History

Hidden Facts about Slavery in America

The first official slave owner in colonial America was a black man, not white; the Arab slave trade in Negroes was far greater and much longer lasting than the transatlantic slave trade; the founder of the southern state of Georgia banned both slavery and Africans from the state; large numbers of “free blacks” owned black slaves; and less than 5 percent of pre-Civil War American families actually had slaves.

slavery

These are some of the facts about slavery in America which are deliberately hidden from establishment histories of slavery in America, which are all designed to blame white Americans for “racism” and “slavery” and induce a completely false sense of guilt among whites.

Fact 1: The first official slave owner in America was an Angolan who adopted the European name of Anthony Johnson. He was sold to slave traders in 1621 by an enemy tribe in his native Africa, and was registered as “Antonio, a Negro” in the official records of the Colony of Virginia. He went to work for a white farmer as an indentured servant.

Prior to 1654, all Africans in the thirteen colonies were held in indentured servitude and were released after a contracted period with many of the indentured receiving land and equipment after their contracts for work expired. Johnson would later take ownership of a large plot of farmland after the expiration of his contract and, using the skills he had learned during his indentured labor service, Johnson became moderately successful.

By July 1651 Johnson had five indentured servants of his own. In 1664, he brought a case before Virginia courts in which he contested a suit launched by one of his indentured servants, a Negro who adopted the name of John Casor. Johnson won the suit and retained Casor as his servant for life, who thus became the first official and true slave in America.

Thus the accusation that whites “started slavery” in America is utterly untrue: blacks in Africa sold each other as slaves, and the first true lifelong slave in America was owned by a black man, not a white.

Fact 2: The transatlantic slave trade was dwarfed by the Arab or Muslim slave trade, which lasted from 650 AD to 1900 AD. It is estimated that a minimum of 18 million Africans were enslaved by Arab slave traders, and that over one million Europeans were enslaved by the Muslim world during the same period.

The Muslim slave trade saw Africans exported to regions throughout the Middle East and even to India, while the Europeans were captured in raids in Spain, Italy, France, Britain, and Ireland. These raids were launched from North Africa, and during the Islamic occupation of Iberia and southern Italy, from the latter regions as well.

READ  First Phoenician DNA is European

The invasion of southeastern Europe by the Ottoman Turks saw even more Europeans enslaved into the Muslim world—but their numbers are unknown.

The Muslim trade in slaves, both black and white, was therefore longer lasting and far more extensive than the transatlantic slave trade—but there are today no cries of “Arab guilt” or demands for reparations against Muslim nations.

Fact 3: James Oglethorpe (1696–1785) was a British general who founded the colony of Georgia in 1732. From the very beginning, Oglethorpe ensured that slavery was banned in the colony, and that Africans were barred from entering the territory. The colony’s founding charter also forbid Roman Catholicism from being established in the region.

It was only in 1750, after Oglethorpe had left the colony, that the ban on slavery was lifted.

Fact 4: Many free Negroes owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large.

In 1830, a fourth of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves; eight owning 30 or more.

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. Black Duke University professor John Hope Franklin recorded that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.

In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves. The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation.

Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000.

In Charleston, South Carolina in 1860, 125 free Negroes owned slaves; six of them owning 10 or more. Of the $1.5 million in taxable property owned by free Negroes in Charleston, more than $300,000 represented slave holdings. In North Carolina 69 free Negroes were slave owners.

READ  Black History Month Myths

(Source:  Black Masters: A Free Family of Color in the Old South, Michael P. Johnson and James L. Roak New York: Norton, 1984.)

Fact 5: In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the US 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).

The figures show conclusively that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters in pre-Civil War America. The statistics outlined above show that about 28 percent of free blacks owned slaves—as opposed to less than 4.8 percent of southern whites, and dramatically more than the 1.4 percent of all white Americans who owned slaves.

Recommended further reading on the topic of white slavery:

It is a simple fact of the anti-white establishment that the Trans-Atlantic slave trade is known to all, but knowledge of the Muslim slave-trade in Europeans is deliberately suppressed.

Europeans are continually “blamed” for African slavery (even though only a tiny minority were ever involved in it, and it was Europeans who brought it to an end), but no-one ever dares “blame” the Muslim world for their slave trade in Africans and Europeans, which lasted for centuries longer than the Atlantic slave trade.

