Slavery and Ireland


This is a great point.

I’m reading about how James Henry Hammond attacked the British abolitionists by pointing out how the same philanthropists full of so much love for the poor West Indian negroes – you know, who were made “in the image of God” – were perfectly content to allow capitalists to starve Ireland to death in the 1840s.

While the Irish were starving to death in the potato famine, the black slaves in Mississippi and South Carolina were flourishing and growing in number. Southern planters contributed a significant amount of food during the 1840s to relieve the Irish famine.

In fact, a large percentage of the American population in the Northern states is derived from these refugees from British philanthropy.

About Hunter Wallace 12380 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent


  1. What comes around, goes around. Irish slave-traders were a menace in
    4th- and 5th-century Britain, raiding across the Irish sea. St Patrick was first
    taken to Ireland as a slave (his family were well-born Britons). “British
    slave-girl” was a unit of currency in early-medieval Ireland– the “cumal”,
    equivalent to three cows (according to THE AGE OF ARTHUR by John Morris, ch. 8.)

  2. A significant portion of the British population of Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester and London is traceable to this exodus too. Canada and Australia likewise. Even now it’s unlikely that the place can support more than 4 million souls.

  3. “What comes around, goes around. Irish slave-traders were a menace in
    4th- and 5th-century Britain, raiding across the Irish sea. St Patrick was first
    taken to Ireland as a slave (his family were well-born Britons). “British
    slave-girl” was a unit of currency in early-medieval Ireland– the “cumal”,
    equivalent to three cows (according to THE AGE OF ARTHUR by John Morris, ch. 8.)”

    You can’t possibly justify the centuries of genocide perpetrated by England upon the Irish by citing a few Britons being abducted in 500 A.D.! As I recall, things didn’t turn out so badly for St. Patrick in the end.

  4. The Irish Question is significant because there has been considerable debate as to why Britain turned so strongly against slavery after 1807.

    Was it really for humanitarian reasons? Southerners, Cubans, and other Europeans were convinced that Britain had ulterior motives and cited the famine in Ireland as proof of the falseness and hypocrisy of British philanthropy.

    John C. Calhoun believed that British antislavery was originally inspired by philanthropy, but after Britain abolished the slave trade they undermined the competitiveness of their own sugar colonies in the West Indies, and then started using antislavery rhetoric as a weapon against their rivals.

    During the French Revolution, the Jacobins had used this “weaponized equality” (how’s that for a phrase?) against their British rivals during their invasions of Grenada and St. Vincent. Of course Lincoln used abolition as a weapon too in the War Between the States.

    Abolition destroyed the British West Indies and set off a sugar and coffee boom in Brazil and Cuba. Why did the British continue pushing abolition on other nations after admitting their own experiment was a failure in the 1840s?

    Calhoun’s theory was that the only way the “free labor” experiment could succeed was by undermining and destroying all Britain’s more prosperous competitors in the neighboring slave states like Cuba and the South in order to level the playing field.

  5. That was a tongue in cheek post, obviously. The Famine is something that most freetrade republicans would agree with though. One complaint that the Irish made was to compare abritish relief funds with compensation for Planters in the Empire. Thd British set aside 30 million to pay off slave holders, and set aside 7 million for Irish famine in 1847. I’m not sure the slaver class in British society was pro Irish and the Abolishionists anti-Irish as hunter suggests. The Malthusian slavers were quite happy to kill off the Irish. The prophets of industrialization were a mixed bag too:

    Where was Wilberforce on the famine? I dunno.

    Small hold subsistence farming is not a very good idea if you want to feed millions.

  6. There’s a good case to be made that ruthless economists figured out that the slave trade had to be suppressed to make it possible for lassiez faire to work. Lassiez faire works for a very narrow set of investors. See Mitt Romney as a modern poster child of this economic model.

    Slavery works all too well in many cases.

  7. One more thing, what system is worse? Laissez faire? Or slavery+ mercantilism?

    I think that’s party what you are getting at.

  8. This article merely proves Cambria’s thesis- the crisis is a theological one- the Whites of Europe, having forgotten the God to whom they pledged themselves in an earlier time, now worship the Nigger as their new Phallic Idol.

    And we regress to barbarity accordingly. Like that Swedish video, ‘Mix it Up’.
    Lord God, what a pornographic piece of garbage modernity is…..

  9. Thank you John Derbyshire.

    We grew up knowing that u.s. was 99% anglo-sax-prod at revolution, but I actually have relatives who claim to be Irish (sort of like how southerners claim Indian blood when they have none at all). It’s due to the glorification of Irish in u.s. media, the hammering home of the “famine” (second only to black slavery in importance in schools now), and their general haranguing like Rudel above.

    Never even heard until this moment that Brits had ever been enslaved. And yet, who cares? The intercuts of Bull Conner hoses with “Irish need not apply” sign IMAGES made a point that they are “oppressed” and that is their culture signifier as here.

