Slaves' descendants should get tax exemption: US Senate hopeful

1 hour, 8 minutes ago Add U.S. National - AFP to My Yahoo!

CHICAGO (AFP) - American descendants of African slaves should be exempted from US federal taxes for a generation or two to compensate them for the state-sanctioned exploitation of their ancestors, an aspiring US Senate hopeful declared.

Former US ambassador and Republican Senate hopeful Alan Keyes (news - web sites) suggested the tax exemption, saying it would present a fitting solution to the question of slavery reparations, because slavery "was an egregious failure on the part of the federal establishment."

The reparations issue continues to fester, with some blacks seeking financial redress in the courts, while a majority of black politicians would prefer a congressional commission to study the impact of slavery on African-Americans.

The issue has not surfaced as a major one this election year, but Keyes, 53, a long-shot candidate for an Illinois Senate seat, may have been trying to reach out to the black constituency in this Midwestern state.

http://us.f501.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter?MsgId=3335_7903497_79126_1107_884_0_849 3_-1_0&Idx=1&YY=40111&inc=25&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&head=b&box=Inbox

Well, repubs are you signing on to this one?

I don't agree with reperations, period. I have never owned a slave, why should I be punished for what I (nor my ancerstors) have not done?

If all the blacks in America stop paying taxes who will pay them?

Another gem from Dave's Diatribe (http://www.davesdiatribe.com/editorials/forgotten.htm):

The reparations business is eerily similar to the violent liquor store hold-ups and armed robberies that occur in urban areas around the country. Instead of armed weapons they use the language and services of silver-tongued, greedy lawyers as their weapon of choice, but the philosophy is still the same. One group robs another of their money, but instead of criminals dressed in doo-rags, football jerseys and oversized trousers, they wear $1,000 Armani suits and an expensive Rolex. However, the words of urban street thugs or high priced shakedown artists are still the same, “Stick ‘em up!”

I don't agree with reperations, period. I have never owned a slave, why should I be punished for what I (nor my ancerstors) have not done?

If all the blacks in America stop paying taxes who will pay them?

How does black people getting a tax break translate to you being punished? Don't be a hater; what are you, some sort of communist?

I like Keyes...but the entire idea of reparations is a bad one. Those that deserved them are dead.

I think he is just saying what he thinks will gain him a few black votes...the guy is obviously going to lose.

... exempted from US federal taxes...
LOL!

this is a rip-off artist's dream.

I have mixed feelings on this.

I believe all blacks descended from slaves should send a bill (with interest) to the Democrat (Slave) Party

I have mixed feelings on this.

I believe all blacks descended from slaves should send a bill (with interest) to the Democrat (Slave) Party
If blacks were to receive reparations, we should offset the payments against the billions that we have paid for rebuilding their neighborhoods over and over again, feed them, clothe them, teach them and the costs to house black criminals. Come to think of it, white America should be the ones demanding reparations dammit.

How does black people getting a tax break translate to you being punished? Don't be a hater; what are you, some sort of communist?

I have no problem with people white or black getting their hard earned money back.

You can't deny that "the working poor" pay taxes, what are you going to do, tax the rich? Come on. They aren't getting a break under this idea, they would be exempt from paying anything at all.

There's a difference between paying taxes and having a Republican cut them back to you (no matter how small a check you get) and simply not having to pay taxes.

Ha! The only thing they would have to do is die! You know, the old saying "all I have to do is pay taxes and die"?

Reparations for black slavery in the US is simply wrong. It punishes people who never committed the moral wrong of owning slaves. It provide benefits to people who never were wronged by being enslaved. There really is no merit for the idea.

As far as the idea that blacks should be exempt from Federal taxes for a 'generation or two' to make up for it, I have to say "NO F'ING WAY !".

Affirmative Action (another sham), when established, was intended to be a temporary measure; but now it is a way of life with no signs of ever being ended. These tax-breaks are 'intended' to be temporary; but they would also end up being permanent. This would create a situation where a group of people draw benefits from a gov't they never pay into.

That's a scheme for indirect redistribution of wealth that is akin to armed robbery.

inderect redistribution of wealth...where have I heard that before...hmmmm.

inderect redistribution of wealth...where have I heard that before...hmmmm.

Trickle Down Economics ?

(AKA Rob the poor and give to the rich)

If blacks were to receive reparations, we should offset the payments against the billions that we have paid for rebuilding their neighborhoods over and over again, feed them, clothe them, teach them and the costs to house black criminals. Come to think of it, white America should be the ones demanding reparations dammit.
Brother Eye responds: "None of that would have happened if whites hadn't spent years unfairly discriminating against them, as you advocate doing now."

Brother Eye responds

Who the F is 'brother eye' ?

Reparations for black slavery in the US is simply wrong. It punishes people who never committed the moral wrong of owning slaves. It provide benefits to people who never were wronged by being enslaved. There really is no merit for the idea.
Brother Eye responds: "Although I don't necessarily credit this particular proposal, it's NOT true that it would provide benefits to people that were never wronged. It's not just slavery that harmed blacks: it was also segregation and denial of civil rights and unfair discrimination against blacks by whites, some of which was institutionalized. Many of the inequities that exist today do so because of that evil legacy, and many non-blacks have also unfairly benefited from it at their expense."

