Who knew?

http://www.rhodesian.net/free_blacks.htm

Free Blacks
Who Owned Slaves

One of the many episodes to come out of the European colonization of Africa, was the slave trade between that continent and north America. In addition to black slaves from Africa, during the early settlement of the north American colonies, many indentured servants from the UK were sent to the Virginia colonies. Indentured servitude being just another form of slavery, given a more palatable name.

There is a growing movement in the USA amongst African-Americans for ‘Slave Reparations’, but this has not been extended to the descendents of the indentured servants mentioned above, presumably colour has a role to play in this?

Another problem arising from such a demand for slave reparations, is knowing whom exactly would be entitled to them. In American Heritage of Feb/Mar 1993, vol 441, under the title, ‘Selling Poor Steven’, beginning on page 90, the official US Census of 1830 is cited, which shows that there were 3,775 free blacks who owned 12,740 black slaves.

The story also outlines the history of slavery in the US, and surprisingly the first slave owner was Mr Anthony Johnson, of Northampton, Virginia, who was a black African. His slave was called John Casor, who was the first slave for life and also a fellow black African.

Additionally outlined is the fact that there were cases of free black women owning their husbands, free black parents selling their children into slavery to white owners, and absentee free black slave owners, who leased their slaves to plantation owners, amongst other things.

Most US libraries carry back issues of American Heritage, so this story should be freely available for reference and research purposes.

There is another very interesting book on the subject of black on black slavery in the US, written by the noted black historian, Carter G. Woodson. The title of the book is, Free Negro Owners of Slaves in the United States in 1830. In this book are listed the names and addresses of free blacks who owned slaves, among them being a certain, George C. Washington of Washington DC.

In any claim for slave reparations, it will of course be necessary to define who was a slave and who was a slave owner, given the facts above, this could prove to be a highly complex, and probably impossible goal to achieve.

It must also be taken into consideration, that most African Americans today, are far better off than their counterparts living in Africa. In addition, for any reparations scheme to be comprehensive and fair, it must include the descendents of white indentured servants, who in the early days formed the bulk of available slave labour.

12th August 2002

Originally posted by Prodigal Son
Who knew?

http://www.rhodesian.net/free_blacks.htm

[/b]


BLACK SLAVEOWNERS

In an 1856 letter to his wife Mary Custis Lee, Robert E. Lee called slavery "a moral and political evil." Yet he concluded that black slaves were immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially and physically.

The fact is large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large. In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the U.S. census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states.

The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves (1). Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves).

In the rare instances when the ownership of slaves by free Negroes is acknowledged in the history books, justification centers on the claim that black slave masters were simply individuals who purchased the freedom of a spouse or child from a white slaveholder and had been unable to legally manumit them. Although this did indeed happen at times, it is a misrepresentation of the majority of instances, one which is debunked by records of the period on blacks who owned slaves. These include individuals such as Justus Angel and Mistress L. Horry, of Colleton District, South Carolina, who each owned 84 slaves in 1830. In fact, in 1830 a fourth of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves; eight owning 30 or more (2).

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

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

The majority of slaveholders, white and black, owned only one to five slaves. More often than not, and contrary to a century and a half of bullwhips-on-tortured-backs propaganda, black and white masters worked and ate alongside their charges; be it in house, field or workshop. The few individuals who owned 50 or more slaves were confined to the top one percent, and have been defined as slave magnates.

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 (3). That year, the mean wealth of southern white men was $3,978 (4).

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 (5). In North Carolina 69 free Negroes were slave owners (6).

In 1860 William Ellison was South Carolina's largest Negro slaveowner. In Black Masters. A Free Family of Color in the Old South, authors Michael P. Johnson and James L. Roak write a sympathetic account of Ellison's life. From Ellison's birth as a slave to his death at 71, the authors attempt to provide justification, based on their own speculation, as to why a former slave would become a magnate slave master.

At birth he was given the name April. A common practice among slaves of the period was to name a child after the day or month of his or her birth. Between 1800 and 1802 April was purchased by a white slave-owner named William Ellison. Apprenticed at 12, he was taught the trades of carpentry, blacksmithing and machining, as well as how to read, write, cipher and do basic bookkeeping.

