Were there any Ethiopian slaves in America?
I am half-black, but years ago, my black side of the family did a study to try and determine our genes and where we were from in Africa. Surprisingly it showed us to be of Ethiopian heritage physically. Throughout my life, I have been approached by Ethiopians who are 100% sure that I am a native. This has happened no matter where I travel in the world (and I love it as I find Ethiopians to be beautiful and take this only as a compliment!). I would love to find out more, but our family history is difficult to trace due to slave records being flimsy at best (we date back to the mid-1700's when a relative of ours was sold from Virginia to Florida). Also, everywhere I look it says that there were no Ethiopian slaves in the US. So how did our family end up there? I look forward to learning!
Why was Florida a slave state?
When? Pre civil war the agriculture economy of Florida used slave labor like rest of south because it could and made economic sense.
Did freed former slaves owned slaves in the South?
Yes, it was unusual but it did happen. Some members of one of the nation's first equal rights group owned slaves. When looking at American history is how full of things you wouldn't expect it is. For example, there really weren't that many true abolitionists in the North. In Texas on the other hand the German communities and Tejanos were VERY anti slavery. Before the invention of the cotton gin slavery was almost not profitable and many, including George Washington, freed their slaves in their will. Eli Whitney was both the reason for the civil war and was the one who gave the North the ability to win. Interchangeable parts for firearms was how the North armed all their troops.
Why did the Southern States like slavery so much but the northern Liberal states was like Banning it big time?
The south had the 'plantation system', growing crops in very labor-intensive ways, so they needed lots of cheap manpower. The first of the big crops was rice, which was grown on muddy riverbanks where the ground was so soft that horses and wagons couldn't go on it, so all the work had to be done by hand, and slavery was perfect for that. The north allowed slavery too at first, but slaves were mostly used as servants, and treated pretty well in comparison (like 'house slaves' in the South, actually they were called 'house-n****rs'). Then in the early 18th century a slave sued over her right as a citizen--Elizabeth Freeman aka Bette Freeman, look her up, very interesting story. Anyway it ended up with slavery being banned in several northern states, a generation before the American Revolution. But let's be clear, they were banned in the north ostensibly because slavery was considered cruel, but also they didn't see slavery as an economic necessity as they did in the South. In the South, slavery was justified by the Bible! And NEITHER northerners nor southerners believed blacks were exactly human, that they could assimilate into society as full citizens. Lincoln wanted to send as many back to Africa as would go, and put the rest on reservations, like Indians, to be cared for at public expense, like children. After the Revolution, before the Constitution was even in place, there was a tension between northern and southern states over slavery. The Constitution allowed slavery to continue, in fact it allowed slaves to be counted as 3/5 of a person for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives. But Southerners were afraid too many new states would come into the union as free states, until eventually they'd be a 2/3 majority and then slavery would be abolished. This tension lasted right up to the Civil War.
Were African-Americans the only slaves in the south between 1776-1865?
That will depend on how you define the word slave. African Americans were the only race-based CHATTEL slaves in the United States (not just the South) from 1619 until Dec. 1865.Although the US States and territories that had been under French and Spanish control like Florida, Puerto Rico, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas had the ability to begin Chattel race-based African slavery in 1502… 100 years and a bit before the English controlled areas.St. Augustine, Florida, as an example, had slavery from its founding in 1565, as did cities like Mobile and New Orleans. But even before these settlements, French and Spanish explorers, forts and trading stations had African slaves in places that are parts of the US today, as well as throughout the Caribbean. Although not significantly involved in North America, the Dutch and Portuguese were also heavily involved in slave trading and in their own American colonial possessions. The Portuguese are even attributed with beginning the practice of Chattel slavery in black Africans.https://southernspaces.org/2012/...Spain is the first country to ban chattel race-based African slavery in 1811, although Cuba refused to follow the ban. Many formally Spanish territories from Florida around to Texas would be admitted to the USA as slave States in the next few decades, beginning with Louisiana in 1812 and ending with Texas in 1845. No states admitted after Texas in 1845 would secede from the USA over slavery.https://www.google.co.nz/amp/mob...List of U.S. states by date of admission to the Union - WikipediaA seriously poor paradigm to have used and continue to use in teaching History, is the concept of Slave vs. Free states… all states allowed slavery and had slavery in some small amount at one point in American history and all the colonies had African chattel slavery under British rule. Vermont was the first to abolish it during the American Revolution (1775–1783) in 1777. The categories of Slave vs. Abolissionists states is most accurate.Slavery Timeline
What impact did the civil war have on slavery?
I am so tired of this States Rights crap. And what, pray tell, do you imagine this "right" that they started the war was all about? Yes, they started the war. Fired the first shot by attacking Fort Sumter. Would you fight, and die, for a rich mans slave? Would you?
Why does Oklahoma and Florida have a panhandle?
I have lived in both states: Oklahoma and Texas. Texas was a slave state. Oklahoma was not. Had Texas kept the panhandle, part of the state would have been anti-slavery. The Missouri Compromise stated the 36°30' latitude was the demarcation line for slave and non-slave holding states. Texas surrendered its lands north of the 36°30' latitude line. There is an entirely different scenario for the Florida panhandle. The Florida panhandle used to be West Florida, a part of a British colony from 1763 to 1783 and later a Spanish colony from 1783 to 1821. The rest of Florida was named East Florida. Some thought Florida should be remain as two States, East Florida and West Florida, while others thought it should not be divided. Congress passed a bill that Florida should come into the Union as one State, and on March 3, 1845, President Tyler signed the bill into law. Although Mississippi and Alabama made proposals to annex the properties as late as 1901, Florida kept the panhandle.