Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There was not just black slavery.. O'Reilly is Irish.. he probably has ancestors who were slaves .
England’s next door neighbour, Ireland, quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. The population fell from 1,500,000 to 600,000 within a decade. Irish fathers were not allowed to take their wives and children to their voyage to the Atlantic ripping families apart. In 1650, over 100,000 Irish children between 10 and 14 years of age were taken from their parents and shipped to work for the English Settlers in the West Indies, Virginia, and New England. In the same decade, 52,000 Irish women and children were sold to Barbados and Virginia. The list goes on and on.
The White slavery in America was an expansion of the same practice from the mother country, Britain. The legal form of contracted indentured servitude was just in reality a lifetime form of slavery. . The center of the trade in child-slaves was in the port cities of Britain and Scotland: Press gangs were hired by local merchants to roam the street seizing by force young boys for the slave trade. Children were driven in flocks through the town and confined for shipment in barns. What was outrageous was the fact White children were openly seized from orphanages and workhouses and made to labor in factories for up to sixteen hours locked-up and without any breaks. Children who fell asleep during work were lashed into wakefulness by a whip. Children were also beaten with the use of iron bars called “billy-rollers”. Thousands of children are mangled by factory machines that left them disfigured or disabled for life without any compensation. These Mills and kind of treatment continued to spread to the New World.
If you talk about slavery , lets look at the whole picture .
Sigh....again, you all with your internet revisionist history.
Indentured servitude was NOT slavery. As I have stated many times on this forum as well, the first Africans brought to Virginia also were not slaves, they were indentured servants. There is a huge distinction between being an indentured servant and a slave. A slave was a "servant for life." And indentured servant had an indentured period of which they were free to do whatever they wanted after their service period ended.
The first labor system in America in the 1600s was indeed indentured servitude. I, even though I am black have recently documented that I also have Scots Irish ancestry who were indentured servants in the 1600s in Virginia. They were not slaves. Ironically, it is funny to me that so many on the internet like to claim that their white ancestors were slaves yet there are actually documents that show that my own ancestors sued for their "freedom" due to the fact that they were the "mullatto" children of white indentured servants (white women). Due to this they could not be enslaved because being born of a white woman meant you could not be a slave.
FWIW white indentureds were treated badly. This was why they and the Africans and natives and even East Indians (they were also indentured servants in colonial America by way of the West Indies) banded together against the ruling classes of which you mentioned and most notably during Bacon's Rebellion. The result of these uprisings caused the system of chattel slavery dictated by skin color/African ancestry based on the maternal side, to be implemented in the US. The ruling elites were afraid of the united lower classes and indentured servants because they vastly outnumbered the ruling class in population size. Slavery and "black codes" and miscegenation laws (preventing of inter-racial relationships) was established in order to separate the masses and keep us disunited. Unfortunately, this is still going on to this day IMO whereas we argue over silly topics to keep us unfocused on the reality of what the ruling elite are doing to us today.
Slavery should not be a debatable thing. It occurred. Slavery was explicitly defined via black codes and laws passed in the colonial period to be specifically based on maternal African ancestry. Only people who had African ancestry in America post 1700 were slaves. Natives were slaves prior to this but early in VA in particular being born of a native after 1650 also meant that their descendants were not slaves. My ancestor who sued for his freedom due to being "born of a white woman" went on to marry a native, who was formerly a slave/servant. Their children in the 1700s and even grandchildren had to sue for their own freedom and they won due to their father being born of a white woman and their grandmother being a native.
The first black slave owner in America was black.. half the slaves were owned by blacks.. the slaves were sold by blacks.
The elites are the slave owners.. not the poor , they were slaves too. I am part Irish, and I have been called a potato picker.
The first black slave owner was not a black man. That also is a revisionist view of history. There were black slaves in the colonies prior to Anthony Johnson's case and FWIW just for those who like to say the first "African slaves" came to America in 1619, it is believed by historians that Anthony Johnson was on that first shipment to Virginia of Africans. He was an indentured servant after his arrival and ended up being a slave owner and having his own indentured servants, both black and white.
However, the first black man in VA via the court system was made a slave in 1640. His name was John Punch so his master was the first person who was stated to have owned a slave. Prior to being punished with enslavement, John Punch was also an indentured servant. I'm sure he would have rather remained an indentured servant versus a slave. Slaves had no rights. Indentured servants actually did have rights and could sue for poor treatment or if the person who they were working for tried to enslave them or didn't provide them the items that were in their indentured contracts.
All poor people were not slaves. They could move freely as they wished. Even though my early free ancestors mentioned above were poor, they actually left Virginia due to the increase of black codes/laws that made them have less rights and to be taxed more than white people. Many free people of color in VA in particular left the state between 1750 and 1850. One of my ancestors fought in the Revolution and was granted land in Ohio due to his service and he left VA in the early 1800s as a result. The line I spoke of earlier, left VA in the early 1800s as well. Both lines even though they were poor would not have been able to leave if they were actually slaves.
