| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| BLACK SLAVEOWNERS |
| 2009-10-28 |
| Hat tip No Pasaran 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 (2). |
| Posted by:g(r)omgoru |
| #11 The colour of the majority of slaves at the time of the Civil War, anyway. Actually, does anyone know if whites were sold into slavery -- bond slavery I think it was called -- after the Revolution? Was that strictly an English custom, or is that something America kept afterward? |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2009-10-28 23:58 |
| #10 "just relishing the historical observation that slavery in the US of A didn't always involve people of color being brutally exploited by persons of pallor" No, not always. I'm still going to bet that 99% of black slaves were owned by white people though. "And S, if you can't appreciate the amusement value of finding out that there were black slaves held by pre-Civil War black residents of the Southern States" I knew that for many years, Sgt. Mom. I still don't understand what's amusing -or even remotely significant- about it. Some freed white slaves in Rome became slaveowners of other white people. I find that *sad*, but I don't see how it's amusing. Likewise it's obvious that some freed black people in America would choose to become slaveowners of other black people - historically that's what some slaves in all societies choose to do with their gained freedom. It's a sad testament to the universality of human immorality, and to the ability of some people to accept the very system that oppressed them ("I once was poor, but I worked hard, and I starved, and now at my retirement I'm rich!" says the victim of capitalism. "I once was a slave, but I pleased my master, and got freed in his will, and now I own slaves!" says the victim of slavery.), but I don't see much worthy of relishing here. It's just sad and pitiful. Anyway the racism in the institution of American slavery doesn't lie in the color of the slaveholders, it lies in the color of the slaves. |
| Posted by: S. 2009-10-28 23:43 |
| #9 No argument - just relishing the historical observation that slavery in the US of A didn't always involve people of color being brutally exploited by persons of pallor. 19th century social history WRT our "peculiar institution" wasn't all that cut and dried. The nuances are ... well, interesting and amusing. And S, if you can't appreciate the amusement value of finding out that there were black slaves held by pre-Civil War black residents of the Southern States, then I postulate that you suffer from an irony deficiency. There may be some vitamins you can take for that. |
| Posted by: Sgt. Mom 2009-10-28 22:44 |
| #8 I'm not quite certain what the argument here is supposed to be. That slavery in the American South wasn't a racist institution, because some blacks also held slaves? |
| Posted by: S. 2009-10-28 22:19 |
| #7 Native Americans practiced slavery and were heavily involved in trading slaves to European settlers. Some also kept black slaves. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2009-10-28 22:15 |
| #6 Historical truth (Veritas) is no longer subscribed to in the Academy. Historical discourse reigns - and that discourse steeped in PC allows for little/no discussion of incidents mentioned in this article. |
| Posted by: borgboy 2009-10-28 13:25 |
| #5 Wanna read some scary slave stories read up on the French in Haiti. It was positively medieval and the owners were both French and Mullato. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2009-10-28 12:36 |
| #4 Of course the first slaves of the British in the New World were Irish Many of them escaped from the West Indies to the southern parts of the Americas and are what are today called "rednecks" None of them, to my knowledge, ever owned slaves. |
| Posted by: tipper 2009-10-28 11:52 |
| #3 Doesn't everybody know only whites were racist slave owners?? C'mon folks, this is obviously a white racist lie that will be exposed by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. |
| Posted by: WolfDog 2009-10-28 11:03 |
| #2 Oh crap, here we go. This is one of the big no-nos of American history, right up there with the blacks who fought for the Confederacy. We had a similar incident here a few years back when the SC State Museum a restored slave cabin went up as an exhibit. The narration with it stated - accurately - that although the life of a slave was never easy or pleasant, most slaves were treated reasonably well, because they were an important investment on the part of the landowner. In addition, slaveholders who deliberately abused their slaves were usually looked down upon in the community; albeit for the same reasons that you would look down upon someone who abused their draft animals or livestock. Finally - and this seemed to get some folks madder than anything else - the exhibit accurately pointed out that the average slave lived in better conditions and was more likely to get three squares a day than the average white sharecropper. Needless to say, this didn't survive much past the opening of the exhibit. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2009-10-28 09:14 |
| #1 This was absolutely fascinating ... and contra to what we were taught in school, and had incessantly drummed into our heads about race relations in the 19th century. The 'peculiar institution' had a great many curious aspects to it, and wealthy free blacks and black slave magnates were just one of them. |
| Posted by: Sgt. Mom 2009-10-28 08:30 |