On June 8, 1816, William Ellison appeared before a magistrate (with five local freeholders as supporting witnesses) to gain permission to free April, now 26 years of age. In 1800 the South Carolina legislature had set out in detail the procedures for manumission. To end the practice of freeing unruly slaves of "bad or depraved" character and those who "from age or infirmity" were incapacitated, the state required that an owner testify under oath to the good character of the slave he sought to free. Also required was evidence of the slave's "ability to gain a livelihood in an honest way."

Although lawmakers of the time could not envision the incredibly vast public welfare structures of a later age, these stipulations became law in order to prevent slaveholders from freeing individuals who would become a burden on the general public.

Interestingly, considering today's accounts of life under slavery, authors Johnson and Roak report instances where free Negroes petitioned to be allowed to become slaves; this because they were unable to support themselves.

Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War Virginia (University Press of Virginia-1995) was written by Ervin L. Jordan Jr., an African-American and assistant professor and associate curator of the Special Collections Department, University of Virginia library. He wrote: "One of the more curious aspects of the free black existence in Virginia was their ownership of slaves. Black slave masters owned members of their family and freed them in their wills. Free blacks were encouraged to sell themselves into slavery and had the right to choose their owner through a lengthy court procedure."

In 1816, shortly after his manumission, April moved to Stateburg. Initially he hired slave workers from local owners. When in 1817 he built a gin for Judge Thomas Watries, he credited the judge nine dollars "for hire of carpenter George for 12 days." By 1820 he had purchased two adult males to work in his shop (7). In fewer than four years after being freed, April demonstrated that he had no problem perpetuating an institution he had been released from. He also achieved greater monetary success than most white people of the period.

On June 20, 1820, April appeared in the Sumter District courthouse in Sumterville. Described in court papers submitted by his attorney as a "freed yellow man of about 29 years of age," he requested a name change because it "would yet greatly advance his interest as a tradesman." A new name would also "save him and his children from degradation and contempt which the minds of some do and will attach to the name April." Because "of the kindness" of his former master and as a "Mark of gratitude and respect for him" April asked that his name be changed to William Ellison. His request was granted.

In time the black Ellison family joined the predominantly white Episcopalian church. On August 6, 1824 he was allowed to put a family bench on the first floor, among those of the wealthy white families. Other blacks, free and slave, and poor whites sat in the balcony. Another wealthy Negro family would later join the first floor worshippers.

Between 1822 and the mid-1840s, Ellison gradually built a small empire, acquiring slaves in increasing numbers. He became one of South Carolina's major cotton gin manufacturers, selling his machines as far away as Mississippi. From February 1817 until the War Between the States commenced, his business advertisements appeared regularly in newspapers across the state. These included the Camden Gazette, the Sumter Southern Whig and the Black River Watchman.

Ellison was so successful, due to his utilization of cheap slave labor, that many white competitors went out of business. Such situations discredit impressions that whites dealt only with other whites. Where money was involved, it was apparent that neither Ellison's race or former status were considerations.

In his book, Ervin L. Jordan Jr. writes that, as the great conflagration of 1861-1865 approached: "Free Afro-Virginians were a nascent black middle class under siege, but several acquired property before and during the war. Approximately 169 free blacks owned 145,976 acres in the counties of Amelia, Amherst, Isle of Wight, Nansemond, Prince William and Surry, averaging 870 acres each. Twenty-rune Petersburg blacks each owned property worth $1,000 and continued to purchase more despite the war."

Jordan offers an example: "Gilbert Hunt, a Richmond ex-slave blacksmith, owned two slaves, a house valued at $1,376, and $500 in other properties at his death in 1863." Jordan wrote that "some free black residents of Hampton and Norfolk owned property of considerable value; 17 black Hamptonians possessed property worth a total of $15,000. Thirty-six black men paid taxes as heads of families in Elizabeth City County and were employed as blacksmiths, bricklayers, fishermen, oystermen and day laborers. In three Norfolk County parishes 160 blacks owned a total of $41,158 in real estate and personal property.

