Black Slave Owners

[SLD]

Sounds like a contradiction in terms, doesn't it? But apparently it was far more common than realized.

http://slaverebellion.org/index.php?page=the-black-slave-owners

According to this article about half of the African American population of the South in 1860 was actually free. In New Orleans, about a fourth of them owned slaves. The article also points out that most of the urban black slave owners were women. As for the men, they were often the sons of their masters. In Charleston, SC there were huge distinctions based on color and previous status.

One interesting case was that of William Ellison, who was the wealthiest African American in the South.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ellison

He owned over 60 slaves, and 1,000 acres of property where he forced them to work. He was the son of his white master and learned a valuable trade as a result of his father's support. He supported the Confederacy, but died early in the Civil War. Apparently one of his sons fought for the Confederacy. But the idea of arming blacks was anathema to the Confederate states and thus I wonder what he did in the Army.

I had heard before of another story of a Louisiana woman who had eventually married her master in the early 1700's and then ran the plantation after his death. Of course she didn't bother to free any of the slaves. But I thought this phenomena was extremely rare. Apparently not.

Thoughts?

SLD

 

[Duke Leto]

If there were Blacks in favor of maintaining segregation (and there probably was a tiny minority) would that have changed anything morally?

 

[Sarpedon]

Keep in mind that if you had any black ancestors, you were considered, legally, 'black.'

This is sometimes called the 'one drop' rule. I imagine that a significant proportion of this group you are citing was of mixed descent.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Sounds like a contradiction in terms, doesn't it? But apparently it was far more common than realized.

http://slaverebellion.org/index.php?page=the-black-slave-owners

According to this article about half of the African American population of the South in 1860 was actually free. In New Orleans, about a fourth of them owned slaves. The article also points out that most of the urban black slave owners were women. As for the men, they were often the sons of their masters. In Charleston, SC there were huge distinctions based on color and previous status.

One interesting case was that of William Ellison, who was the wealthiest African American in the South.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ellison

He owned over 60 slaves, and 1,000 acres of property where he forced them to work. He was the son of his white master and learned a valuable trade as a result of his father's support. He supported the Confederacy, but died early in the Civil War. Apparently one of his sons fought for the Confederacy. But the idea of arming blacks was anathema to the Confederate states and thus I wonder what he did in the Army.

I had heard before of another story of a Louisiana woman who had eventually married her master in the early 1700's and then ran the plantation after his death. Of course she didn't bother to free any of the slaves. But I thought this phenomena was extremely rare. Apparently not.

Thoughts?

SLD

These numbers are bullshit.

On the site, it claims 385,000 slaveholders so out of 8M people in the south. But the 385,000 relates to families, not individuals. A slaveholding family of say five whites constituted ONE slaveholder, not five. In truth, the percentage of slaveholding families was something like one in three. It was an elite institution for whites, but not to the degree this apologist would have one believe.

That half the black population of the south was free in 1860 sounds very suspicious. Slaveholding states gradually tightened their laws regarding free blacks because their presence was considered a security threat, a poor example to the black slave population. Some slave holding states outlawed free blacks from living in their states.

A very good basic read on slavery, holding up well from the 1950s, is Kenneth Stampp's "The Peciluiar Institution".

 

[Bullmoose Too]

Slavery, as an institution, predates the concept of race. There is no contradiction in a black person owning a slave.

With that typed, I share Parker's skepticism with those numbers.

 

[Duke Leto]

Slavery, as an institution, predates the concept of race. There is no contradiction in a black person owning a slave.

With that typed, I share Parker's skepticism with those numbers.

I poked around it a bit to try and figure out what angle they're selling with the revisionism, it doesn't actually look like any of the usual suspects like the League of the South. The apparent reason for the site is to discuss slave revolts on both sides of the Atlantic. Talks about liaising with West Africans, which the Klan would tend to avoid.

The author might just be stupid on the slave owners/slave owning families distinction.

 

[Sarpedon]

Quoting maybe?