It was during the 1600s that Barbary corsairs—pirates from the Barbary Coast of North Africa (today Algeria, Libya and Morocco)—were at their most active and terrible. With the full support of the Moorish rulers of North Africa, these Muslim slavers raided southern Europe, the Atlantic European coast, Britain and Ireland almost at will.


 

WHITE-SLAVERY11White Slavery in the Barbary States

By Charles Sumner. Written by one of America’s most famous slavery abolitionist activists of the mid-nineteenth century, this astonishing book provides a fascinating insight into a period of history now largely suppressed from view by political correctness—the time when at least one million Europeans were seized and sold into slavery by the nonwhites of North Africa.

The author provides a full background to the Islamic slave trade in white people and includes little-known details such as how the Muslim pirates even seized groups of Pilgrims on their way to North America. CLICK HERE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION.

READ  Black Identity: Good. White Identity: Bad.

 


Barbary-Rovers-FrontCover
Barbary-Rovers-FrontCover

The Barbary Rovers

By John Finnemore. The Barbary pirates operated for over 300 years from the time of the expulsion of the Moors from Spain in 1492 until the occupation of Algiers by France in 1831.

More than one million Europeans were seized in raids on Europe’s coasts while citizens from every white nation whose ships sailed the seas, fell victim to the Muslim slave traders.

This book, first published in a time when authors could speak freely, pulls no punches on the racial undertones to the North African slave trade, and provides a complete overview of the rise of the “Scourge of Christendom” until its destruction at the hands of combined European and American military strikes in the early nineteenth century. CLICK HERE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION.


 

BARBARIAN-CRUELTY11Barbarian Cruelty: An Eye-Witness Account of White Slavery under the Moors

By Francis Brooks.  An original eye-witness account of white slavery under the Muslims of North Africa.

This remarkable book, first published in 1693, contains one of the few genuine eye-witness accounts, written by a white slave who managed to escape. Its graphic description of the lot of white slaves, the Moorish relations with the Jews of North Africa, the conditions of the time and the author’s eventual escape, cast a dramatic and nowadays, oft-hidden light upon the time when whites were enslaved.

Very few ever managed to escape, and most ended their days dying of starvation, disease, or maltreatment. A tiny number converted to Islam—a way of guaranteeing freedom, as only kuffars were enslaved—and an even smaller number escaped. CLICK HERE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION.

HTML Editor - Full Version



66 Comments

      1. Nobody is taught this in school, because our public school system is nothing more than a covert (well, not so covert anymore) Liberal factory. They mold your minds and want you to feel as though you are evil simply because of the color of your skin, they implant every young, white American with the seeds of white guilt, which is then perpetuated through the media and entertainment, until we are willing to simply allow our culture and our country to be overrun by what we have today. The facts that do not fit their narrative are simply left out… they also don’t mention the fact that white men were not marching about the jungles of Africa with nets catching black men; they were purchased through a slave trade, the suppliers of which were rival tribes selling off their prisoners of war.

         
        Reply
        1. Our liberal university professors allege that ‘capitalism’ is responsible creating slavery. Unfortunately, capitalism didn’t develop as a economic system until the mid 1700’s AD, which is 3,600 years after slavery began. In fact, Capitalists funded and participated in the Civil War which ended slavery in the US. Capitalism ended slavery, it didn’t create it.

           
          Reply
          1. Kerry, only 4.8 percent of the population in the rebel states owned slaves. Slaves represented a huge investment. The slave owners were the largest representatives in government. You can’t ask poor people who can’t afford slaves to fight for you “right” to keep them. So, you start a fear campaign and yell “states rights”. The uneducated souls who don’t know any better go along with this and fight your war never realizing that the “right” they are fighting for is the 4.8 percents “right” to own slaves. Pay attention. The GOP is trying to do the same thing now.

             
          2. Actually, the ownership of slaves was more common than supposed, though the large, stately plantation with the rich gentleman of leisure in the white suit and bowtie ala Colonel Sanders is largely a myth and would characterize a scant few of the slaveholders. Most were small farmers who worked long hours daily alongside their charges in the fields, or, if a local shopkeeper, blacksmith or copper smith, or other small businessman, toiled as hard as any ‘slave’.