The general practice of the period was that plantation owners would buy seed and equip~ ment on credit and settle their outstanding accounts when the annual cotton crop was sold. Ellison, like all free Negroes, could resort to the courts for enforcement of the terms of contract agreements. Several times Ellison successfully sued white men for money owed him.

In 1838 Ellison purchased on time 54.5 acres adjoining his original acreage from one Stephen D. Miller. He moved into a large home on the property. What made the acquisition notable was that Miller had served in the South Carolina legislature, both in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate, and while a resident of Stateburg had been governor of the state. Ellison's next door neighbor was Dr. W.W. Anderson, master of "Borough House, a magnificent 18th Century mansion. Anderson's son would win fame in the War Between the States as General "Fighting Dick" Anderson.

By 1847 Ellison owned over 350 acres, and more than 900 by 1860. He raised mostly cotton, with a small acreage set aside for cultivating foodstuffs to feed his family and slaves. In 1840 he owned 30 slaves, and by 1860 he owned 63. His sons, who lived in homes on the property, owned an additional nine slaves. They were trained as gin makers by their father (8). They had spent time in Canada, where many wealthy American Negroes of the period sent their children for advanced formal education. Ellison's sons and daughters married mulattos from Charleston, bringing them to the Ellison plantation to live.

In 1860 Ellison greatly underestimated his worth to tax assessors at $65,000. Even using this falsely stated figure, this man who had been a slave 44 years earlier had achieved great financial success. His wealth outdistanced 90 percent of his white neighbors in Sumter District. In the entire state, only five percent owned as much real estate as Ellison. His wealth was 15 times greater than that of the state's average for whites. And Ellison owned more slaves than 99 percent of the South's slaveholders.

Although a successful businessman and cotton farmer, Ellison's major source of income derived from being a "slave breeder." Slave breeding was looked upon with disgust throughout the South, and the laws of most southern states forbade the sale of slaves under the age of 12. In several states it was illegal to sell inherited slaves (9). Nevertheless, in 1840 Ellison secretly began slave breeding.......


....Following in their father's footsteps, the Ellison family actively supported the Confederacy throughout the war. They converted nearly their entire plantation to the production of corn, fodder, bacon, corn shucks and cotton for the Confederate armies. They paid $5,000 in taxes during the war. They also invested more than $9,000 in Confederate bonds, treasury notes and certificates in addition to the Confederate currency they held. At the end, all this valuable paper became worthless.

The younger Ellisons contributed more than farm produce, labor and money to the Confederate cause. On March 27, 1863 John Wilson Buckner, William Ellison's oldest grandson, enlisted in the 1st South Carolina Artillery. Buckner served in the company of Captains P.P. Galliard and A.H. Boykin, local white men who knew that Buckner was a Negro. Although it was illegal at the time for a Negro to formally join the Confederate forces, the Ellison family's prestige nullified the law in the minds of Buckner's comrades. Buckner was wounded in action on July 12, 1863. At his funeral in Stateburg in August, 1895 he was praised by his former Confederate officers as being a "faithful soldier."

Following the war the Ellison family fortune quickly dwindled. But many former Negro slave magnates quickly took advantage of circumstances and benefited by virtue of their race. For example Antoine Dubuclet, the previously mentioned New Orleans plantation owner who held more than 100 slaves, became Louisiana state treasurer during Reconstruction, a post he held from 1868 to 1877 (10).


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

Excellent post Earl. Now all we have to do is hunt down the descendants of those slave-owning blacks and make them pay reparations :D

Originally posted by Prodigal Son
Excellent post Earl. Now all we have to do is hunt down the descendants of those slave-owning blacks and make them pay reparations :D

The average black in America has considerable white blood. Most of that is supposed to come from slave owners who liked to fool around with their
property. A very small percentage of whites ever owned slaves.

Therefore, the average black is more related to the slaveowners than the average white.

While researching my family history, I discovered that there were a number of mixed marriages in northeastern Missouri in 1850. I would imagine that this happened where there were free blacks. Not all of those light complected blacks came from slave owners.