Perfect examples of going "off point" to ignore or suppress the true underlying issue. I expected there would be a few of these types of posts... but certainly not this many. Thank you, you have confirmed for me what the average CD poster really is.
I am amazed that in these days people are still willing to defend and deflect the evil they know exists in the world. These are cases where I actually hope the poster is trolling, otherwise; there is a word for people who do this on purpose.
Last edited by blktoptrvl; 07-27-2016 at 09:30 AM..
Actually, some of us remember "Black Masters" so get off your soapbox and realize whites were taken to Africa to be "Slavs".........lots of people were slaves and many were owned by Black Masters.
WHITE Slaves of BLACK Masters Tell Their Story |
Whites slaves tell their own story in their own words about how they were shanghaied and taken back to North Africa as slaves. Over 2 million whites are reported to have been taken as slaves after being shanghaied by Moors known as Barbary Coast pirates or Riff Pirates or Barbary Corsairs.
Two years ago, Prime Minister Paul Keating of Australia refused to show “proper respect” to Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II during her state visit. In response, Terry Dicks, a Conservative member of the British Parliament said, “It’s a country of ex-convicts, so we should not be surprised by the rudeness of their prime minister.”
A slur such as this would be considered unthinkable if it were uttered against any other class or race of people except the descendants of White slavery. Dicks’ remark is not only offensive, it is ignorant and false. Most of Australia’s “convicts” were shipped into servitude for such “crimes” as stealing seven yards of lace, cutting trees on an aristocrat’s estate or poaching sheep to feed a starving family.
The arrogant disregard for the holocaust visited upon the poor and working class Whites of Britain by the aristocracy continues in our time because the history of that epoch has been almost completely extirpated from our collective memory.
When White slavery is acknowledged as having existed in America, it is almost always termed as temporary “indentured servitude” or part of the convict trade, which, after the Revolution of 1776, centered on Australia instead of America. The “convicts” transported to America under the 1723 Waltham Act, perhaps numbered 100,000.
The indentured servants who served a tidy little period of 4 to 7 years polishing the master’s silver and china and then taking their place in colonial high society, were a minuscule fraction of the great unsung hundreds of thousands of White slaves who were worked to death in this country from the early l7th century onward.
This here shows how your people also fought for "that dumb flag" NOT SO INNOCENT!
Did Black People Own Slaves? | American Renaissance
And for a time, free black people could even “own” the services of white indentured servants in Virginia as well. Free blacks owned slaves in Boston by 1724 and in Connecticut by 1783; by 1790, 48 black people in Maryland owned 143 slaves. One particularly notorious black Maryland farmer named Nat Butler “regularly purchased and sold Negroes for the Southern trade,” Halliburton wrote.
Perhaps the most insidious or desperate attempt to defend the right of black people to own slaves was the statement made on the eve of the Civil War by a group of free people of color in New Orleans, offering their services to the Confederacy, in part because they were fearful for their own enslavement: “The free colored population [native] of Louisiana … own slaves, and they are dearly attached to their native land … and they are ready to shed their blood for her defense. They have no sympathy for abolitionism; no love for the North, but they have plenty for Louisiana … They will fight for her in 1861 as they fought [to defend New Orleans from the British] in 1814-1815.”
If we were compiling a “Rogues Gallery of Black History,” the following free black slaveholders would be in it:
John Carruthers Stanly—born a slave in Craven County, N.C., the son of an Igbo mother and her master, John Wright Stanly—became an extraordinarily successful barber and speculator in real estate in New Bern. As Loren Schweninger points out in Black Property Owners in the South, 1790-1915, by the early 1820s, Stanly owned three plantations and 163 slaves, and even hired three white overseers to manage his property! He fathered six children with a slave woman named Kitty, and he eventually freed them. Stanly lost his estate when a loan for $14,962 he had co-signed with his white half brother, John, came due. After his brother’s stroke, the loan was Stanly’s sole responsibility, and he was unable to pay it.
Most of us will find the news that some black people bought and sold other black people for profit quite distressing, as well we should. But given the long history of class divisions in the black community, which Martin R. Delany as early as the 1850s described as “a nation within a nation,” and given the role of African elites in the long history of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, perhaps we should not be surprised that we can find examples throughout black history of just about every sort of human behavior, from the most noble to the most heinous, that we find in any other people’s history.
The good news, scholars agree, is that by 1860 the number of free blacks owning slaves had markedly decreased from 1830. In fact, Loren Schweninger concludes that by the eve of the Civil War, “the phenomenon of free blacks owning slaves had nearly disappeared” in the Upper South, even if it had not in places such as Louisiana in the Lower South
FYI, it is well established that a small amount of black people in America prior to 1865 owned slaves. However, it is false that any black master owned white slaves. White people were not slaves in America.
