That is wrong on so many counts.
If your “natural selection” for the dumbest and slowest were true…we should look at other “exports“. The bulk of the colonists to the American colonies were convicts, debtors, indentured servants (one step above slaves)…the colonies provided a means of emptying the prisons…that make them pretty dumb and slow to have been captured and exported right?
Sure, in some cases. But you may be mixing up American colonies with Australian ones. Also, convict labor is completely different from endutured servitude, so the two should not be conflated.
Indentured servants voluntarily signed a contract. That's what an "indenture" was, a contract copied twice on the same sheet of paper and torn unevenly. The proof that they were true copies of each other was that the indentions on the pages would match.
I don't see equating voluntarily contracting to serve a term of labor in exchange for passage to the land of opportunity as being "captured and exported." Slavery was exactly that, and so was convict labor. That the endentured servants could read and sign their names put them leaps and bounds ahead of most of the captured and sold labor in America, be they UK convicts, or African prisoners.
Here is more information about that:
CONVICT LABOR SYSTEMSCONVICT LABOR SYSTEMS. In 1718 the British government decided that "transportation," the banishing of convicts to work in the colonies, created a more effective deterrent to recidivism than the standard punishments of whipping and branding. This change in policy was favored...
www.encyclopedia.com
Why would you say it is "wrong on many counts," and then provide a similar example? Did you think that I would say "Oh, no. They could not have been low-IQ, they were white?" Please don't buy the hype of a certain poster on this thread, who states that he is black.
Yes, the convict laborer brought to the colonies was almost certainly low-IQ, just as modern day convicts are.
The largest and most successful slave rebellion in history was Haiti, and there wasn’t a white man leading them…it was countries led by White men that imposed embargo’s and boycotts on Haiti in an attempt to crush the new country and out of fear it might inspire more rebellions.
As another poster pointed out…the Democrats were sharply divided, north and south on the issue, that fact keeps getting omitted.
Yes, there were Democrats who did not support slavery and secession. But, with the overwhelming majority of Democrats strongly in favor of both, one has to wonder if those anti-slavery, pro-union, Democrats were just Democrats because their family had always been and they were raised to hate the Whigs, and simply had not yet heard of the relatively new Republican Party, which was the party of anti-slavery and then anti-secession.
We can guess all we want, but we know that the Democratic Party was the party of slavery, and the party of Jim Crow, until they saw the inevitibility of black enfranchisement. Then they had a miraculous change of heart.