    Because they have an “anglo grievance” they are brought in, just like S. Americans incited by “liberation theology” with its implicit anti-angloism. They are used for White Genocide, culturally.

    The interesting point is how this intense anti-angloism (see Rudel above) caused people like Hart (irish rc banker) to Vote Consistently (Ryan, Biden, a thousand names) to OPEN THE BORDER and how the Irish on the court will “interpret law” (based on this anti-anglo hate) to keep open the border for ‘their own.’

    Demonstrably, there has been an intensive loyalty by them to pursuing policies that “get back at” the Anti-anglo prod, their legacy, their voice, their form of government, etc. (e.g., to eradicate the predominant and founding population that was in u.s. until 1965)–

    U.S. history, ultimately, may boil down to their being used, the way the jews have used blacks, while taking out their Irish issues on the u.s. population (anglo) and importing co-religionists.

    What “goes around comes around”— but the U.S. colonists had FOUGHT the British, lol— so the Irish didn’t really have a leg to stand on in taking out their European ethnic anger on Americans.

    Many —when they see the “irish need not apply” signs on t.v. intercut with BC hoses, or see pictures of past people questioning Irish candidates to office with fear— just look justified when younger people look at Biden, Ryan, their Italian friends, Madonna, Tarantino, Scorcese, etc, etc.

    Anyway— they won America (and they can have it).

  10. An aside–

    Went to review the book (Age of) immediately. Predictably, most reviews all say he was “well-respected” author until this book. No moral standing must be given to the “evil anglo” in the “Post-colonial” world (which is not only full of colonizers wherever anglos reside, but non-anglos have “voted in” a warfare-welfare tax collection state, a neo-feudalism the Irish claimed they didn’t like, lol— in order to FUND the new colonists.

    Worry over “black slavery” (and our “guilt”) is thrown into a new light, when OTHER non-anglo populations must arrive with their own slaves: “the mexicans.” Where would Hart, Kennedys, etc, have been without bringing their slaves in tow?

    Ok. Assume the worst of these “boo-hoo-Irish” stores are TRUE, just like we assume the worse of the “boo hoo” black slave stories are TRUE (fine by me)— but wouldn’t that a) just show we’re different populations who shouldn’t be around each other? b) beg the question of why they followed the anglos to the u.s., or didn’t go home at first opportunity?

  11. Oh—

    That’s was the point was trying to make about missionaries. OTOH, they set camps among freaking cannibals. Then they make protestants (in paper after paper) “anathema,” celebrate the history of killing them as “heretics.”

    But isn’t a freaking voodoo-doer and cannibal a bit of a worse “heretic?” Nice White Person reading Bible but not believing in transubstantiation (cut me a break!) bad…bad…bad…. But Voodoo-Canibal…God loves him!!!

  12. “(T)he same philanthropists full of so much love for the poor West Indian negroes..were perfectly content to allow capitalists to starve Ireland to death in the 1840s.”

    You must take into account the ongoing Irish versus English, and Roman catholic versus national Protestant conflict.

  13. Should never have joined in the revolution. Eventually London would have paid out 100,000,000 pounds to decommmission slavery. Instead of the civil end to slavery in the age of automation, the Unionists got to act like black jacobins and kill 1/5 of your people.

  14. Nice White Person reading Bible but not believing in transubstantiation (cut me a break!) bad…bad…bad…. But Voodoo-Canibal…God loves him!!!

    To quote JC: “To whom much is given, much is required.”

    Perhaps all along, Rome has held the Pagan savage to a less stringent theology- one can’t expect to discuss the hypostatic union… OR transubstantiation…. with someone a FSD below the norm of most European Anglos….

  15. “Why is IRISH nationalism always PC, when English is not so?” – Irish nationalism was a wedge used to divide the British empire. divide and rule.

    Of course today the irish are turning their country over to africans, with nary a peep from the terrorist organizations who fought like mad to force the english out.

  16. “FYI, this is the same John Derbyshire whose chink wife has grunted out several half-breed gook children for him.”

    The prospects of the white race were never improved by an uncivilized comment.

  17. Aaagh, the stupid! It burns! It BURNS!!

    Please go back to talking about the Golden Circle and JC Calhoun and that Rhett gentleman. The comments here are ample evidence that none of you has the faintest glimmer of the birth-pangs of a clue about this topic.

    Now I have to go take a shower in Bushmills just to get the stink off.

  18. Only yesterday I saw a TV programme about the Vikings, which pointed out that Dublin had been founded as, and for long operated as, a major slave trading centre.

    Also, white slaves were the major export from Dark Age Europe to pay for the luxuries imported for the ruling class. There are hoards of Islamic coins found in Sweden, which was payment largely for slaves. You-Know-Whos were prominent middlemen in this slave trade.