Indentured servitude is not slavery no matter how much you may want to act like it was.
Also, not sure why you and the other history revisionist want to continue to act like the convict labor in Australia or "white slavery" in the British Isle has anything to do with chattel slavery in the US....It is not the same thing.
No one has ever said whites were not indentured servants or treated badly. However, you and the other poster are incorrect in your assumption that indentured servitude is equal in nature to slavery. It was not. The children of indentured servants were not subject to being automatically indentured - that is unless they were mullatto children (had a black parent). Many times as punishment for a white woman "laying" with a black man, her children would be indentured for 20 years.
FYI, slaves worked in mines and they were not paid at all. Their masters/owners were paid for their labor instead. I am black and do genealogical research and have a branch of my family that were miners. Enslaved black miners worked in various states in the south, especially Alabama, Tennessee, and VA/WV.
On the bold, being someone's property and not being seen as anything other than an animal actually does mean that all slaves had it bad...
One of my favorite quotes from "Mumbet" a slave whose case was instrumental in abolishing slavery in the state of Massachuesetts:
Any time while I was a slave, if one minute's freedom had been offered to me, and I had been told that I must die at the end of that minute, I would have taken it just to stand one minute on God's earth a free woman
People also forget that slaves of George Washington even ran away even though he supposedly "treated them well." The fact that these people were considered property, a piece of cattle, and the psychological toll this took on their beings is rarely mentioned by those of you who said that many of them were "treated well." Many would have rather been free versus a slave who was treated well.
No, it isn't "kinda wrong," and you might be surprised about the design/blueprints because many black slaves were very skilled artisans and craftspeople.
The problem with the "living conditions" conversation is that it is a distraction and completely beside the point, about as clear as an example of a rhetorical red herring that folks would be able to find.
The White House was, in fact, as M. Obama stated, built by slave labor and ingenuity.
You know what you said is no better than O'Riley ( I did not take his comments as making light of slavery). Your words can just as easily be interpreted as making light of slavery or diverting attention away from the actual realities of slavery. Do you not lessen the atrocity of slavery by painting the "working conditions" of black slaves as that of being architects and craftsman?
I wonder how many of you realize many slaves, were also family members of the slave owner?
You people really need to START addressing your own ancestors......then we can discuss with a more educated opinion.
Black American historians knew about black slave owners before you did lol.
I don't have any slave owners in my family due to the number of both black slave owners and the slaves owned by black people being so low in comparison to those owned by whites and even native Americans. I also have quite a few lines both maternal and paternal who were free people of color who didn't own any slaves or servants.
What do you need to discuss? No one has denied that there were black slave owners of black people. This is not new or "hidden" knowledge. Black historians, notably Henry Louis Gates, WEB DuBois (a sociologist), and Carter G. Woodson (the "father of black history") all have written about this subject.
Are you of the belief that black slave owners owned more slaves than whites? What is there to discuss?
The only thing I'm making a point about is the fact that whites were not slaves in America. You should admit this and stop propagating lies. People are naive and they will believe that indentured servitude and slavery are the same thing when they are not.
ETA: 2 of the 3 historians I mentioned above are dead. Carter G. Woodson wrote about black slave owners nearly 100 years ago as did DuBois. Henry Louis Gates is a preimminent scholar of black history and he writes from a pretty objective perstpective about all aspects of black history and culture in America and even the African disapora. You may remember him as the old black Yale professor who was beat up at his own house by the police and Obama invited him and the officer to the White House for a beer. Since then it seems many on the right want to villainize him in some way when really he is a very astute historian and he writes and produces historical programs that discuss the very things you think black people (I guess you think this) don't discuss to any wide degree. Also, I'm an amateur historian and genealogist. I am a member of a couple of history/genealogy groups, one of which is black American based and we are always discussing our ancestors and these topics in particular. Also, like a majority of black Americans, all of us have discovered we have some European ancestry either via DNA testing or genealogical research of our family trees. Some of us actually do have ancestors who were owned by family members - usually their white slave owners. Carter G wrote about how many black people bought their family members out of slavery and that they were considered those family member's "owners." One that I remember, which is both sad and funny is of a man who bought a woman for his wife and she basically got on his nerves so he sold her and got a new wife lol. I can both laugh and cry at history and speak of it seriously.
Slaves were treated very well in America. It's well known that slaveowners loved their slaves as if they were their own blood family. They would've never mistreated them.
IN fact many white folks from the south have a bit of black DNA. The masters mated with the slaves out of love and compassion.
Last edited by Julian658; 07-27-2016 at 11:00 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