As far as the idea that blacks should be exempt from Federal taxes for a 'generation or two' to make up for it, I have to say "NO F'ING WAY !".
"Brother Eye responds: "As long as discrimination continues and blacks continue to be harmed by both it and its legacy, they deserve to compensated in some way."

Affirmative Action (another sham), when established, was intended to be a temporary measure; but now it is a way of life with no signs of ever being ended. These tax-breaks are 'intended' to be temporary; but they would also end up being permanent. This would create a situation where a group of people draw benefits from a gov't they never pay into.
Brother Eye responds: "They paid into a system that didn't give them equal benefits for generations."

That's a scheme for indirect redistribution of wealth that is akin to armed robbery.
Brother Eye responds: "It's nothing like armed robbery, although the years of discriminatory violence blacks have intermittently experienced to deny them equal access to social benefits isn't altogether unlike it."

Who the F is 'brother eye' ?
Another leftist fruitcake?

Reparations should have occurred 150 years ago, but I can't see a reason for them nowadays.

This is a reason to vote against Alan Keyes (if you live in Illinois), but I do not believe he is speaking for the Republican party.

Who the F is 'brother eye' ?It's MJLevine/Kamandi

Anyone who thinks reparations are justified is an idiot, point-blank - no matter how educated or worldy said person might claim to be. I'll go so far as to say that, in my eyes, anyone who argues for them automatically loses any credibility when discussing any other unrelated topic. Reparations for modern-day blacks is so ridiculous and unjustifiable that it seriously calls into question the reasoning abilities of anyone who supports it.

Unless, of course, the person stands to gain from reparations; in which case, they're a greedy idiot.

Anyone who thinks reparations are justified is an idiot, point-blank - no matter how educated or worldy said person might claim to be. I'll go so far as to say that, in my eyes, anyone who argues for them automatically loses any credibility when discussing any other unrelated topic. Reparations for modern-day blacks is so ridiculous and unjustifiable that it seriously calls into question the reasoning abilities of anyone who supports it.

Unless, of course, the person stands to gain from reparations; in which case, they're a greedy idiot.
And yet, Israel has extorted billions from Germany, Switzerland, the US, let's see, where else, Mars, the lost civilization of Atlantis, the McCullough family from 105 Main Street.

Scenario: I am driving in my car to the grocery store to buy food for my grandchild that I am raising because his parents are dead. I also have an adult daughter who depends on me for support while she is in college. Today I was informed that a company wants to re-interview me for a position I applied for and I am the only applicant they wish to re-interview. This position, if I should get it (and it sounds like I have an excellent chance to get it) means that I will triple my present wages.

Driving toward me is John Doe, who is just returning from a local Republican Party meeting held at the country club bar. He is very drunk. He veers into my lane and kills me and himself in the accident.

Under present law, my daughter can sue the estate of John Doe for the suffering that the loss of her father will bring her and so can my grandchild (or, to be more specific, a lawsuit can be brought on my grandchild’s behalf). The losses that my daughter and grandchild will suffer are emotional and psychological, but they are monetary as well. The income that is lost to them is not only my present income, but also my potential income because my life was cut short. Not only will they lose the inheritance that I probably would have left them had I lived longer, but they will lose my income potential in prospect of being hired for the new job. And although I hadn’t officially been offered the position, the fact that the company wanted to re-interview me indicates that I had the potential to earn that kind of income. All of these are factors could figure decisively in the lawsuit my daughter and grandchild could bring against John Doe’s estate.

Now how is the logic of reparations different from the logic that would guide the lawsuit in the above scenario? The effects of slavery and the subsequent years of discrimination and racism have had tangible emotional and psychological consequences on many African Americans who inherited their harm. The economic disenfranchisement of slavery and the many years of economic discrimination of African Americans have impacted many African Americans because their parents, grandparents, etc. never had the opportunity to accumulate wealth they could leave their children which could have been used by them to create even more wealth. Also, the wasted potential in advancement of previous African Americans resulting from slavery and discrimination has also impacted the economic circumstances of many African American today.

It is essentially an analogous situation, yet people believe that reparations are unthinkable. Well, I for one don’t understand why.

Anyone who thinks reparations are justified is an idiot, point-blank - no matter how educated or worldy said person might claim to be. I'll go so far as to say that, in my eyes, anyone who argues for them automatically loses any credibility when discussing any other unrelated topic.

Translation: "I have my fingers in my ears and I refuse to listen."

Brother Eye responds: "There's a good argument against cash reparations: simply put, to many of its recipients, it would have an effect similar to pointing a loaded gun at their heads and pulling the trigger."

Ask the black CEO of a multi-million dollar company if he regrets his ancestors being brought over to this country. Ask the black lawyer, doctor or even cook at the local burger joint. Their lot in life is infinitely better that it otherwise would have been. If you're going to look at the effects slavery had on today's blacks, you need to look at all the effects.

And there is no proving that present-day "discrimination and racism" has it's roots in slavery. Such things occur all over the globe - not just in places that practiced slavery in recent times.

