nLincoln initially declared his purpose to be the preservation of the Union, not emancipation. He had no wish to alienate the thousands of slaveholders in the Union border states, some of whom stayed loyal. The long war radicalised the Governments policy. With the Emancipation Proclamation, announced in September 1862 and put into effect four months later, Lincoln adopted the abolition of the Slave Power as a second mission—that is slaves owned by rebels had to be taken away from them and freed.
601438
Helping you out with your homework huh?  Well I will not make it 4 or five sentences long but will give you something to think about.  \nThe impact it has on the American history is it started the rebellion against taxation and the mother country.  The second thing is that Americans decided to govern themselves and form a new government.  It also lead to no one ruler will govern America, judicial system, legislative branch and the executive branch.  It lead to a revolt and to the rights of our civil liberties.
121644
I think the question is how WEREN'T they punished!! \n\nThe slaves were not treated as human beings, they were treated like animals....actually worse than animals....this is a powerful subject....you should definitely do a lot of research into this, there are many resources on the slave trade. Try your local library, ask the librarian for help.
302435
For those who said no, do you know that for sure?  I found this quote in an article:\n\nHow many Americans are aware that in New Orleans over 3,000 freed slaves owned slaves? The fact is large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves. \n\nI think the topic needs more research.\n\nHere's another article:\n\nhttp://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a899fdb32fd.htm\n\nIn a society molded by highly skewed and agenda-selective presentations of history, the tightest censorship involves the fact that large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large. In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the U.S. census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states.\nThe census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves (1). Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves).\n\nIn the rare instances when the ownership of slaves by free Negroes is acknowledged in the history books, justification centers on the claim that black slave masters were simply individuals who purchased the freedom of a spouse or child from a white slaveholder and had been unable to legally manumit them. Although this did indeed happen at times, it is a misrepresentation of the majority of instances, one which is debunked by records of the period on blacks who owned slaves. These include individuals such as Justus Angel and Mistress L. Horry, of Colleton District, South Carolina, who each owned 84 slaves in 1830. In fact, in 1830 a fourth of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves; eight owning 30 or more (2).\n\nAccording to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.\n\nTo return to the census figures quoted above, this 28 percent is certainly impressive when compared to less than 1.4 percent of all American whites and less than 4.8 percent of southern whites. The statistics show that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters.\n\nThe majority of slaveholders, white and black, owned only one to five slaves. More often than not, and contrary to a century and a half of bullwhips-on-tortured-backs propaganda, black and white masters worked and ate alongside their charges; be it in house, field or workshop. The few individuals who owned 50 or more slaves were confined to the top one percent, and have been defined as slave magnates.\n\nIn 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000 (3). That year, the mean wealth of southern white men was $3,978 (4).\n\nIn Charleston, South Carolina in 1860 125 free Negroes owned slaves; six of them owning 10 or more. Of the $1.5 million in taxable property owned by free Negroes in Charleston, more than $300,000 represented slave holdings (5). In North Carolina 69 free Negroes were slave owners (6).\n\nIn 1860 William Ellison was South Carolina's largest Negro slaveowner. In Black Masters. A Free Family of Color in the Old South, authors Michael P. Johnson