            It wasn’t so much ‘state’s rights’ as for many an American, their state capital was often far enough removed that they might make that journey once or twice in a LIFETIME. It was the perception that the Federal Government was so controlled by the Northern banking and industrial interests that even for the Southerner of modest means, there was no longer a reason to remain in the union. The “right” that Southerners fought (unsuccessfully) for was the same ‘right’ that their great-grandfathers had asserted (successfully)…to direct their own legal and political destiny in defiance of a far-away power that taxed and ruled them against their interests. Of course…the fact that Southern states and many a seemingly wealthy Southern ‘gentleman’ were heavily in debt to Northern banks may ALSO have had a lot to do with the desire to secede…and the equally strong desire to not let these debtors ‘skip’ on them may also have lent impetus to the Union cause. That and the Federal Government, on the eve of the War of Confederate Independence, was nearly bankrupt.

             
        1. That is not true. It became the touch stone later because the war was wildly unpopular (obviously) and President Lincoln needed a meme that would help him. Today it is a very popular idea because of political correctness. The war began because of taxes that Lincoln levied on the South that did not apply to the Northern states. The Southern states asserted that the US COntitution wa not a suicide pact and that they would secede from the union if they were going to be treated like a foreign country. Lincoln and his cabinet managed to trick the South into firing the first shot and came at them with the full force of the US Army (renamed the Union Army). I would recommend that every American read “The Real Lincoln” by Thomas DiLorenzo for the counterpoint to the popular narrative on the Civil war and the Emancipation proclamation. The truth, I believe, was far from the idyllic story of the noble Abraham Lincoln sending the angelic Union troops to root out the evils of slavery. I was very angry when I read it for Myself and my countrymen who were taught a lie. From then on I pledged to always seek out “the other side” of a story.

           
          Reply
          1. Good synopsis. Only those that delve in the old books of history will know the truth. I have been reading books of the 1800s and later that dispel the slant on history that we have today. What you captured in your comment is true. Too bad others don’t seek the truth. Today, you can’t read only one document and formulate an opinion.

             
          2. This is true. The slave owners were represented by the Democrat party as well. All those suppression laws that I hear them yelling about are their own design and implementation. In the Civil war, many in the North did not want to abolish slavery as well. Interestingly enough, most slaves who went north to “freedom” systematically returned after they found free life was not all it was touted as being and became share-croppers back on the plantations.. Not slavery mind you.. but the exact same life and existance in terms of operations and functions.

             
          3. The civil war was not started over slave, but it was a back drop and a point of contention for years prior, hence the Lincoln Douglas debates. The fight over slavery in new states.

            Slavery was what started the war, but t became and integral part of it.

             
        2. No it actually was not, it was called the war for southern independence because all most all of southern tax revenue went into northern infrastructure while little to nothing went to the south, thus the Constitutional right to secede from the Nation Lincoln acknowledged their right of succession but didn’t want to give up southern revenue.

           
          Reply
          1. Correct! As a last ditch effort, he injected the slave issue to shock the conscience of Americans. This is why his Emancipation Proclamation was only enforced on the SOUTHERNERS. And, after the war, the previous Northern slave owners went right back to business as usual?!

             
          2. If individual States had the right to secede then… do they have that right now? Does not any population have the right to claim their own sovereignty? It appears obvious, the USA federal government is too big, therefore too remote from the people and therefore easily corrupted.

            It appears Lincoln was not the great hero and liberator he was portrayed to be. Rather, he trampled the sovereign rights of 30% of the U.S. population. So much for “land of the free.”

             
        3. Read your history , Lincoln turned it into a slavery thing to suit him …. The south were fighting for same reasons we are now.

           
          Reply
        4. The Civil War was fought over state rights to make their own laws separate of the federal government. In fact, Abraham Lincoln did not feel it was his responsibility to free the slaves. He despised slavery yes, but felt it should be up to the state governments whether to be a slave state or free state. The ONLY reason he signed the Emancipation Proclamation was to gain reelection for a second term. The Republican Party felt it was the only way to gain a majority vote from the northern states, which were much more populous than the southern states. Unfortunately, our “government” approved History text books leave these facts out.

           
          Reply
      1. Just because they are related doesn’t mean they share the same beliefs as their distant relatives from 10 generations or 200+ years back. If they even know who they are. Because I bet you don’t!

         
        Reply
    1. Now we know why the true extent of Free Blacks owning slaves has never been taught in US schools and universities.