And yet, Israel has extorted billions from Germany, Switzerland, the US, let's see, where else, Mars, the lost civilization of Atlantis, the McCullough family from 105 Main Street.
Brother Eye responds: "Exactly where did you get the moronic idea that the aid and loan guarantees the US gives Israel constitute "reparations," and why shouldn't Germany pay reparations - the country exterminated millions of people simply for existing? It should pay reparations."

Ask the black CEO of a multi-million dollar company if he regrets his ancestors being brought over to this country. Ask the black lawyer, doctor or even cook at the local burger joint. Their lot in life is infinitely better that it otherwise would have been. If you're going to look at the effects slavery had on today's blacks, you need to look at all the effects.

And there is no proving that present-day "discrimination and racism" has it's roots in slavery. Such things occur all over the globe - not just in places that practiced slavery in recent times.
Brother Eye responds: "That doesn't mean it can't be proved that it occurred here because of slavery - segregation, which was certainly an aftereffect of slavery, was a major contributor to the situation because blacks weren't given equal access to means or the right to vote or go to college in many cases. And there are indications that societies that practiced racial slavery do discriminate more intently than societies that didn't."

If blacks deserve some form of restitution for being slaves, then I demand that whites similarly be recompensated for those that suffered under indentured servitude.

I also demand that anyone of Italian or Irish ancestry likewise be compensated for the years of discrimination that they suffered.

Also, I believe that there are those of Chinese descent that deserve compensation for the way they got screwed during the years the railroads were built.

Now how is the logic of reparations different from the logic that would guide the lawsuit in the above scenario?

First, the people who would have been responsible for slavery are long since dead.

Second, reparations affects everybody. That would be like suing all the witnessess, the bar, the republican meeting, hell even everybody using the road that day.

Third, do you believe that children should be punished for the sins of the parents? That is exactly what you are asking for with reparations.

The effects of slavery and the subsequent years of discrimination and racism have had tangible emotional and psychological consequences on many African Americans who inherited their harm. The economic disenfranchisement of slavery and the many years of economic discrimination of African Americans have impacted many African Americans because their parents, grandparents, etc. never had the opportunity to accumulate wealth they could leave their children which could have been used by them to create even more wealth. Also, the wasted potential in advancement of previous African Americans resulting from slavery and discrimination has also impacted the economic circumstances of many African American today.

Many groups have been discriminated against and exploited. In fact it has happened the world over ever since humans made their appearance. Many whites faced it when they came to this country.

Why aren't the African tribal leaders that sold their sons and daughters into slavery in the first place not being asked for compensation?

Why is it that every other group other than the blacks that has been economically disenfranchised and discriminated against has been able to rise above it and become accepted parts of society?

Is it fair to those blacks that have managed themselves to rise above it and be sucessful? Why should Colin Powell get reparations?

Turbo,

Do you feel the same way about reparations paid the the children of Holocaust victims?

I have mixed feelings on this.

I believe all blacks descended from slaves should send a bill (with interest) to the Democrat (Slave) Party

LOL, excellent obersavation, most people don't realize this.

Reparations for living victims, respect of the dead, and not a dime for those who don't deserve it.

Now how is the logic of reparations different from the logic that would guide the lawsuit in the above scenario?

200 years of legal lunacy.

Turbo,

Do you feel the same way about reparations paid the the children of Holocaust victims?

You're comparing the holocaust to slavery? Several problems there...

1. Owning a slave isn't the same as killing a person

2. This isn't Nazi Germany

3. The Nazis that perpetuated the crimes are dead.

So to that I say apples and oranges. However, since you want to go ther, how about:

1. Compensation for the victims of Andersonville?

2. Compensation for the 100,000,000 + that died under communism?

3. Is the U.S. going to compensate every civillian death from it's numerous wars? Fire bombings of Dresden/Tokyo? Hiroshima/Nagasaki?

4. The Jews seem to think that Ford Motor Company owes them compensation because the old man hated Jews. Do they have a point?

Why not compensate the familes of northern agressors who, suppsoedly, died to free the slave?

4. The Jews seem to think that Ford Motor Company owes them compensation because the old man hated Jews. Do they have a point?
Brother Eye responds: "And we know this is true is because...??? Because of evidence of them thinking with one giant collective mind, aimed at the Ford family...?"

As one African leader once said, Demanding reperations from the West for the slave trade is wrong, if you don't also demand it from the africans who where supplying the slaves. The Whites didn't usually catch the slaves, they bought them from the Tribes.

Hugs

lilnymph

Why not take the reparations lunacy back more than 'just' 200 years ?

I'm of English ancestry. My distant ancestors were conquered and brutalized by the Romans, the Saxons, the Normans, the Vikings, etc. Should I expect a big fat paycheck from those centuries of horrible treatment ? Why should only black people be eligible for reparations ?

Heck, the interest and late-fees alone could more than pay for my 'share' of the black reparations bill.




And for those whose 'sarcastometers' are on the blink, I am being sarcastic.

Originally Posted by Turbostang
4. The Jews seem to think that Ford Motor Company owes them compensation because the old man hated Jews. Do they have a point?

Brother Eye responds: "And we know this is true is because...??? Because of evidence of them thinking with one giant collective mind, aimed at the Ford family...?"
You are right. it is Jewish Supremacists rather than all Jews. There is a difference and we should recognize the difference.