 

[Duke Leto]

Quoting maybe?

Probably. The author appears to be Joseph E. Holloway, very clearly black professor of Pan-African Studies at California State University. So it is unlikely that the guy's purpose in writing was a slavery apologetic per se. The point might be "Both blacks and whites had a hand in creating slavery, so don't go around hating all White people on slavery's account, you young black students who are my readers."

That said, "Pan-African studies" sounds a bit less rigorously quantitative then history proper, so quoting the 385,000 number out of context without realizing it was households and not persons is an understandable error. (Not entirely sure how I could have phrased that so as to sound less racist, but there is a fringe of people engaged in African-American studies who really are lousy historians writing full propaganda, the "Sokrates was an Ethiopian slave" crowd.)

I repeat my original question though: "So what?"

We don't abhor American slavery because it was White on Black, we abhor it because it was cruel and inhuman.

 

[Horatio Parker]

The 1860 census numbers here indicate there were 183,369 free blacks and 1,195,985 slaves in the Upper South, and 67,418 free blacks and 2,754,526 slaves in the Lower South. Note the far lower proportion of free blacks among the larger slave population of the Lower South.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Slavery, as an institution, predates the concept of race. There is no contradiction in a black person owning a slave.

American slavery was a race based system, there's no getting around it. To equivalate American slavery with, say, the Roman system is an error.

Slaves had rights under Roman law, and the children of slaves were born free. It was more a class of bankrupted persons. OTOH, there were cases in Virginia of enslaved Native Americans suing, and winning, on the grounds that they were not black (from Stampp).

 

[Duke Leto]

Slavery, as an institution, predates the concept of race. There is no contradiction in a black person owning a slave.

American slavery was a race based system, there's no getting around it. To equivalate American slavery with, say, the Roman system is an error.

Slaves had rights under Roman law, and the children of slaves were born free. It was more a class of bankrupted persons. OTOH, there were cases in Virginia of enslaved Native Americans suing, and winning, on the grounds that they were not black (from Stampp).

Well, it's a mistake to talk about "American Slavery" and "Roman Slavery" as though each was a uniform monolithic institution that didn't change at all during the multiple centuries of their respective existences.

Every social institution is an ad hoc mess and all rules have exceptions. To the extent that the author we are talking about has a point, it seems to be that 17th Century Virginian slavery grew out of the color neutral indentured servitude system and racial caste was less strictly enforced in the 18th century before the introduction of the cotton gin perked the profitability of slavery back up for a while. It looks like black or mixed race slave owners were more common in this period.

And I have to ask the question again: "So what?"

Do either the American or Roman systems slavery become morally justified if we have this new information about them?

Either ownership of another human being as property is never justified or it isn't.

 

[ideologyhunter]

If my ancestor was a black slave owner, what are my reparations gonna be?

 

[Horatio Parker]

American slavery was a race based system, there's no getting around it. To equivalate American slavery with, say, the Roman system is an error.

Slaves had rights under Roman law, and the children of slaves were born free. It was more a class of bankrupted persons. OTOH, there were cases in Virginia of enslaved Native Americans suing, and winning, on the grounds that they were not black (from Stampp).

Well, it's a mistake to talk about "American Slavery" and "Roman Slavery" as though each was a uniform monolithic institution that didn't change at all during the multiple centuries of their respective existences.

Every social institution is an ad hoc mess and all rules have exceptions. To the extent that the author we are talking about has a point, it seems to be that 17th Century Virginian slavery grew out of the color neutral indentured servitude system and racial caste was less strictly enforced in the 18th century before the introduction of the cotton gin perked the profitability of slavery back up for a while. It looks like black or mixed race slave owners were more common in this period.

And I have to ask the question again: "So what?"

Do either the American or Roman systems slavery become morally justified if we have this new information about them?

Either ownership of another human being as property is never justified or it isn't.

No one is arguing that slavery is morally justified, or that it's monolithic. I'm addressing inaccuracies in the OP. What's your point?

