[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Historical Title: DIXIE'S CENSORED SUBJECT BLACK SLAVEOWNERS In an 1856 letter to his wife Mary Custis Lee, Robert E. Lee called slavery "a moral and political evil." Yet he concluded that black slaves were immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially and physically.
The fact is large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large. In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the U.S. census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states.
The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves. Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves).
In the rare instances when the ownership of slaves by free Negroes is acknowledged in the history books, justification centers on the claim that black slave masters were simply individuals who purchased the freedom of a spouse or child from a white slaveholder and had been unable to legally manumit them. Although this did indeed happen at times, it is a misrepresentation of the majority of instances, one which is debunked by records of the period on blacks who owned slaves. These include individuals such as Justus Angel and Mistress L. Horry, of Colleton District, South Carolina, who each owned 84 slaves in 1830. In fact, in 1830 a fourth of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves; eight owning 30 or more.
Click here to read the rest of the article. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest In an 1856 letter to his wife Mary Custis Lee, Robert E. Lee called slavery "a moral and political evil." Yet he concluded that black slaves were immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially and physically. He was correct. The writing about the African slave trade focuses almost exclusively on the western Africa slave trade. However, the Muslim slave trade on the east coast of Africa was far crueler with vast hordes of slaves, many of them young children, on death marches through vast deserts. On arrival in the Muslim heartland, the boys were all castrated, leading to a high mortality rate (and no descendents among modern Arab nations). The real horror of the African slave trade was among the eastern African Muslim slavers. People like Prez Obola's ancestors. This is how his family got their Muslim names, this is why his middle name is Hussein. Something the mass media has never gotten around to reporting in any detail.
The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves. Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves). I've read in other articles a rate of 6% for Southern slave ownership. Which means that all those Confederate soldiers who died must have been really stupid if the Civil War really was only about slavery. Why would they fight and die in terrible conditions for some rich plantation owner's right to own slaves otherwise? Quite obviously, many were animated by states' rights (as General Lee was) as well as a general antipathy to the North (which the Yankees reciprocated with an insane level of hatred toward the South). We see much the same in the North where even in Massachusetts, the major hotbed of early Republican abolitionists, actual membership in the abolitionist groups never rose above 2%.
In the rare instances when the ownership of slaves by free Negroes is acknowledged in the history books, justification centers on the claim that black slave masters were simply individuals who purchased the freedom of a spouse or child from a white slaveholder and had been unable to legally manumit them. Although this did indeed happen at times, it is a misrepresentation of the majority of instances, one which is debunked by records of the period on blacks who owned slaves. These include individuals such as Justus Angel and Mistress L. Horry, of Colleton District, South Carolina, who each owned 84 slaves in 1830. In fact, in 1830 a fourth of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves; eight owning 30 or more. I recall at least one account I've read of a freed slave in Texas who owned dozens of slaves as well. His name and personal history is well known. Slavery in eastern to central Texas was a rather German affair with most of the slaveowners speaking German and the slaves all speaking German instead of English. I mention the German bit mostly to illustrate how our own imagination of what the era was like doesn't really take into account the sheer variety among the owners and the slaves and the conditions under which slaves were held. In the North, slavery was far less harsh with discipline like whippings and beatings being far rarer. In the deep South was found the most brutal slavery from the accounts I have read. Part of the North's hatred for the South over the condition of slaves was due to the sheer brutality of some Southern plantations, something that would have disgraced any Northern plantation owner and led to them being ostracized entirely. We often think of and speak of slavery as a simple thing that operated uniformly. The truth is that, as with most things involving human beings, there was a lot more variety than we might imagine without considerable study.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|