People talk about how great the USA is, or how that former greatness is now being "diminished", but they're quick to dismiss the role slave labor had in creating the world we live in right now this second.

Does anyone on here honestly believe that the life their great-grandparents lived has had no effect on their own lives? Do you think you would be sitting where you are now if your grandparents had lived in another country, another society? Folly. Yet then they say that black people today have nothing to do with those insignificant slaves of a hundred and fifty years ago.

A hundred and fifty years is a very short time, historically.

Anyone who thinks that the social betterment of the descendants of American slaves would not benefit everyone in this country is a damned fool. If you think black CEO's should be grateful that their great-grandparents were slaves simply because it affords them the opportunity to live a materialistic wet-dream now, then you obviously think money is the most important thing in the world. Since that's the case, then you would agree that giving money to poor blacks would somehow make them "better" people. Wouldn't that benefit everyone?

The only reason I "opppose" reparations is because money doesn't make anyone happy, and reparations would only reinforce the American lie that it does.

However, it wouldn't bother me one bit to see blacks get their reparations; they definitely deserve them.

My idea is to make blacks pay for the damage they have done to the cities where they lived.

Let them fix the following cities to the pre-integration condition they were in.

New York, Newark, Camden, Baltimore, Washington, Detroit, Chicago, Atlanta, New Orleans, and Los Angeles, for starters.

>>If blacks deserve some form of restitution for being slaves, then I demand that whites similarly be recompensated for those that suffered under indentured servitude.
I also demand that anyone of Italian or Irish ancestry likewise be compensated for the years of discrimination that they suffered.
Also, I believe that there are those of Chinese descent that deserve compensation for the way they got screwed during the years the railroads were built.<<

Your counterargument relies on the dubious assumption that several wrongs make a right. Also, your counterargument assumes that these other forms of discrimination and exploitation had the same duration, intensity and sociological impact as SLAVERY had had on subsequent generations of African Americans. Also, there is a significant difference between discriminating against groups that are, nevertheless, officially deemed human beings and those that are not. And that difference made significant differences in patterns of discrimination after the abolition of slavery.

Quote:
Now how is the logic of reparations different from the logic that would guide the lawsuit in the above scenario?

>>First, the people who would have been responsible for slavery are long since dead.<<
The man whose estate is being sued is dead. What’s the difference between someone long dead and just dead? I don’t get it.

>>Second, reparations affects everybody. That would be like suing all the witnessess, the bar, the republican meeting, hell even everybody using the road that day.<<

No, the situation is analogous. My children aren’t suing the man. He’s dead. They are suing his estate…his assets. Suppose he owned the bar. That would be part of the estate. My children suing the estate might have consequences for the patrons of the bar, its employees, etc. But no one for that reason would say that my children have no right to sue the estate because of the consequences it might have for these people.

>>Third, do you believe that children should be punished for the sins of the parents? That is exactly what you are asking for with reparations.<<

I believe that the wealth and advantages we inherited from the sins of our parents were a direct result of either our foreparents owning slaves outright or of tolerating it in their country. And let’s not forget the chief benefit of slavery: it’s very cost effective. It keeps prices down and thereby maximizes profit: i.e., capital. That capital went in our direction and away from those whose foreparents had the value of their labor utterly stolen from them (the slaves).

Quote:
The effects of slavery and the subsequent years of discrimination and racism have had tangible emotional and psychological consequences on many African Americans who inherited their harm. The economic disenfranchisement of slavery and the many years of economic discrimination of African Americans have impacted many African Americans because their parents, grandparents, etc. never had the opportunity to accumulate wealth they could leave their children which could have been used by them to create even more wealth. Also, the wasted potential in advancement of previous African Americans resulting from slavery and discrimination has also impacted the economic circumstances of many African American today.

>>Many groups have been discriminated against and exploited. In fact it has happened the world over ever since humans made their appearance. Many whites faced it when they came to this country.
Why aren't the African tribal leaders that sold their sons and daughters into slavery in the first place not being asked for compensation?<<

Perhaps they should be. I have no control over what happens in countries I am not a part of, but I do have some control over mine. And mine should pay reparations.

>>Why is it that every other group other than the blacks that has been economically disenfranchised and discriminated against has been able to rise above it and become accepted parts of society?<<
Well, if you can’t distinguish between the debilitating effects that SLAVERY (not being counted as a human being) would have on human beings as opposed to mere discrimination, then you need to think more deeply about this matter.

>>Is it fair to those blacks that have managed themselves to rise above it and be sucessful? Why should Colin Powell get reparations?<<

Your assumption is that someone like Powell wouldn’t be more successful than he is now if slavery hadn’t existed. Perhaps he would be. You cannot say that he wouldn’t.

>>You're comparing the holocaust to slavery? Several problems there...
1. Owning a slave isn't the same as killing a person<<

Their slave masters didn’t murder slaves? Where did you get an idea like that? And Holocaust survivors didn’t get compensation? That’s just wrong. They did.

>>2. This isn't Nazi Germany<<

No, this isn’t Switzerland either, but no credible disputed that the Holocaust survivors and their children were entitled to the have the money that was stolen from them by the Nazis and deposited in Swiss banks. The slaves had the value of their labor stolen utterly from them. Their children are not entitled to that compensation they never received?