       
      Reply
    1. To the victor, the spoils. This means that the North wrote the history books and could tell any story they wanted. This, in turn, became the history that we are taught. Word of mouth also taints history as it has for over 150 years, e.g., the soldier’s flag called the Confederate battle flag (not the Stars and Bars). The Stars and Bars is the 1st Confederate States of America flag, the first flag that the Confederacy flew as a national flag. The soldier’s flag was not a national flag. It was a flag for a commanding officer of the Confederacy to identify his troops on the battlefield and in battle.

       
      Reply
    2. Because the winner makes the history. And…More to the point, the Leftists seem to position themselves to make the words…Rules.
      And the Conservatives usually are not loud enough to be heard. Shrug. Walk away..

       
      Reply
  1. Interesting read. I hadn’t realized that slavery information was on the census records back then. (or maybe you got those stats elsewhere?)

    In any case, most white people who know their family lines back 5 or 6 generations, also know most white people weren’t slave owners. We still have to pay for it though eh?

    Something that is never talked about, and should be brought up more frequently, is the 13th ammendment. We called it the abolition of slavery.
    Read it if you have a minute!
    It does not conclusively abolish slavery. It leaves slavery as a possibility for those who have been convicted of a crime. The 13th ammendment never proclaimed black people as free. It merely shifted the criteria to ANYONE of any color who has been convicted (doesn’t say misdemeanor or felony) of a crime.

    Have you ever been convicted of a crime? You are a candidate for slavery. Have you ever done something (and so far haven’t been caught) for which you COULD be convicted? Maybe you left evidence in a phone conversation or txt or Facebook post which is now stored on the NSAs database and has yet to become useful.

    Read the 13th ammendment.

     
    Reply
    1. We did pay for it. The south, in war reparations concerning the slave issue, were forced to fund the formation of the country of Liberia in Africa for any slaves to return to if desired. Look at that country now by the way!
      This nearly broke the bank for the southern states.

      Interesting side note.. One prominent slave owner took all his slaves to live on a plantation in Brazil in a city called Americana. If you ever visit this city today, you will find blacks dressed in bell dresses and holding an anual celebration to commemorate their arrival from the south: They sing songs like “ol’ susanna” and “dixie” which are somewhat distorted because of no longer speaking the English language… It is interesting to see this exhibition though. Slaves went with the master to Brazil willingly too because this was their life and they did not want to lose their lifestyle that they were accustomed to in the South.

      The horror stories like seen in the series “Roots” are basically fictitious on the most part. Owning a slave was the equivalent to owning a mazarati sports car today. I somehow doubt the owners would go out and wail on their mazarati much wit ha stick or whip.. In most cases the slaves were fed before the family was since that was the investment in their incomes.. common sense must prevail when talking about the times back then…

       
      Reply
    2. Most white Americans immigrated to the US AFTER the Civil War. Europe was in crisis with wars, poverty, famine, and the US was their only hope for a chance at success. The UK was a class driven society, born poor you stay poor, etc. The Irish were the primary union soldiers that fought to end slavery. In fact more white males died ending slavery than the total slave population of the US.

       
      Reply
      1. Your point about white immigration to U.S. is a good one. But your final statement appears to be false. Number of slaves was almost 4 million. Number of soldier deaths estimated between 650,000 and 850,000 (including pneumonia, smallpox and other diseases.)

         
        Reply
    3. The provision your speaking of was put in to exclude inmate workers. Remember the phrase “Hard labor”? Work details were common practice because hard work was a form of rehabilitation. Also, jails and prisons were expected to be self sufficient.

       
      Reply
  2. Thank you for the true history lesson. This needs to go viral and should be taught in our school system. Who knows this may be the factual information needed to help put an end to racists and the lies taught to both races about slavery. I for one will be teaching this to my children and whomever else willing to listen with an open mind. It’s sad a government will lie to your face and make you feel bad as if it were your fault for slavery and who will knowingly allow this racism to thrive.

     
    Reply
  3. Not to mention Liberia, in which our Congress granted to the freed slaves after the civil war, where the freed slaves enslaved their fellow Africans as soon as they returned because they felt they were more civilized than the people there because they lived in America, slave or not. They carried on slavery into the 20th century, all the way up to the 80’s.