 

[Duke Leto]

No one is arguing that slavery is morally justified, or that it's monolithic. I'm addressing inaccuracies in the OP. What's your point?

You explicitly said that first link in the OP was a slavery apologetic. A detailed look shows it isn't. Maybe the slavery apologist is supposed to have been SLD, but I don't think that's accurate either.

It was an elite institution for whites, but not to the degree this apologist would have one believe.

You made generalizations about American and Roman slavery as though they were fixed institutions that didn't evolve over time. That's an oversimplification.

Those are the points I was addressing at you. I really don't think I've been all that confusing.

My point on the OP was and remains "So what?"

 

[Horatio Parker]

You explicitly said that first link in the OP was a slavery apologetic. A detailed look shows it isn't. Maybe the slavery apologist is supposed to have been SLD, but I don't think that's accurate either.

I believe it is an apologetic. Perhaps not of the white supremacy variety, but still an apologetic. Maybe his(or hers) agenda is to make black people feel less victimized by slavery, or maybe he is a separatist trying to illustrate the corruption of American capitalism. It doesn't have to boil down to black vs. white. Either way, it relies on false information. Considering our troubled history vis a vis race in this country, I think that deserves more than "so what".

You made generalizations about American and Roman slavery as though they were fixed institutions that didn't evolve over time. That's an oversimplification.

Those are the points I was addressing at you. I really don't think I've been all that confusing.

I think one can generalize about American vs Roman slavery. Granted, each, as is any social institution, is something of a moving target. Not all points can pertain at all periods.

Your repeated Skeptic rhetoric belies your claimed preference for exactitude. Why that focus is directed at me but not at the OP, which only draws a "so what", one can only speculate.

My point on the OP was and remains "So what?"

You're like a child with that.

BTW, here's an interesting article on black slave owners by Henry Gates. He makes the point that black ownership of slaves was often a protective measure. (Do I hear a "So What?")

 

[Duke Leto]

My point on the OP was and remains "So what?"

You're like a child with that.

BTW, here's an interesting article on black slave owners by Henry Gates. He makes the point that black ownership of slaves was often a protective measure. (Do I hear a "So What?")

Well now you are just lashing out without thinking. You also don't appear to have read any part of the rest of the thread where I actually report on the identity of the author and his apparent motivation. It's definitely not any of the things you've asserted it is without reading it. The guy's not a slavery apologist, he's a Black professor of Pan-African studies.

Declaring me ignorant without bothering to check and see if I may have looked at things you have not is pretty sloppy. I'm making an effort not to be a jerk about this, but your attitude is a bit much.

The purpose of my "So What?" question was and always has been to ascertain what point SLD thought was being served by bringing the subject up in the first place. I've seen White racists use the alleged facts in the OP as an actual apologetic too, so I wanted to know what I'm dealing with before getting into a discussion. I don't debate racists.

Maybe SLD is also interested in talking about racial balkanization in the old South, about setting different parts of the Black community against each other.

I dunno, he hasn't responded at all. I'm not going to jump to conclusions without more info.

 

[Horatio Parker]

You're like a child with that.

BTW, here's an interesting article on black slave owners by Henry Gates. He makes the point that black ownership of slaves was often a protective measure. (Do I hear a "So What?")

Well now you are just lashing out without thinking. You also don't appear to have read any part of the rest of the thread where I actually report on the identity of the author and his apparent motivation. It's definitely not any of the things you've asserted it is without reading it. The guy's not a slavery apologist, he's a Black professor of Pan-African studies.

Declaring me ignorant without bothering to check and see if I may have looked at things you have not is pretty sloppy. I'm making an effort not to be a jerk about this, but your attitude is a bit much.

The purpose of my "So What?" question was and always has been to ascertain what point SLD thought was being served by bringing the subject up in the first place. I've seen White racists use the alleged facts in the OP as an actual apologetic too, so I wanted to know what I'm dealing with before getting into a discussion. I don't debate racists.

Maybe SLD is also interested in talking about racial balkanization in the old South, about setting different parts of the Black community against each other.