>>3. The Nazis that perpetuated the crimes are dead.<<
Don’t get this. So are the slave masters.

>>1. Compensation for the victims of Andersonville?
2. Compensation for the 100,000,000 + that died under communism?
3. Is the U.S. going to compensate every civillian death from it's numerous wars? Fire bombings of Dresden/Tokyo? Hiroshima/Nagasaki?<<

Again you assume that many wrongs make a right. Better: you assume that many wrongs excuse another wrong. That is not valid.

>>4. The Jews seem to think that Ford Motor Company owes them compensation because the old man hated Jews. Do they have a point?<<

Were part of the proceeds of the company used to harm Jews? If so, then probably so.

Ask the black CEO of a multi-million dollar company if he regrets his ancestors being brought over to this country. Ask the black lawyer, doctor or even cook at the local burger joint. Their lot in life is infinitely better that it otherwise would have been. If you're going to look at the effects slavery had on today's blacks, you need to look at all the effects.


Now there is a fascinating bit of logic. Slavery was worth it because some of the descendants of slaves benefited. I suppose we shouldn't wonder how much more the USA's descendants of Africans would have benefited if they had been allowed to immigrate to the USA instead of first enjoying the blessings of the USA in chains. Oh, no, that question would be improper to this genius.

Perchance, does this board-sage think this might be a good way to handle immigrants to the USA from now on?

Say, they arrive and we immediately enslave them and their offspring for several generations. And so that their descendants will be even more grateful later on, we give these slave immigrants ZERO legal rights, and we torture, rape, brand, mutilate and murder them and divide their families because it is--well--profitable. That way a scant few generations later after their emancipation, one of their descendants working in a "burger joint" for minimum wage and w/o health insurance can say, "Thank you, America, for treating my ancestors like sh*t because, otherwise, I wouldn't have this nifty Burger King uniform and cap right now."

People talk about how great the USA is, or how that former greatness is now being "diminished", but they're quick to dismiss the role slave labor had in creating the world we live in right now this second.

If you think black CEO's should be grateful that their great-grandparents were slaves simply because it affords them the opportunity to live a materialistic wet-dream

A matiralistic wet dream? That's your view of America today? A matiralistic wet dream?

I'm sure they would be faring much better in "modern" Africa. Duh!

What about the Chinese who were mined to death? Or anyone else who was treated badly to create this wet dream?

This is all a leftist ploy to keep blacks down econamically. Through the theft that is taxing the rich and giving to the people who don't earn it. "If I do nothing but sit around and have illegitament children I get paid? Well golly!"

"Don't worry!" "The left is here to get you what don't deserve!"! "We have no problem with reinforcing bad behavior"!

I know Alen Keyes is supporting this, but it's a ditch effort to get blacks on his side.

I had a talk with one of the many blacks I work with. He mived to Florida from Chicago. He was describing his life in the ghetto. He said "I wouldn't be alive if I had stayed there, so I got out I was lucky".

I asked him if it was possible to go to school and get an education. Even though you would be in the middle of the ghetto, is it possible to saty away from gangs and drugs and all the bad things, and get an education that is a sure shot out of the hood?

His response: Yes.

Let me say this again, it suprised me. He said yes, it is possible to go to school while staying away from the bad things. He also agreed with me that going to school is a sure way out of the ghetto.

Well, why don't kids do that?

"Because they are young and want to be cool, they go along with the crowd".

Chew on that.

Another thing that blew me away. I asked him next if he thought rap music has a negetive influance on young black people in the ghetto.

His response: Yes.

Let me say this again. Yes.

He went on to say that it promotes bad behavior. "If you listen to that all day your going to start thinking like that".

This shoots a huge hole in the left's idea of the effects of slavery. The change isn't going to come from more and more money for these people, it comes in a change in their value system.


*edit*

He still loves his rap.

Should Blacks get "reparations" just because they are descendants of Black Slaves? NO. There were many thousands of free Black slaveowners. To even consider awarding them "reparations" is a joke.

Dixie's Censored Subject - Black Slave Owners


© 1995
THIS ARTICLE IS COPYRIGHTED AND IS PROVIDED HERE COURTESY OF THE BARNES
REVIEW





Free, slave-holding, and prosperous property-owning blacks were quite
numerous before the Civil War, but are a banished lost tribe within the
pages of establishment history.

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.

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

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

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.
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. 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. 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. Nevertheless, in 1840 Ellison secretly
began slave breeding.
While there was subsequent investment returns in raising and keeping young
males, females were not productive workers in his factory or his cotton
fields. As a result, except for a few females he raised to become
"breeders," Ellison sold the female and many of the male children born to
his female slaves at an average price of $400. Ellison had a reputation as a
harsh master. His slaves were said to be the district's worst fed and
clothed. On his property was located a small, windowless building where he
would chain his problem slaves.
As with the slaves of his white counterparts, occasionally Ellison's slaves
ran away. The historians of Sumter District reported that from time to time
Ellison advertised for the return of his runaways. On at least one occasion
Ellison hired the services of a slave catcher. According to an account by
Robert N. Andrews, a white man who had purchased a small hotel in Stateburg
in the 1820s, Ellison hired him to run down "a valuable slave. Andrews
caught the slave in Belleville, Virginia. He stated: "I was paid on
returning home $77.50 and $74 for expenses.
William Ellison died December 5, 1861. His will stated that his estate
should pass into the joint hands of his free daughter and his two surviving
sons. He bequeathed $500 to the slave daughter he had sold.
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).
A truer picture of the Old South, one never presented by the nation's mind
molders, emerges from this account. The American South had been undergoing
structural evolutionary changes far, far greater than generations of
Americans have been led to believe. In time, within a relatively short time,
the obsolete and economically nonviable institution of slavery would have
disappeared. The nation would have been spared awesome traumas from which it
would never fully recover.
Source: The Barnes Review, 1(13) 1995 , pp. 17-22.