     
    Reply
    1. The history that is taught in schools today wasn’t created by the north because the south like the north has history classes pertaining to the history of their perspective regions also majority of public school educational materials is made in texas who is the largest supplier of piblic school materials. The north was not innocent by any means but the south regardless of rhem saying they seceded due to state rights the biggest rights they were fighting for was their major cash crop which was slaves and without them the rich southerners with slaves couldn’t compete with the norths industrial might. But the majority of average confederate soldiers thought they were fighting for their states rights but really like most wars they were fighting for the rich peopls money and who had all the power why else were rich plantation owners with no military backgrounds giving commissions some as even generals same as the north.

       
      Reply
  4. Obama African forebears were slave traders**

    In the 18th century, Muslim slavers moved into the interior of Kenya for the purpose of

    exploiting blood rivalries between local tribes. Muslims encouraged warring tribes, Obama Jr’s

    Luo ancestors included, to capture “prisoners of war” and sell them into slavery.

    Kenya tribe leaders, also exported slaves and ivory that had been exchanged by Africans from the

    interior for salt, cloth, beads, and metal goods. The slaves were then marched to the coast and

    shipped to Muslim Zanzibar (an island South of Kenya), to be traded again.

    African slaves and ivory became hugely profitable and Zanzibar

    Muslims grew rich on the trade. Slave

    trading continued despite the public outrage in Europe demanding an end to all slave trade.

    The British, eventually brought their forceful anti-slavery message directly to the Muslim Sultan.

    After years of pressure, the Sultan finally relented and agreed to ban slavery in 1847.

    It was not until 1876, 11 years after the American Civil War had ended, that the sale of slaves

    was finally prohibited in Zanzibar.
    From CNN

     
    Reply
  5. Read, “White Cargo: The Forgotten History of Britain’s White Slaves in America
    by Don Jordan, Michael Walsh. Thousands of white slaves were transported from Ireland, Scotland, and Britain to the West Indies and America in the 16th and 17th centuries.

     
    Reply
  6. Thank you – this was very enlightening. I’m from the south and know for a fact that my ancestors were not slave owners. Apparently they were in a majority at the time. Truly sad that facts have been twisted.

     
    Reply
  7. Absolute truth is hard to find. Philosophers suggest that truth is a personal belief and makes us comfortable. Research, dig, until you uncover the ‘truth’..

     
    Reply
  8. Did y’all know that Native Americans owned slaves too? I never knew that either until I was doing some genealogy research for a descendant of an Oklahoma “Freedman”. They owned them in the south way before the Trail of Tears, and they took their slaves with them when they were forced to go to Indiana Territory (OK).
    Then the NA fought for the Confederacy during the Civil War in Indian Territory.
    The only difference was that for the most part, they treated their slaves better than the whites,(& now blacks), and even intermarried with them.

    It only goes to show that the institution of slavery wasn’t something that was created in America, it came with those who settled America. (Indentured, servitude, etc, it was all, and still is deeply-seated in the hearts a man.
    Slavery wasn’t only made up of black people, slavery has touched and played a part in many civilzations since the history of man of ‘all’ nationalities.

    Now on the Trail of Tears…..there were more than just one forced exodus………….you never heard or read about that in school textbooks either! (nor did they mention just what an evil man, President Jackson ‘really’ was either)

     
    Reply
  9. All these facts and comments about things we were never taught as if we were taught to about all the harsh truths concerning brutality of what white slave owners did to black slaves. These facts never mentioned that although very few blacks owned slaves, even as slave owners they were not seen as equals. Black slave owners were not known to torture and brutalize their slaves as white slave owners did and black slave owners were known to reunite families separated by white slave owners so I wonder why that was not mentioned?

     
    Reply
    1. Terrance, The reason it was not mentioned most likely is the lack of it actually happening. Point to note: The slave traders and ships were from Portugal and not from the US. This is the point were most of the exaggerated claims of mistreatment happened. To purchase a slave was equivalent to purchasing a Lamborghini sports car today, and I doubt the owners would simply go out and destroy their Lamborghini which they needed to feed themselves.
      Brazilian slaves though were another story where they were easily procured and extremely cheap to buy since Brazil was a major hub for the African slave trade. Interestingly enough though blacks in Brazil do not make problems as the ones in the US constantly do: In fact, in brazil all people of all colors look at each other as all being Brazilian and refuse to label themselves as “African-American”.. This separation is imposed by the black community itself, and feeds this community to assimilate and “get with the program”. Other minorities have molded into society such as Asians and to an extent Hispanics.
      Points of fact: More blacks fought in the southern armies in the civil war than on the northern forces. These guys were fighting for their lands and country. Look at the records for the number of freed slaves in the south compared to slaves and you will clearly see contradiction to liberal claims of mass incarceration and torture. It sounds like you have only been taught the false facts of the civil war evidently.. and it is hard to connect the dots when such liberal tripe like the old videos such as “roots” came out.. That is another story though.

