Re: Liverpool?
- From: Graeme Wall <Graeme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 18:01:46 +0100
In message <mailman.399.1220628330.11004.genbrit@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
eve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 4 Sep 2008 at 22:05, Hugh Watkins wrote:
Gaved wrote:
Why was Liverpool chosen as a port of embarkation over other ports
such as Southampton in the UK by emigrants going to Canada and USA?
The reason I am asking is that ancestors traveled to Liverpool from
Cornwall rather than to Southampton which is nearer. I know that
both ports and others were used in WWII along with Greenock.
easier access to the north Atlantic allowing for winds and currents
And a well established cross Atlantic trade from Liverpool, first in
slaves,
Very few slaves ever went through Liverpool. They were regarded as a highly
perishable cargo and were shipped direct from West Africa to the Americas,
The ships returned from there with cotton for the mills of Lancashire. They
then sailed to West Africa with trade goods, including textiles from those
mills.
Unfortunately with all the current breast-beating and misplaced guilt about
the slave trade there's a lot of inaccuracies being peddled about it.
--
Graeme Wall
My genealogy website <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Liverpool?
- From: David J
- Re: Liverpool?
- References:
- Liverpool?
- From: Gaved
- Re: Liverpool?
- From: eve
- Liverpool?
- Prev by Date: Re: Mention in the Despatches
- Next by Date: Re: Free BMD Oddity
- Previous by thread: Re: Liverpool?
- Next by thread: Re: Liverpool?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading