Okay, so I was in History class today and my teacher said that in the 1700s there were 700 black slave owners in New Orleans. Have any of you heard of this, because I'm having a hard time believing him.

Yes I have. There were also Cherokee slave owners. 1.5 million Europeans were imported to Africa as slaves (though nobody ever talks about it because it is politically incorrect).

Appears to be true. Not sure about the years he mentioned though.

http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm

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.

It also says that during the time, if all slaveowners were white, it would only account for 1.4% of the white population who owned 1 or more slaves.

Blacks still practice slavery today in Africa.

Blacks still practice slavery today in Africa.

The British abolished slavery and the slave trade in Britain in 1806, and when they abolished in their colonies, Africans actually proteseted because they were making so much money selling their fellow Africans. I live in Rhode Island, where slavery has been abolished since 1652.

Slavery today:

http://www.iabolish.com/slavery_today/sudan/index.html

Chattel slavery in Sudan is perhaps the most intense form of human bondage seen today. Check out the above link to learn more about the history and horror of slavery and genocide in Sudan.

Slavery is bad, mmkay?

Slavery is bad, mmkay?

Well, it's not bad for the owners, is it?

Baron Max

It is if you consider what it takes to maintain a slave. You have to feed and clothe them or else you have to go buy more which gets even more costly because then you have to teach the new ones about the jobs they have to do. Try to buy one with experience and you're gonna pay a whole lot more.

Or you could use the Andrew Jackson model. The slaves he was keeping he actually provided with regular houses on his properties (not the slave shacks of popular imagery). They worked a set number of hours a day, had personal down time, and raised their own crop for their own consumption. They fed themselves, clothed themselves, were loyal workers because he didn't allow beatings and wouldn't break up families. He insisted his personal physician also take care of his slaves (especially the newer inventory, the children) and generally got a maximum return on his slaves' labor with minimal effort (basic humanity) on his part.

Somewhere in my library I have a short bit on a slave woman who bought her way into freedom in the old South and set herself up well enough to buy her own slaves. She was quite the Simon LeGree as I recall.

Okay, so I was in History class today and my teacher said that in the 1700s there were 700 black slave owners in New Orleans. Have any of you heard of this, because I'm having a hard time believing him.
there were people in the u.s. government that "owned" slaves
specificly that jerk that said "all men are created equal"

Educate yourself, leopold. The issue of slavery was wrestled with intensely during the writing and subsequent editting of the Declaration. "That jerk" did indeed own slaves. "That jerk" wrestled with his own conscience over the obvious hypocrisy of supporting freedom on the one hand while owning slaves on the other. Did you know that slaves are property? Of course you do. That's a no-brainer. Did you know Jefferson was up to his ass in debt, most of it inherited right along with the slaves and other property? Maybe not. Did you know there were leins against all of his property that prevented him from freeing those slaves,as was his inclination according to his private journals?

The signers of the Declaration who hailed from the more industrial states wanted to write slavery out of the picture. They truly believed that all men were created equal. However, slavery was too important at the time to the agricultural states. They threatened dissent and a collapse of the process of declaring independence if the industrialists pulled the slaves out from under the agriculturalists. Unanimity was needed to make the declaration work, so the slavery issue was taken out, much to the chagrin of Jefferson, Franklin, and others. The plan, according to "American Biography: The Signers of the Declaration of Independence" (c.1840, author and publisher unknown, but if someone could tell me I'd really appreciate it!) was to work out the issue of slavery after the war, provided independence was gained.

After the war, the country was in serious chaos. We were financially bankrupt, France was licking her chops in anticipation of a total collapse, veterans were demanding pay that just wasn't there, citizens who had sacrificed their crop, livestock, and homes for the cause were standing empty-handed, the whole thing was threatening to fall apart at any given moment, and the issue of whether or not slavery in a free land was hypocritical was the last thing on anybody's minds. George Washington began a gradual liberation of his slaves rather than glut the job market with all these laborers needing jobs. (In fact, he never freed a slave until the soon-to-be-former slave was on his feet economically, something he helped them achieve.) Jefferson was still under legal obligation to keep his, while others did the same thing Washington did.

It's amazing what can be learned by taking the time to hunt down documents closer to the source than our modern, skewed, revisionist history lets on. For example, the Jefferson-Hemmings case. Thomas Jefferson has her mentioned in his meticulously kept paperwork only as inventory. Her children are listed, and not one of them is named "Tom", as the myth avows. His nephew, also named Thomas Jefferson, mentions her quite extensively in his private journals, and it's apparent that he holds more than just a passing interest in her.

I can't imagine owning a slave/s.

But, there were black slave owners all over America, and the origin of the word "slave" is a "white" ethnic group - Slavs (Russians, Czechs, some Poles, etc - Eurasians)

I could imagine enslaving all of Eastern Europe.

Well, it's not bad for the owners, is it?