       
      Reply
  10. Two problems with this article. One is the “but knowledge of the Muslim slave-trade in Europeans is deliberately suppressed.” Any evidence of that? None is given and I read history and history books and articles have lots of information about world wide slave trade. Two is the fact that while a tiny minority of white Americans owned slaves, somehow they convinced the poor white Southerners to fight for them (sound familiar?).

     
    Reply
    1. Nope. You are incorrect. documentation on a massive scale exists relating to the pirates and the slave trade in North Africa and even into Southern Europe when the Muslim collective took over half of Europe actually. This group was collectively known as “Moores” and you will find no lack of evidence in this to look up my friend.

       
      Reply
      1. That’s precisely what Patrick states. He questions whether information about that trade was “deliberately suppressed” as claimed in this article. I think it was definitely suppressed in mainstream media and in Hollywood and TV productions and in school curricular. All of that covers all the major sources for most people.

         
        Reply
    2. Patrick I think the Confederate States were fighting for their (different) heritage and their sovereignty. I believe USA would have been a far better nation today (less toxic, corporatised and corrupt) if the Confederat States had won their right to sovereignty / independence. I wish they would pursue it today! I think many of them want to. The federal government has been out of the peoples’ control, and outside the peoples’ interests, health and wellbeing, for many decades.

       
      Reply
  11. All I know is, the people in the South were much kinder to blacks than other areas were. I remember my mother telling me about a situation that happened at my sweet little Southern grandmother’s house when my mom and dad got married. My grandmother had a black cook. My grandparents from IN were there and they were at the table to eat. My little Southern grandmother asked my other grandmother if she would like a biscuit. My grandmother from IN said “Heavens no, I’m not eating any biscuits those black hands touched”. Now, you tell me, who was the racist? Also, my granddaddy was a dentist in a VERY small SC town. Every black person that worked for them would get free dental care. Also, if any of them got sick he would pay for their care. He hardly ever got paid for his work except for some veggies and maybe some fish or meat that people paid him with. He also hunted for their food and fed the blacks that needed it. He was lucky that he did have some people that paid in cash and that he was able to provide for his family and the ones that worked for him. I don’t think my IN grandparents would have done that. Mary T.

     
    Reply
    1. This is a beautiful gem of a story, Mary. Valuable golden history straight from the source. I can’t thank you enough. This means a lot to me at the present time..I shall share it around to every place I can (starting quite close to home.) You are an angel and your story is Heaven sent. Thankyou from my heart and thankyou to all your precious grandparents and parents.

       
      Reply
  12. A great book that sheds light on slavery and the treatment of slaves in the US is called, “The South was Right”. Included in the book is a report of the 1920 census where the remaining slaves were interviewed by the federal government to get their eyewitness stories of slavery. The report was never published because an outstanding 97% of all the ex slaves interviewed “wished” that they could go back to the slave days. Their stories are truely remarkable.

     
    Reply
  13. Interesting facts below:

