PDA

View Full Version : Black Slaveowners


Tachosomoza
04-15-2011, 01:55 AM
http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm


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 (1). 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 (2).

According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.

To return to the census figures quoted above, this 28 percent is certainly impressive when compared to less than 1.4 percent of all American whites and less than 4.8 percent of southern whites. The statistics show that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters.

Interesting...

kervin
04-15-2011, 02:02 AM
what exactly is interesting?

Tachosomoza
04-15-2011, 02:04 AM
...

Mudokon Farmer
04-15-2011, 02:07 AM
I find it pretty ironic. "Hmmm...I've just been freed, so to assert my freedom I'm going to take it away from someone else."

See: Pilgrims. This trend isn't anything new.

THIS IS IMPORTANT GODDAMNIT
04-15-2011, 02:07 AM
Somehow its the white mans fault

Former_Member
04-15-2011, 02:08 AM
I imagine in a lot of cases, the freed slave would have once been in a position of power over slaves and so naturally resumed this role once free. This is just conjecture though.

Tachosomoza
04-15-2011, 02:08 AM
See: Pilgrims. This trend isn't anything new.

The Puritans weren't slaves in England. They were an oppressed religious minority.

kervin
04-15-2011, 02:38 AM
white people have been slaving white people, and black people have been slaving black people for hundreds of years before the civil war

Tachosomoza
04-15-2011, 02:44 AM
white people have been slaving white people, and black people have been slaving black people for hundreds of years before the civil war

True, but this takes it to a whole new level. Just shows how much people care about one another.

NamelessNom4d
04-15-2011, 02:49 AM
Hmmm that is very interesting. Just goes to show how textbooks don't always tell the whole story.

Michael Scott
04-15-2011, 03:02 AM
Somehow its the white mans fault

Hell yeah it is :grinblunt:

Michael Scott
04-15-2011, 03:04 AM
Hmmm that is very interesting. Just goes to show how textbooks don't always tell the whole story.

Dude thats not news man. I hate the education system. They pick and choose what they want people to learn. That's part of the reason why so many people walk around in this idealistic world where they believe everything that people tell them. Why not encourage people to learn the WHOLE truth, not just what they tell you??? god this world is fucked up. This kind of shit just breeds a bunch of mindless drones that walk around spitting bible verses and edited history out of textbooks at you. and before anyone asks, yes i'm mad.

Auschwitz Nazi Disneyland
04-15-2011, 03:11 AM
I find it pretty ironic. "Hmmm...I've just been freed, so to assert my freedom I'm going to take it away from someone else."

That's pretty much the history of Liberia in a sentence

Yggdrasil
04-15-2011, 03:15 AM
Dude thats not news man. I hate the education system. They pick and choose what they want people to learn. That's part of the reason why so many people walk around in this idealistic world where they believe everything that people tell them. Why not encourage people to learn the WHOLE truth, not just what they tell you??? god this world is fucked up. This kind of shit just breeds a bunch of mindless drones that walk around spitting bible verses and edited history out of textbooks at you. and before anyone asks, yes i'm mad.

I wouldn't necessarily calling it picking or choosing, or distortion of history or anything to that extent. I would imagine that anyone taking such a leap and saying so has an ulterior motive (ie looking for justification for some kind of bigoted view they have). While yes, some blacks did own slaves, mind you New Orleans was a main economic center of the South, and portraying the economic affluence or amount of slaves the wealthy in that city owned (regardless of the owner's race) would be unrepresentative of the population of the South as a whole.

The fact that blacks owned blacks back in the 'days of Dixie' or whatever the fuck have you is still no justification or excuse for the institutionalized slavery that existed in the South. An interesting historical anecdote, yes; something worthy of detailed mention in a history textbook, no.

Tachosomoza
04-15-2011, 03:23 AM
Still, a lot of kids grow up thinking that whites in the South were the ONLY slave owners, and that the war was fought for freedom or union or some other BS. In reality, it's just revisionist Yankee bullshit. At least encourage teachers to mention the facts that blacks owned slaves and prospered and that Abraham Lincoln wanted to send blacks to Africa.

CountBlah
04-15-2011, 03:25 AM
:lapastada:

nutsack
04-15-2011, 03:30 AM
http://shirtswag.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/slavery-gets-shit-done.jpg

Star Wars Fan
06-11-2011, 10:24 PM
a lot of black slaveowners did it to 'buy' their wives/children/family etc. Factor that in

EDIT:

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).

That doesn't exactly specify whether they were profiting or just buying everyone's uncle, aunt, then their friends, then so on and so on. Yes yes, my sense of ethnocentrism is coming into this.

Tachosomoza
06-11-2011, 10:42 PM
a lot of black slaveowners did it to 'buy' their wives/children/family etc. Factor that in

EDIT:



That doesn't exactly specify whether they were profiting or just buying everyone's uncle, aunt, then their friends, then so on and so on. Yes yes, my sense of ethnocentrism is coming into this.


Ethnocentrism is racism, Warsie. I would have bought slaves so that the community would think I was into their bougie bullshit, but I would have played a key role in the abolition movement as well. And I mean hands on. Guerilla ops, the works.