    Others have pointed out that about one and a quarter million Europeans were kidnapped and enslaved by Islamic raiders between 16th and 19th c (some of them from Ireland and Southern England). There should be much more fuss made about this trade in white slaves than about the trade in negroes, but it is un-PC to point this out.

    If this ‘dhimmi’ grovelling goes much further there will again be an Islamic trade in white slaves. Already the way is being prepared by the manner in which the sexual predation of Muslims on poor white girls in Britain is ignored by the authorities; almost like the ‘white slave’ trade of Eastern European women to Israel.

  19. @Dixiedumbgirl
    “We grew up knowing that u.s. was 99% anglo-sax-prod at revolution”

    Then you grew up ignorant and stupid too because you have been told this before right here: 10% of the founding stock of this country were Germans, mainly Lutherans, Mennonites, Amish, etc…

    There were just as many Scotch-Irish and then there were the Dutch of New Netherland, and the Welsh in Philadelphia etc. etc. etc.

  20. “10% of the founding stock of this country were Germans, mainly Lutherans, Mennonites, Amish, etc…”

    Only certain states were considered heterogeneous in ’76.

    The only colonies which could be said to be melting-pot colonies in anything approaching the degree which we see exemplified to-day in our eastern states were New York, New Jersey, Delaware and Pennsylvania. New York had 16.1% Dutch to 78.2% English and 3.2% Scotch; Delaware had 86.3% English, 7.5% Scotch, 3.9% Irish and 1% Dutch; New Jersey is estimated to have had 12.7% Dutch, 9.2% German, 7.1% Irish, 58% English and 7.7% Scotch; Pennsylvania is given 59% English, 11.7% Scotch, and 26.1% German.

    The common belief is that America has always been a mosaic of many nations with none of them predominating. The truth is exactly the opposite. This country began with a unified population. It was almost nine-tenths English, Scotch, Scotch- Irish and Welsh, that is, British, at the time the nation was formed. The Census Bureau’s study, A Century of Population Growth, published in 1909, estimated that in 1790, at the time of the first census, our population was made up as shown on page 91.

    Total white






















    . . . . . .

    All other



    98.8%; in Vermont, 98.4%; Massachusetts, 98.6%; Rhode Island, 99.1%; Connecticut, 99%; Virginia, 92.1%; North Carolina, 94.3%; South Carolina, 94,1%; Maryland, 90.5%; Georgia, 94.3%; Kentucky, 94.3%, and Tennessee, 94.3%.

    America, Nation or Confusion: A Study of Our Immigration Problems
    By: Edward R. Lewis

  21. @dixiegirl
    You sound like you don’t even think that Irish are even white. I’ve seen many of your posts before and you seem to have a really narrow definition of what white is – a White Anglo Saxon Protestant and that’s IT. The way the country is now you ought to start getting used to the whites that make up the only current white immigration – Irish as usual, Russians, Serbs, Bulgarians, Hungarians, Poles, Catholics too, oh horror of horrors. So dear, you better get used to some of us OTHER whites that you don’t like, you vicious cunt. Because we are the only ones coming here at least trying to offset the brown and black tidal wave hitting America.

  22. “It was almost nine-tenths English, Scotch, Scotch- Irish and Welsh, “

    That’s what I said. And they weren’t that heterogeneous. Many Welsh colonists were still speaking Welsh etc. The Amish still aren’t. Anyway your 1909 numbers are out of date as more recent research is more accurate. I prefer the actual 1790 U.S. Census to 1775 “estimates.”

    1790 United States Census
    European American Ancestry only Percentage
    British (total) 74.3%+
    English 60.9%
    Scot-Irish/Scot 14.3%
    German 8.7%
    Dutch/French/Swedish 5.4%
    Irish 3.7%
    Unidentifiable 7.0 %
    Total 100%
    African Americans were some 19.3% of the total U.S population.

    Estimated Populations in the American Colonies of 1775
    Ancestry Percentage
    English 48.7% — a MINORITY!
    African 20.0%
    Scot-Irish 7.8 %
    German 6.9%
    Scottish 6.6 %
    Dutch 2.7%
    French 1.4%
    Swedish 0.6%
    Other 5.3%
    Note – If the Scottish and Ulster Scots
    (known as Scotch-Irish) are added together they form 14.4%

  23. Derb, if we’re going to dwell on 1000+ year old grievances, the Irish were nowhere near the menace to the Britons that the Anglo-Saxons were. The Irish took a few slaves, but, in an act of genocide almost as thorough as the one they’re doing to themselves now, the Anglo-Saxons wiped the Britons out in England, kicked the survivors out to Wales and Brittany, and reinstituted paganism for a few centuries.

    The Britons were pretty much doomed when they came to rely on the Romans for protections. When the Roman Empire fell, they were like domesticated dogs beset by wolves.

Comments are closed.