Anyone who thinks that the social betterment of the descendants of American slaves would not benefit everyone in this country is a damned fool.

I'd replace "40 acres and a mule" with $100,000 and a free one way trip to Africa. Send $20,000 per head to the country that receives the African American.

The social betterment is that African Americans can live free of "white racism". Whites can live without black crime. The poor African nation can receive money to invest in their infrastructure. It is win-win-win situation.

I'd replace "40 acres and a mule" with $100,000 and a free one way trip to Africa. Send $20,000 per head to the country that receives the African American.

The social betterment is that African Americans can live free of "white racism". Whites can live without black crime. The poor African nation can receive money to invest in their infrastructure. It is win-win-win situation.

I'm trying tio figure out which group you hate more: African Americans or Jews. Please clarify.

Brother Eye responds: "He can't clarify it, because he doesn't know himself until some neo-Nazi moron at the National Alliance tells him."

The slaves had the value of their labor stolen utterly from them. Their children are not entitled to that compensation they never received?
Brother Eye responds: "While I'm not opposed to reparations in the form of educational benefits and SBLI loans, and not cash, when exactly did the American federal government endorse the labor theory of value?"


Were part of the proceeds of the company used to harm Jews? If so, then probably so.
Brother Eye responds: "Henry Ford, like Joe Kennedy, funneled money directly to the Nazis through I.G. Farben, so yes, it was."

Surprised no one brought this up, How many poor blacks (or other races for that matter, but since this is about blacks...) actually pay income tax? So how would a tax break help someone that doesn't pay taxes?

I like Keyes...but the entire idea of reparations is a bad one. Those that deserved them are dead.

Keyes backed off the subject and so should you.

If you want to get into a Keyes dirt thread, just bump one or start one. Living where I do I can assure you that he is a piece of something that you flush.


Reparations is BS. I really don't know where either party stands, or does the line dance to watermelon something or other, to.

Fine to sound like a bigoted racist, bad for lib mother f'er, I'll say it.
Here is a boat ticket one way.
Go.

Really, the injustice was done, with the exception of being disenfrachisesed (remeber smee cant'spiel. 1440 on the Sat's and a 28 or someshiet on ACTs... still no spieling.)

The chance that anyone has in america is greater than any nation on this planet.

it even comes with college grants, reverse discrimination laws, and free housing and food to make it happen.

GO, work at mickyd's and get your friggin boat ticket.

you know, the ghetto pieces of ****, white, black, and brown know that isn't happening...

So quit having it brought up. Especially by a man that is obviously better off than if he was drinking cow's piss in the desert.

Originally Posted by Fin O'Cool
I'd replace "40 acres and a mule" with $100,000 and a free one way trip to Africa. Send $20,000 per head to the country that receives the African American.

The social betterment is that African Americans can live free of "white racism". Whites can live without black crime. The poor African nation can receive money to invest in their infrastructure. It is win-win-win situation.

I'm trying tio figure out which group you hate more: African Americans or Jews. Please clarify.
Brother Ear hears someone trying to avoid the proposal.

Arf.... - The best response yet!!

I disagree.

I disagree.
Well.... respond.??? /guess???

Your counterargument relies on the dubious assumption that several wrongs make a right. Also, your counterargument assumes that these other forms of discrimination and exploitation had the same duration, intensity and sociological impact as SLAVERY had had on subsequent generations of African Americans. Also, there is a significant difference between discriminating against groups that are, nevertheless, officially deemed human beings and those that are not. And that difference made significant differences in patterns of discrimination after the abolition of slavery.

Negative. My counter arguement relies on the very reasonable assertion that if any one person or group is to be compensated for an injustice, ALL groups that can claim an injustice past or present should likewise be able to make a claim for compensation. Otherwise, you are practicing and advocating another form of racism and discrimination.

Time, intensity, and even claims as to whether or not blacks were considered human are irrelevant in establishing whether or not an injustice has been committed.

Also, using the excuse of "I can't succeed in life because my great great grandparents were slaves" is a cop-out arguement. It works off the faulty premise that had all blacks been free in this country at that time, all blacks now would be successful. We are the sum of our own actions and choices in this life. Anybody who feels that they are that dependent on the past to make it in the present isn't in need of compensation, but therapy.

The man whose estate is being sued is dead. What’s the difference between someone long dead and just dead? I don’t get it.

1. Both parties are dead... meaning that the people who would have had a right to sue at the time of the accident are worm food at this point.