Would you want to take care of some uneducated, dumb, resentful, and probably dysfunctional person? Slavery in the modern sense - chattel slavery - existed because it was cheaper, not better.

Slavery in the modern sense - chattel slavery - existed because it was cheaper, not better.

Cheaper than what? And better than what?

Would you want to take care of some uneducated, dumb, resentful, and probably dysfunctional person?

Sure, why not? Clean house, do the laundry, cook the meals, take care of the lawn and gardens, do the shopping, ..., massage my back and feet, suck my dick, ....any of a gazillion little annoying tasks. Especially if they were decent looking females and I could fuck 'em any time I wanted to. Hell, yes!

Baron Max

there were people in the u.s. government that "owned" slaves
specificly that jerk that said "all men are created equal"The Declaration of Independence, which contains the oft-repeated phrase "...all men are created equal..." was written by Thomas Jefferson, who owned about 200 slaves at the time and never set any of them free, including the mulattoes and quadroons. Jefferson's words certainly had no reference to Negroes, who at that time had no place in American society except as property.

"All men are created equal" NOT men and blacks are created equal.

J.B. read my post. The delegates from Georgia and South Carolina were the ones primarily threatening to collapse the whole deal. Button Gwinnett, the delegate from Georgia, believed that slavery was wrong and agreed with John Adams that slavery was weakening the nation, but his state was too dependent on slavery at the time. Edward Ruteledge of South Carolina adamantly refused to sign unless the ban on slavery was removed. Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania all pressed for the ban but South Carolina and Georgia would not be budged.

I was going to admonish you guys to crack open a few more books, but I have to admit that I spend time in some pretty dusty libraries getting a look at things before the Victorians and Revisionists got hold of them. No doubt about it, these guys had their faults. (George Washington's love life was a comedy of modern proportions. I don't think he ever figured out how seriously Martha Custis set him up.) But they weren't hypocritical idiots either. Look around a bit more. There are "easter eggs" everywhere.

Appears to be true. Not sure about the years he mentioned though.

http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm



It also says that during the time, if all slaveowners were white, it would only account for 1.4% of the white population who owned 1 or more slaves.


omg slavery is racism omg omg omg

Welcome to the fun world of yankee propaganda.

They love to talk about slavery and forget to tell the truth about race relations in the south during the time of slavery.

Slavery wasn't a matter of racism, but an economic system.

If you had enough money, then you had slaves. Race wasn't a factor in owning slaves.

It is if you consider what it takes to maintain a slave. You have to feed and clothe them or else you have to go buy more which gets even more costly because then you have to teach the new ones about the jobs they have to do. Try to buy one with experience and you're gonna pay a whole lot more.

Or you could use the Andrew Jackson model. The slaves he was keeping he actually provided with regular houses on his properties (not the slave shacks of popular imagery). They worked a set number of hours a day, had personal down time, and raised their own crop for their own consumption. They fed themselves, clothed themselves, were loyal workers because he didn't allow beatings and wouldn't break up families. He insisted his personal physician also take care of his slaves (especially the newer inventory, the children) and generally got a maximum return on his slaves' labor with minimal effort (basic humanity) on his part.

Somewhere in my library I have a short bit on a slave woman who bought her way into freedom in the old South and set herself up well enough to buy her own slaves. She was quite the Simon LeGree as I recall.

Then again Jackson's little admirer Sam Houston was pretty much the same way. Last semester we had to read this book about the life of one of his slaves, you might enjoy it...

http://www.alibris.com/search/search.cfm?qwork=2475278&ptit=From%20Slave%20to%20Statesman%3A%20The%20Lega cy%20of%20Joshua%20Houston%2C%20Servant%20to%20Sam %20Houston&pauth=Prather%2C%20Patricia%20Smith%2C%20and%20Mon day%2C%20Jane%20Clements&pisbn=0929398475&pbest=2%2E95&pbestnew=10%2E45&pqty=34&pqtynew=6&matches=34&qsort=r

Race wasn't a factor in owning slaves.

How many white slaves were there?

Origionally quite a lot, but the statement that I made was in referance to owning slaves, not being a slave.

omg slavery is racism omg omg omg
Welcome to the fun world of yankee propaganda.
They love to talk about slavery and forget to tell the truth about race relations in the south during the time of slavery.
Slavery wasn't a matter of racism, but an economic system.
If you had enough money, then you had slaves. Race wasn't a factor in owning slaves.
racism is yankee propaganda?

nobody has "forgot" anything, it's called "puting it behind us"

yes you are correct about the economics of the time but that no longer exists

race was a factor in owning slaves, i don't know many white slaves, do you?

racism is yankee propaganda?

nobody has "forgot" anything, it's called "puting it behind us"

yes you are correct about the economics of the time but that no longer exists

race was a factor in owning slaves, i don't know many white slaves, do you?

Origionally quite a lot, but the statement that I made was in referance to owning slaves, not being a slave.