In a Colonial American History course, I learned that mixed marriages existed back into the 1600's American colonies.

Originally posted by MorphicOutFielder
While researching my family history, I discovered that there were a number of mixed marriages in northeastern Missouri in 1850. I would imagine that this happened where there were free blacks. Not all of those light complected blacks came from slave owners.

True. Farakhan and his cronies are all too eager to blame (is that the right word?) all European admixture in the black community on rape.

I would say that most of it was from slaveowners with slaves.

In most cases I think it would have been
reasonably consensual (or at least as consenual as it could be, eg. slave sleeps with owner, slave gets perks), so I wouldn't call it rape.

Out of curiosity, I wonder how many European Americans have Afrikan ancestory but chose to keep it on the hush, hush!



:rolleyes:

The African ******* slave trade is still happening today. African *******s sold out there own people to Jewish slave ship owners and then the slave ship owners brought the slaves back to rich whites who were gullable and greedy and bought the slaves. The Africans use the slaves today for things such as prostitution and this has been going on for thousands of years. It is whites who stopped slavery in many countrys. It was also VERY rare for any white to own a slave and it was only rich whites who did actually own the slaves, the media makes it out that all whites owned slaves and the whites brought them from Africa to America.

Originally posted by Prodigal Son
Excellent post Earl. Now all we have to do is hunt down the descendants of those slave-owning blacks and make them pay reparations :D

all races have been slaves at one time or another. I want my reparations because I am having post-dramatic stress from knowing my fellow Europids have been slaves in Rome. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by MorphicOutFielder
While researching my family history, I discovered that there were a number of mixed marriages in northeastern Missouri in 1850. I would imagine that this happened where there were free blacks. Not all of those light complected blacks came from slave owners.

In a Colonial American History course, I learned that mixed marriages existed back into the 1600's American colonies.

There was racial mixing when the *******s were freed and they want on ravages and raped innocent Europids and got them inpregnated (sp?). Today we see alot of racial interbreeding because we have something called the TV and our kids are being brainwashed 24/7.

LOL! Yeah, Heaven forbid a white person ever "interbreed" or even associate with anyone who isn't white. The horror!!!


wonderful. just what this board needs. another stormfront type. is it getting that boring over there, or what?

I'm with buttercup, what's the big deal about interbreeding?

Explain to me the benefits of racial interbreeding. Is having no culture good? Show me the benefits of destroying ones race and culture first.

I'm not saying we should have strictly interbredding, I'm just wondering why it's a problem that some choose to do it? they're not "destroying a culture" :rolleyes:

I am not surprised blacks owned blacks. Black slaves were sold by blacks to the slave-traders.

devil advocate:

http://templeofdemocracy.com/BlkConfedCongRec.htm

"he attitude of the Confederate Congress towards using black troops is expressed several times.
On Feb. 10, 1863 the Confederate House of Representatives resolves that "the enlistment of negroes as soldiers" is against the constitution of the Confederate States.
The Confederate Senate April 30, 1863 passed a resolution that white officers of American black troops, or any white person involved at all in preparing them to be soldiers, should be put to death if captured. They also resolved that black troops captured should be sold into slavery, regardless whether they had been free or formerly slaves. In actuality captured black troops were frequently massacred by Confederate troops and this part of the resolution was a dead letter. On May 1, 1863 the Confederate House of Representatives passed the same resolution
In both resolutions of the Confederate Senate on April 30, 1863 and the Confederate House on May 1st, condemn "to employ negroes in war against the Confederate States" as "inconsistent with the spirit of those usages which in modern warfare prevail among civilized nations," and a "violation of the laws or usages of war among civilized nations." In short to use black troops was a war crime in the minds of the members of the Confederate congress. This is an accusation that can be made only if you are not using black troops yourself.