2. Statute of limitations. Lets say your accident happened 150 years ago, and somehow your great x3 grandchildren tried to sue the estate now. What do you think are the chances of it making it to court, much less being taken seriously. Can you say "snowball's chance in hell"? In fact if the accident happened even 5 years ago, and you are just starting the lawsuit now, you probably wouldn't stand a very good chance.

No, the situation is analogous. My children aren’t suing the man. He’s dead. They are suing his estate…his assets. Suppose he owned the bar. That would be part of the estate. My children suing the estate might have consequences for the patrons of the bar, its employees, etc. But no one for that reason would say that my children have no right to sue the estate because of the consequences it might have for these people.

Nope, sorry, but that is a false analogy. The United States didn't own slaves, the slave holders did. In fact, slavery was a state to state issue. However, you are suggesting that the United States pay for the actions of a few. That means EVERYBODY pays, even those who had nothing to do with slavery.

If there is one thing in the world that I truly despise is collective punishment... the very thing you advocate.

I believe that the wealth and advantages we inherited from the sins of our parents were a direct result of either our foreparents owning slaves outright or of tolerating it in their country.

That is one hell of an assumption.

You assume that ALL non-blacks tolerated slavery. That is a balnket generalization and therefore a fallacy.

You likewise assume that all non-blacks in this country are successful as a result of slavery. That fallacy is known as argumentum ad consequentiae or appeal to consequences.

It also ignores the many immigrants who came to this country who had no stake at all in slavery.

Finally, this isn't Klingon society... we don't punish children for the actions of their parents.

And let’s not forget the chief benefit of slavery: it’s very cost effective. It keeps prices down and thereby maximizes profit: i.e., capital. That capital went in our direction and away from those whose foreparents had the value of their labor utterly stolen from them (the slaves).

That is false. Slave owners had to buy the slaves and then have them trained. That is similar to modern industry where the owner has to invest alot of capital up front for machinery and then train the workers to use it.

The going price of a slave in the 1800's was about $100,000 of their dollars. I don't know what that would translate to now, but it is a pretty safe bet that it would be in the millions.

Perhaps they should be. I have no control over what happens in countries I am not a part of, but I do have some control over mine. And mine should pay reparations.

That is your opinion

Well, if you can’t distinguish between the debilitating effects that SLAVERY (not being counted as a human being) would have on human beings as opposed to mere discrimination, then you need to think more deeply about this matter.

Oh for chrissake... name one living black in this country that was a slave in this country, and I'll consider your "arguement".

It still begs the question, how is it that every other group that has come to this country that has been subject to discrimination has been able to rise above it and become part of mainstream society, but the blacks have not been able to?

Your assumption is that someone like Powell wouldn’t be more successful than he is now if slavery hadn’t existed. Perhaps he would be. You cannot say that he wouldn’t.

I didn't say that. However, you don't know whether or not he would have been successful at all had slavery not existed.

Their slave masters didn’t murder slaves? Where did you get an idea like that? And Holocaust survivors didn’t get compensation? That’s just wrong. They did.

So what? Unless you are suggesting that slave owners bought slaves for target practice, that is not what I am talking about.

No, this isn’t Switzerland either, but no credible disputed that the Holocaust survivors and their children were entitled to the have the money that was stolen from them by the Nazis and deposited in Swiss banks. The slaves had the value of their labor stolen utterly from them. Their children are not entitled to that compensation they never received?

I believe you said "I have no control over what happens in countries I am not a part of" did you not?

Don’t get this. So are the slave masters.

Yep... dead as Julius Ceasar

Again you assume that many wrongs make a right. Better: you assume that many wrongs excuse another wrong. That is not valid.

See first paragraph.

Originally Posted by Mr. Anarky
The slaves had the value of their labor stolen utterly from them. Their children are not entitled to that compensation they never received?

Brother Eye responds: "While I'm not opposed to reparations in the form of educational benefits and SBLI loans, and not cash, when exactly did the American federal government endorse the labor theory of value?"

Of course it ascribes to it to some extent since it now holds that no state non-detained person can be compelled to work w/o compensation. In short, your labor has some value for which you deserve some compensation.

Brother Ear hears someone trying to avoid the proposal.

I'm not entertaining the proposal at all because it is sheer idiocy. It entails that Americans of African descent should consider pulling up stakes and moving to a place that is not their home. This is their home and it is idiotic to expect them to leave it. Besides, your idiocy begs the question. Perhaps white americand out to be the ones to suffer banishment from the USA since it was their ancestors that were the slave masters. Bet you won't sign on that one, will you?

Now, racist, stop dodging the question: who do you hate more: African Americans or Jews?

If your whacko beliefs are valid, you ought to have the balls to answer the question because right now you are coming off as a puny cowardly piece of racist white trash.

Surprised no one brought this up, How many poor blacks (or other races for that matter, but since this is about blacks...) actually pay income tax? So how would a tax break help someone that doesn't pay taxes?
Brother Eye responds: "Most, in fact, are probably entitled to a refund most years."

Now, racist, stop dodging the question: who do you hate more: African Americans or Jews?
Brother Eye responds: "That's like asking: which would you prefer to amputate, your right leg or your left leg?"

