markellion's video: The African holocaust required more resources than most nations had

FRERE'S CRUSADE: http://books.google.com/books?id=YAIZAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA207&dq= =onepage&q=&f=false "If the Banians, who are subjects of the queen, find that they will be punished for felony for direct or indirect participation in this traffic, they will use their capital in some less dangerous business. As the Arabs have not the wealth to carry on the slave trade to any extent, the British cruisers will be able to put a stop to it" Before the British the Dutch were the foundation of the slave trade read pages Page 69 and 70 "The transatlantic slave trade: a history" By James A. Rawley, Stephen D. Behrendt http://books.google.com/books?id=Sn5pK8rbR5MC&pg=PA70&dq= =onepage&q=&f=false Robert Norris d. 1791 http://docsouth.unc.edu/neh/norris/norris.html Page 162 "British possess, at present, the greatest share. It was during the government of the commonwealth, that Negroes were carried, in any numbers, to the British West Indies, and then, chiefly to Barbadoes: a few indeed were brought to Virginia, by a Dutch ship, as early as 1620; but it was the Royal African Company, that first carried on, from England, a vigorous commerce to Africa, during the reign of Charles II. We may form an opinion of the magnitude of it, in its most flourishing state, prior to the revolution in 1688, by considering that the company employed thirty ships annually, which delivered about five thousand Negroes in the West Indies. The increase of it to its present state, may be attributed to the enterprizing spirit of the merchants; to the superior address of those employed in the executive part of it; to the opulence of the manufacturers, which enables them to extend a credit to the former, beyond what can be had in any other country; and to the annual grants of parliament, for the maintenance of several forts, and factories in Africa. From these concurring circumstances, the British planters are supplied with Negroes, on more reasonable terms than their neighbours; and a large surplus is left, which is disposed of to the French and Spaniards for specie, and other valuable commodities." "Early Globalization and the Slave Trade" Trips around the world were essential for sustaining slavery by Robert Harms http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/early-globalization-and-slave-trade "The demise of the French East India Company in 1706 (it was later resurrected as the Company of the Indies) caused a problem for French slave traders. It was impossible for them to remain competitive in the slave trade without ready access to cowry shells and Indian textiles. So vital was the Asian trade to the slave trade that a consortium of merchants raised over a million livres to start a company to replace the defunct French East India Company. In requesting authorization from the French Council of Commerce, the merchants cited the difficulties they were having in obtaining the products of Asia that were vital for the slave trade. The slave trade could not function successfully, they argued, unless they had direct access to cowry shells and Indian textiles. The government denied the merchants' request and instead formed the Company of the Indies, which was given a monopoly over both the Asia trade and the slave trade. The integration of France's Asia trade with the slave trade was now complete. Ships returning from Asia unloaded their textiles and cowry shells at the company port of Lorient on the Brittany Coast of France, and the goods were immediately reloaded onto company slave ships bound for Africa. The Asia trade supplied necessary trade goods for the slave ships, and the slave ships provided a steady market for the Asian products. The only flaw in the company's system was that it failed to integrate itself into the direct trade with the New World. That flaw proved fatal. After the Company of the Indies abandoned its monopoly on the slave trade in 1725, a new system emerged that endured for decades. The company brought Indian textiles and cowry shells to its home port in Lorient, where it sold them to private slave traders who exchanged them for slaves in Africa. The slaves were then carried to the New World and exchanged for sugar. Roughly half of that sugar was carried back to France on slave ships, and the other half was carried by direct traders. The triangular slave trade, the Asia trade, and the direct trade to the New World formed an integrated system. No segment of it could survive without the others. It is a tragic irony that the archaic institution of slavery played such a crucial role in the 18th century development of the modern world economy."