The Journal of the Confederate Congress makes it quite clear that what Afro-Confederate troops that might have existed where in existence only briefly in the last few weeks of a Confederacy forced out of utter desperation and facing imminent defeat. "

http://templeofdemocracy.com/NeededMyth.htm

"In a major article in the Confederate Veteran, publication of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV), Joseph B. Mitchell has a lengthy attack on Ken Burns' PBS Civil War series. In this article there is a section devoted to black Confederates which is supposed to prove the war wasn't about slavery, but states rights. Mitchell discusses and quotes a speech by Dr. Ed Smith, a pro-Confederate African American professor at American University. He was also a board member of the Confederate Memorial Hall in Washington, D.C. and a leading proponent of the Confederate black soldier. Quoting Dr. Smith's speech:

"From the beginning of the War, many of the blacks could have run away and escaped. Why didn't they do it? The blacks, slaves as well as free, had accepted the South and all of its contradictions. Many of these blacks knew of other blacks who lived in the North. They knew well that the North would not help them, whereas in the South, they knew they were thought of as 'our people'"

The basic thesis is that if you didn't make a run for it, you were a supporter for the Confederacy and accepted slavery for yourself. There is no other possible explanation for why you didn't run. Since most African Americans didn't manage to escape Dr. Smith feels it proves that they accepted Southern slavery and were loyal slaves. It is interesting that in America with its slogans "Live Free or Die" or "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death," there is the acceptance of the idea that African Americans are a type of human beings who would accept slavery.

The real bald assertion follows a few paragraphs latter:

The Confederate Congress did not officially authorize the use of blacks as soldiers until March of 1865. But from the beginning all Confederate Armies had blacks with them, and as Ed Smith emphasized, "not in segregated units like in the Northern Armies, but completely integrated."

First there is the ignoring of the Historical Framework. You get the idea from the paragraph that the authorization was a technical detail in "officially authorize." From reading the paragraph you get the idea that there were black Confederate soldiers all along with a final technical authorization at the end of the war. The actual historical record of the Confederate congress is that the Confederate Congress was very strongly against the use of blacks as soldier until toward the last few months in an act of desperation. So Ed Smith converts cooks, teamsters, laborers, into soldiers.

Then in the crowning bald face assertion of any writer on the subject, he portrays the Confederates as being more progressive than the Americans on race. In this case Dr. Smith is using two different definitions of segregation simultaneously.

The American army during the Civil War had separate black units with white officers from the other units. These were black units with black soldiers, Dr. Smith then compares these American black units to white Confederate units with black cooks and declares the Confederate units integrated and the American black units segregated.

In all the examples above it is assumed that slaves wanted to serve the Confederacy. The definition of slavery is that someone else owns you and you do what your owner tells you to do. What a slave does, is not an indicator of his wishes, but his masters wishes. This simply fact of slavery is repeatedly not understood by proponents of the historical concept of pro-Confederate blacks. In a major article in the Confederate Veteran, publication of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV), Joseph B. Mitchell has a lengthy attack on Ken Burns' PBS Civil War series. In this article there is a section devoted to black Confederates which is supposed to prove the war wasn't about slavery, but states rights. Mitchell discusses and quotes a speech by Dr. Ed Smith, a pro-Confederate African American professor at American University. He was also a board member of the Confederate Memorial Hall in Washington, D.C. and a leading proponent of the Confederate black soldier. Quoting Dr. Smith's speech:

"From the beginning of the War, many of the blacks could have run away and escaped. Why didn't they do it? The blacks, slaves as well as free, had accepted the South and all of its contradictions. Many of these blacks knew of other blacks who lived in the North. They knew well that the North would not help them, whereas in the South, they knew they were thought of as 'our people'"

The basic thesis is that if you didn't make a run for it, you were a supporter for the Confederacy and accepted slavery for yourself. There is no other possible explanation for why you didn't run. Since most African Americans didn't manage to escape Dr. Smith feels it proves that they accepted Southern slavery and were loyal slaves. It is interesting that in America with its slogans "Live Free or Die" or "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death," there is the acceptance of the idea that African Americans are a type of human beings who would accept slavery.

Originally posted by CYLLON
http://templeofdemocracy.com/NeededMyth.htm

"In a major article in the Confederate Veteran, publication of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV), Joseph B. Mitchell has a lengthy attack on Ken Burns' PBS Civil War series. In this article there is a section devoted to black Confederates which is supposed to prove the war wasn't about slavery, but states rights.
That cannot be denied as one of the issues, but too many people try to say that and leave out the slave issue! (not saying you are...)