If your whacko beliefs are valid, you ought to have the balls to answer the question because right now you are coming off as a puny cowardly piece of racist white trash.
Brother Eye responds: "Perhaps that's as good a proof as any that his wacko beliefs are invalid?"

Keyes backed off the subject and so should you.

If you want to get into a Keyes dirt thread, just bump one or start one. Living where I do I can assure you that he is a piece of something that you flush.


Reparations is BS. I really don't know where either party stands, or does the line dance to watermelon something or other, to.

Fine to sound like a bigoted racist, bad for lib mother f'er, I'll say it.
Here is a boat ticket one way.
Go.

Really, the injustice was done, with the exception of being disenfrachisesed (remeber smee cant'spiel. 1440 on the Sat's and a 28 or someshiet on ACTs... still no spieling.)

The chance that anyone has in america is greater than any nation on this planet.

it even comes with college grants, reverse discrimination laws, and free housing and food to make it happen.

GO, work at mickyd's and get your friggin boat ticket.

you know, the ghetto pieces of ****, white, black, and brown know that isn't happening...

So quit having it brought up. Especially by a man that is obviously better off than if he was drinking cow's piss in the desert.

America is trillions in debt. It isn't happening.
Really, although I consider myself mostly liberal, I must state the truth.
There will be no payment to the heirs of slaves,
the economy can't take it, the corporations that owe have politicians in their pockets, and mainstream america is hurting.

Fuhguttaboutdit.

Perhaps white americand out to be the ones to suffer banishment from the USA since it was their ancestors that were the slave masters. Bet you won't sign on that one, will you?

The average black in America probably has far more slaveowner ancestry than the average white.

The average black in America probably has far more slaveowner ancestry than the average white.

Very well could be. I found a rather interesting article...


DIXIE'S CENSORED SUBJECT
BLACK SLAVEOWNERS

By Robert M. Grooms

© 1997

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).

>>>1.4%... yet some people on this site seem to think it is OK to force the other 98.6% to pay...

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.

While there was subsequent investment return in raising and keeping young males, females were not productive workers in his factory or his cotton fields. As a result, except for a few females he raised to become "breeders," Ellison sold the female and many of the male children born to his female slaves at an average price of $400. Ellison had a reputation as a harsh master. His slaves were said to be the district's worst fed and clothed. On his property was located a small, windowless building where he would chain his problem slaves.

As with the slaves of his white counterparts, occasionally Ellison's slaves ran away. The historians of Sumter District reported that from time to time Ellison advertised for the return of his runaways. On at least one occasion Ellison hired the services of a slave catcher. According to an account by Robert N. Andrews, a white man who had purchased a small hotel in Stateburg in the 1820s, Ellison hired him to run down "a valuable slave. Andrews caught the slave in Belleville, Virginia. He stated: "I was paid on returning home $77.50 and $74 for expenses.

William Ellison died December 5, 1861. His will stated that his estate should pass into the joint hands of his free daughter and his two surviving sons. He bequeathed $500 to the slave daughter he had sold.

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).

A truer picture of the Old South, one never presented by the nation's mind molders, emerges from this account. The American South had been undergoing structural evolutionary changes far, far greater than generations of Americans have been led to believe. In time, within a relatively short time, the obsolete and economically nonviable institution of slavery would have disappeared. The nation would have been spared awesome traumas from which it would never fully recover.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTES

1. The American Negro, Raymond Logan and Irving Cohen New York: Houghton and Mifflin, 1970), p.72.

2. Black Masters. A Family of Color in the Old South, Michael P. Johnson and James L. Roak New York: Norton, 1984), p.64.

3. The Forgotten People, Gary Mills (Baton Rouge, 1977); Black Masters, p.128.

4. Men and Wealth in the US., 1850-1870, Lee Soltow (New Haven, 1975), p.85.
5. Black Masters, Appendix, Table 7; p.280.

6. Black Masters, p. 62.

7. Information on the Ellison family was obtained from Black Masters; the number of slaves they owned was gained from U.S. Census Reports.

8. In 1860 South Carolina had only 21 gin makers; Ellison, his three sons and a grandson account for five of the total.

9. Neither Black Nor White: Slaveiy and Race Relations in Brazil and the United States, Carl N. Degler (New York, Macmillan, 1971), p.39; Negro Slavery in Louisiana, Joe Gray Taylor (Baton Rouge, 1963), pp. 4041.

10. Reconstruction, 1863-1877, Eric Foner (New York; Harper & Row, 1988), p. 47; pp. 353-355.

I'm not entertaining the proposal at all because it is sheer idiocy. It entails that Americans of African descent should consider pulling up stakes and moving to a place that is not their home.
It gives African Americans the option of leaving the US and returning to their homeland. It provides financial incentives for extremely poor African nations and African Americans. A single mother of 6 would receive $700,000 to resettle her family.

In other words, the US is supplying slavery reparations for those of African decent. The US is admitting that they erred in using their ancestors as slaves and apologize for uprooting them from their homeland.

If your whacko beliefs are valid, you ought to have the balls to answer the question because right now you are coming off as a puny cowardly piece of racist white trash.
Your comments are inappropriate. This is a free speech discussion board. Please leave the childish name-calling to the children.