I dunno, he hasn't responded at all. I'm not going to jump to conclusions without more info.

Thanks for explaining your little refrain. Why are you asking me about SLD's motivations?

The point that concerns me is, does the OP rely on accurate facts. It does not.

Maybe to you a Pan Africanist cannot by definition apologize for slavery. I'm not going to read the entire site to debate it here, but that's my impression. I guess it's possible that the author is either innumerate or sloppy, but my guess is he has an agenda in misrepresenting slavery. And, since he's representing it as more of a level playing field than it was, it amounts to an apology.

 

[Duke Leto]

Thanks for explaining your little refrain. Why are you asking me about SLD's motivations?

The point that concerns me is, does the OP rely on accurate facts. It does not.

Maybe to you a Pan Africanist cannot by definition apologize for slavery. I'm not going to read the entire site to debate it here, but that's my impression. I guess it's possible that the author is either innumerate or sloppy, but my guess is he has an agenda in misrepresenting slavery. And, since he's representing it as more of a level playing field than it was, it amounts to an apology.

I'm not asking you what SLD's motivations are, I'm assuming he's reading this exchange and might weigh in.

Seriously, not everything is about you.

My inclination is to assume innumeracy on the part of the Dr. Holloway. There are also some jarring grammatical errors in the opening paragraphs of some of his articles, so I wonder if he may be West African. Like you, I didn't want to read the whole site, I just grabbed a few opening and closing paragraphs as a sample and then checked the web for a CV. The linked article was sufficiently rambly that I couldn't tell what the point was, but to the extent that there was one it seemed to be that American Slavery was not strictly White on Black. My guess is that the point was to encourage Black students to not be Black Separatists, because slavery was supported by some Blacks.

As you say, any attempt to mitigate the White against Black nature of slavery, which it unquestionably mostly was per your accurate numbers, can potentially be picked up by racist assholes as an apologia. I just don't think this Holloway chap could have intended it to be an apologia based on a quick gestalt.

 

[SLD]

My only point was to discuss an intersting historical phenomena of which I was largely ignorant. I had heard of a case in Louisiana in the early 18th Century where a plantation owner had married a slave woman and after he died, she ran the plantation without releasing the slaves. I hadn't realized that the phenomena existed in the Southern states though, and was shocked to read about Ellison.

Another web page said the phenomena was rare but didn't give statistics. So obviously there is something missing here to get a precise understanding of this phenomena.

I wonder if two issues are going on. First is the single drop rule that someone mentioned. Perhaps the website is counting people that may not have really self identified as african. Obviously there would have been intense pressure to deny one's African ancestry. But maybe there are records for historians. I don't know. Another article I read said there was a large discrepancy in social standing based on skin color amongst free blacks.

The other thing that may be happening is that free African Americans were buying their family members. Technically they may still have been classified as slaves. Manumission became more difficult in the South as anti-slavery agitation got stronger. But it is still not clear if that is what was going on. Ellison bought his family. But then he bought others.

Why would any self respecting African descendant do this? Maybe the real issue is that people accept the lives they are born into. They simply aren't aware that another alternative exists. I've read of another slave interviewed in the early 20th Century say she preferred her life in slavery. Of course she was not a plantation slave, but lived in a nice house in Charleston, SC, where she had nice masters and was allowed to marry. Prior to the late 18th century there seems to be little criticism of slavery. It's just accepted as the way it is.

History doesn't always fit the narrative we think it does. There are strange anamolies that don't fit the way we would like the story to go. We see the history of slavery through the prism of a bloody civil war, and through our own recent racial history. But they didn't have that perspective. A son of a slaveholder, holding slaves? Maybe we shouldn't be surprised.

SLD

 

[Duke Leto]

Fair enough as it is.

But it is a very small step from "Wow this issue was much more complicated based on the accounts of the time." to "Maybe we shouldn't be applying modern moral standards to judging 18th century slaveholders.".

And once that door is open, all sorts of apologetic mischief can get loose.