However, we who grew up in the north, do not hear enough of the States Rights issue that is over emphasised in the South!

Either way, the war had to come in order to make the Union last, else, we would be two small countries, broken in a way, one more agricultural, and the north more industrial, yet not engaging in trade with each other to better each other.

If you can find it, find a book in an antique store on the MIDDLE PASSAGE. It was cruel. Most slave ships lasted only 5 or 6 voyages, there was too much waste and disease in the ship that even the crew could not stand it to sail.

I am also surprised to read of my home state of Connecticut and how involved we were, being one of the stopping points after the slaves were dropped off down south.

Oh, nevermind, I found the answer to my previous question..


22% of Caucasian Americans have African ancestory....

Originally posted by Banky

That cannot be denied as one of the issues, but too many people try to say that and leave out the slave issue! (not saying you are...)

However, we who grew up in the north, do not hear enough of the States Rights issue that is over emphasised in the South!

Either way, the war had to come in order to make the Union last, else, we would be two small countries, broken in a way, one more agricultural, and the north more industrial, yet not engaging in trade with each other to better each other.

If you can find it, find a book in an antique store on the MIDDLE PASSAGE. It was cruel. Most slave ships lasted only 5 or 6 voyages, there was too much waste and disease in the ship that even the crew could not stand it to sail.

I am also surprised to read of my home state of Connecticut and how involved we were, being one of the stopping points after the slaves were dropped off down south.

"November 1861.A Yankee slave trader was captured on the high seas with a boat load of slaves bound for the West Indies.Trading in slaves had been illegal for many years,although the New England slave ships had been carrying on clandestine slave trading with considerable sucess for Cuba and Brazil but not the south, which was not interested.It devalued their property.Almost all slave trading, when it was legal and illegal.was from ships of New England registry with Northern crews.

An example of how the north realy felt can be found in the case of Nathanial Gordon.He was convicted and hanged for slave trading on 2-7-1862.25,000 New Yorkers turned out to petition Lincoln to commute the sentsnce.Then there are the 39 Sioux indians he had executed because they rebelled.They were starving so they were left with little choice."

With the north’s shipping monopolies, they profited greatly from the slave labor the south used to produce product for shipping. They do not have clean hands in the matter of slavery at all.

The point is that slavery was evil and cruel but in the context of the thread and overall, the North was just as guilty as the south.


It was the idea of the souths free trade that got the northern interests against them.Blacks in the north lived worse than most slaves in the south as far as health,shelter,nutrition ect.

They were free but not much better off.

Personnaly,I would have chosen the north over the south as a slave.Better to die a free man than live as a slave.

Originally posted by all_seeing_eye
Oh, nevermind, I found the answer to my previous question..


22% of Caucasian Americans have African ancestory.... What's the source of that?:confused:

Originally posted by CYLLON

The point is that slavery was evil and cruel but in the context of the thread and overall, the North was just as guilty as the south.
.
Not as guilty of owning at the time of the civil war, but that is only a comparison of the north owning 50 when the south owned 500.

As for the ships, those were a minority of ship owners. But we cannot deny they sailed into Providence, Mystic, New London, Old Saybrook, Boston, New Bedford, Bridgeport...

Wasn't it Maryland still a slave state when the Emancipation Proclamation was signed? I know some Northern states still had slaves then, Ohio?

Originally posted by Banky

Not as guilty of owning at the time of the civil war, but that is only a comparison of the north owning 50 when the south owned 500.

As for the ships, those were a minority of ship owners. But we cannot deny they sailed into Providence, Mystic, New London, Old Saybrook, Boston, New Bedford, Bridgeport...

Wasn't it Maryland still a slave state when the Emancipation Proclamation was signed? I know some Northern states still had slaves then, Ohio?
Yes on maryland.
The point is,slaveries profits were gained not just by the southern owners but by the northern interests that had monpolies on shipping.If some one hires a hitman to do a job,he is just as guilty as the hit man of murder.

Not to sound like I am trying to make excuses for southern slavers mind you.