    Many students of black slaveholding, and even Woodson (1968), who base their findings on United States census figures only, maintain that the dominant slaveholding pattern developed among blacks was benevolent and based primarily on kinship. However, by researching and cross-referencing tax records, bills of sale, mortgages, wills with census records, Koger (1995) paints a different picture of black slaveholding. It seems quite evident that black slaveholding was linked to a kind of “pigmentocracy.” He affirms that a survey of the local documents and of the census of 1850 shows 83.1 percent of the black masters were mulattoes and 90 percent of their slaves were of darker skin. To him, this pattern does not support the assertion that black slave ownership was merely benevolent. He further states that because mulattoes primarily married other mulattoes, the black slaves that were owned by light-skinned blacks were rarely kin and were instead overwhelmingly held as laborers. Woodson (1968) holds a contrary view; he reasons that almost all black slave owners purchased slaves to make their lot easier by granting them their freedom for a nominal sum, or by permitting them to work it out on liberal terms. Halliburton (1976), however, notes that the majority of black masters [no mention is made of skin color] never knew the dehumanization of slavery because they had been born of free black parents. In terms of commercialism, there was no distinction between the colored slave masters with 1 or 2 slaves and the large plantation with 100s. Koger (1995) argues that a great many freemen became slave masters themselves for the same reason as whites, to make use of slave labor for the sake of profits. He writes, “by and large, Negro slave owners were darker copies of their white counterparts.” His research led him to conclude, “clearly the dominant pattern of the commercial use of slaves recorded in the documents indicates that black slaveholding was primarily an institution based on the exploitation of slaves rather than a benevolent system centered upon kinship or humanitarianism” (p. 101). Some colored masters registered mortgages using their slaves as collateral to secure loans. For many black slaveholders, slaves were merely property to be purchased, sold, or exchanged. The fact that free black men and women owned slaves, beyond the necessity of securing the freedom of a spouse, children, or other dear ones, demonstrates that for some blacks, just as for whites, greed has no boundaries. It is well to keep in mind, however, the vicissitudes of slavery, so that whereas: “there may not have been much objection to the ownership of one’s own family by a free Negro; …when one undertook to acquire slaves to improve his economic status, there were those who looked upon it as a dangerous trend, the legality of which was seriously questioned” (Franklin 1995, p. 155). Again, free blacks had rights as long as whites recognized those rights. Those rights could be abrogated at any time. At the beginning of hostilities between North and South, for example, a law was passed in North Carolina “to prevent Negroes from having the control of slaves” (Franklin, 1995, p. 156).

    Notwithstanding the uncertainty and volatility in the laws and individual states rules regulating the rights of blacks to own property, those blacks that had slaves for profit had socioeconomic interests in common with white holders of chattel. As many historians reveal, free Negroes who acquired their bonds people the same way they gained their own free status, that is, as gifts of inheritance from white slave owners, were especially likely to have the same socioeconomic interest in their human property as did white slave owners (Schwarz, 1987; Koger, 1995; Clayton, 1993, Vogeler, 1997; Halliburton, 1976). Scholars including Woodson, point out that up to the 1860’s, having economic interests in common with the white slaveholders, black owners enjoyed the same social standing: attended the same churches, same private schools, and places of amusement. They frequently lived on the same streets as white families. Slaves represented an important status symbol, but also an inexpensive source of help in the workplace or in the home. Most of the blacks who held slaves solely for profit were farmers or plantation owners (Woodson, 1968).

    Throughout the time that slavery was in existence, the kinds of slaves that could be owned changed according to time, place, and prevailing laws. Free black ownership was not too complicated at first. Black slave masters were allowed to own (in addition to blacks) white, Christian, and European Americans (Schwarz, 1987). In Virginia in 1670, the legislature prohibited this “freedom” of ownership of Christian whites by blacks, and in 1723 it sharply curtailed the opportunity for bonds people to be emancipated. The number of free black slaveholders would start to rise again only after legislation in 1782 allowed emancipation by deed or will. According to Schwarz (1987), legal and political conditions changed dramatically by 1806, making it necessary for many free blacks to hold slaves to assure their own continued residence in Virginia. Anxious over the increasing presence of unenslaved and harder to control blacks, legislators decided that future beneficiaries of emancipation would have to leave the commonwealth within twelve months of their change of status or else be reenslaved and sold for the benefit of the poor whites. This forced the former slaves to acquire new skills for doing business on their own, which obliged some of them to buy a work force in the form of slaves (Schwarz, 1987). After 1832, blacks could acquire no more slaves except spouses, children or those gained by descent. The Code of 1849 added parents to these exceptions, but in 1858, “acting in an atmosphere of sectional crisis and perhaps emboldened by the United States Supreme Court’s pronouncement against black citizenship in Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857), the legislature took away what little security free blacks might hope to give to relatives in the future” (Schwarz, 1987, p. 332). Thus black Virginians could no longer buy family members. These changes occurred throughout the United States with some differences by state.

    Despite changes in the law, blacks continued to hold slaves through the Civil War. Koger (1995) refers to the fact that “in 1860, some 3,000 blacks owned nearly 20,000 black slaves [in the southern states]. In South Carolina alone, more than 10,000 blacks were owned by black slaveholders.” Thus, black slave ownership was dependent upon the prevailing atmosphere of the times. During certain periods and in certain areas blacks had no restriction as far as ownership of property and slaves, in others they were only permitted to own family members. At least in the case of Virginia in 1806, slave owning assured free blacks continued residency and even their own freedom.