Reading is fundamental, you should give it a try one of these days...

i didn't know you were a joker. k?

omg slavery is racism omg omg omg

Welcome to the fun world of yankee propaganda.

They love to talk about slavery and forget to tell the truth about race relations in the south during the time of slavery.

Slavery wasn't a matter of racism, but an economic system.

If you had enough money, then you had slaves. Race wasn't a factor in owning slaves.

Slavery was both for the economic system at that time and about race. I would venture to say that Race played a pretty big part in it.

Slavery was both for the economic system at that time and about race. I would venture to say that Race played a pretty big part in it.
carefull, he'll accuse you of not being able to read.

carefull, he'll accuse you of not being able to read.
it dont MATTER who slaveowners ARE,be they black white red yellah....what matter is SLAVERY, and that its wrong

note that slaves will be poor people, and slaveowners the ones wih money

same now. we dont CALL it slavery, but all of us are oppressed by a power elite. some will notice it more than others but it is so.

in America for example, we have middle class blacks versus poor blacks. so it is mre a CLASS thing riight?

angrybellsprout- I haven't read much about Sam Houston. The evidence of Jackson's decent treatment of his slaves comes mostly from the slaves themselves. But that book looks interesting. I'll give it a look. Thanks!

What about the ancient Roman system of slavery? I'd always heard that everybody was pretty much owned by somebody else, including senators. There's also the ancient practice of enslaving your enemy after he surrendered. I think this was practiced in Africa and among native Americans (North, Central, and South). Midgets used to be given away as gifts (as opposed to sold as slaves). Does that count as slavery, and what would be more degrading, to be a slave or be a gift?

Here is a tidbit I saw on some biblical history of slavery. http://jehovah.freewebpage.org/slavery.htm

Blacks still practice slavery today in Africa.
A big time.

What about WHITE slavery? ASIAN slavery? Sex slavery (alot of them probably fall into this category from time to time) as opposed to labor slavery?

Just remember class...

When black people own black people nobody gives a damn...

When white people own black people, reparations are in order...

Originally whites would go out as indentured servants to the new world--i.e. they would go out to work for a master (usual term was four years) to pay for the cost of their passage to the NW. Then there were the genuine white slaves, like Welsh, Irish, Scots and anyone else whom the British (or anyone else) was having trouble with at home. For example, Henry Morgan the prate (and later Governor of Jamaica) went out as a slave to a sugar plantation, from Wales to Barbados, where he escaped, and became an even bigger nuisance, particularly to the Spanish. After the Battle of Sedgemoor, 1685, most of the survivors of that battle were sent out to the new world as slaves. (At least, those who weren't hanged immediately by Judge Jeffries.) :bugeye:

I had read from a few sources from England that if America had lost the revolution, the colonies would be "enslaved". That was their actual word. Not "subjugated", not "punished", but "enslaved". Did George3 mean that as it sounds, or were a few historians grossly misinterpreting something? Can anybody shed any light on this? I remember one of the sources was tied to John Peeble's diary, but now I can't find the quote for the life of me to post it in context.

1.5 million Europeans were imported to Africa as slaves (though nobody ever talks about it because it is politically incorrect).

Mostly Slavs, from whom the term "slave" was derived, and mixed-race peoples like Scots and Irish.

Plenty of black slave owners. Doesn't mean slavery was good, or that blacks and whites can coexist (history answers that one, LOL).

What about the ancient Roman system of slavery?

Ancient slavery was more respectful than modern slavery, which really is property ownership.

#1 country for slaves these days is Israel. Buy me a Slavic women and have some dumb Eurasian kids!

android Do you mean Israel practices slavery or that they get snapped up as slaves?

That slaves get sent to Israel, Oxygen. As usual, it's a small percentage of the population ruining the good name of the rest. It was not an anti-Israel, or anti-Slavery, comment.

The origin of the word "Slave" is in Slavs, as in Russians, Poles, Czechs, etc. Those people are usually called "white" although that is generally considered erroneous by the smarter among us.

You cannot kill too many Russians -- ancient proverb.

Ah. Okay.

I had read somewhere that Hitler's plan for the Slavic races was enslavement based on the origin of the word. Kind of like "Well, they wouldn't be called 'Slavs' if nature hadn't intended them to be slaves." Any truth to that, do you know? (What is the German word for slave, anyway?)

Unlikely re: slavery. Possibly during the war, as many were used as labor, but afterward?

He did not see Slavs as being of the same type as western europeans, which is historically correct; he wanted them separate. However, he did support a number of Slavic nationalist movements, so I think his idea was to separate them and allow them self-rule in exchange for "Pax Germanica." Not sure, as I cannot read his mind.

Too bad the twit didn't keep a diary that anyone knows of. I have a copy of Goebbels' diary that had apparently been owned before by a nazi (based on the notes written in the margins and a few newspaper clippings therein). Maybe that's where I'd read it. It sounds like something Goebbels would have thought up, now that I think about it.