     
    Reply
    1. This is the truth in history. It is even true today among the black population which labels themselves by their blackness where ones which are not so dark are labeled as “yellows” for example. Human nature will always win out with people I suppose.

       
      Reply
  14. It was he democrats who tried to keep the slaves in chains in history and they are still doing it today. Today they do it with money. Throw a little money into the hands of a person who did not earn that money. What do you thik they will do. They will spendit and then come back for more. That is the same as treating them like farm animals. Farm animals eat, defocate indiscriminately , reproduce without consequence or responsibility and then show up again at the assigned time for more food. Farm animals are easy to “Condition” into a predicted response and they repeat it willingly.
    This is the same thing that the democrats have done and continue to do to Blacks and more importantly all the poor in this country. They swear they care about them and their future, they don’t ask them to help provide for their existence, they house them with other poor people in the same situation, so they can use them for photo ops and then they conveniently refer to them as the people they care about to use for re-election.
    Meantime the poor and poor blacks who have been told their whole life that they don’t succeed because of oppression of their race, keep coming back to the trough each month for a check, they spend it on whatever feels good at the moment and then wait for the next check. Well inevitably all the free time they have leads to single motherhood by men who conveniently show up at check tell to tell them they are pretty and get some sex and some of that check. The Single mom who hasn’t heard a compliment in three weeks and hates to look in the mirror every day, succombs to the bullshit the guy is slinging and voila another future dependent of the state is brought forth.
    And for all the assistance the single mom receives she is not held accountable to actually get up and feed her 4-5 children breakfast or make them a lunch for school even thugh all the resources are provided to do so. Instead the democrats and the state further cripple the poor blacks and poor in general by saying , “Don’t worry we’ll feed them breakfast and lunch,you can sleep in”. The kids see this and begin to believe that what they are experiencing is a career choice and follow the example set up by the democrat and liberals.
    They get pregnant or impregfnate a young girl in their teens and restart the cycle, just like on the FARM!!!!
    To all those poor people who believe in this system ask yourself, how many poor and minority people ever marry into the rich democrat families. Any kennedys marry minorities or poor people? Any of harry reids’s or nancy pelosi’s family married blacks or even dated them? They don’t even know you. They went to private schools including jesse jackson, barack obamas and all the rich democrat kids. After fifty-sixty years of voting for and supporting the liberal democrats how’s that working out for you?
    They send you a check every month and then all they take you out and dust you off when they need to use you for elections or a new book they’re writing. And just like the farm animal whose been condition to show up at feeding time you show up and trip the feeder bar, (vote for them) and then go right back to the barn ( metaphor for life on welfare) till they make the cattle call again. You should be irate at the democrats. They have conditioned into believing that you are worthless and unable to suceed because of some unreal perceptiont that you’ve been damaged for life.
    THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS ARE THE REAL OPPRESSORS. They get rich using you as a simple tool. Jesse’s filthy rich and sent his kids to private schools and doesn’t actually ever roll up his sleeves and stay somewhere to help. Al’s living the high life and not paying his taxes, the kennedy, pelosi, harry reid, and barack obama families wealth all coninues to grow while you are used by them to stay down in the gutter they built for you and you help them succeed for themselves.
    I don’t know everything about him ,but Malcolm X seemed to be saying at least some of the right things, while another false black leader of the time knocked up the pretty and young parisioners. Stop letting them use you. Liberals and Democrats need you down and poor. Ask yourself how could they have a job, if they didn’t claim racism, sexism an income disparity. Dividing people like they do is the easiest way to control them. Don’t let Liberal democrats control you anymore.

     
    Reply
  15. The lack of knowledge of this subject generally is deliberate – it’s a foundation stone of the white genocide movement. Thanks for this enlightening report.

     
    Reply
  16. May the Lord Jesus bless greatly the wonderful person who wrote this! The thing that messed me up was that growing up in the suburbs of Chicago and Minneapolis I never learned a single WORD of American History! Social Studies was about air, water, garbage pollution and overpopulation! Now, we can see the truth as 2 WHY they didn’t want us 2 know nething! The white hatred shaming from the HRC camp is UNIMAGIABLE!

     
    Reply

Post Comment