Recently I engaged in a dicussion with a friend who claimed that black people were enslaved because they were black. I disagreed with him. What are your thoughts? Why were black african enslaved? I suggest that tribal warfare resulted in many captives who were sold as slaves to the various slave traders.

Be Blessed

-- Anonymous, November 03, 2003

Answers

West Africans were candidates for enslavement because of their fundamental inability to respond to European force (guns, nets and armaments) with indigenous counter-force methods. If you successfully rebuke an invader who desires to rape, pillage and steal your assets, you will not become "captives". Superior European military and para-military technology was the key. Race became a political tool used to justify a decietful form of superiority. Any biological scientist will tell you that race is not a biological phenomenon. It is purey social and political. QED

-- Anonymous, November 05, 2003

But Bill, What about the tribal warfare? Are we not engaging in Tribal Warfae even now?

-- Anonymous, November 05, 2003

Reverend Paris,

I hold degrees in Music and Early Childhood Ed. So I do not claim to be a historian in any regard. However, I have had a keen interest in history since I studied World History in sixth grade. It is said that the Black man has been so busy making history that he has often failed to remember it or write it down. I believe that one can't know who he is or where he is going unless he knows where he has been.

Since the time I was twelve, my friends often gave me a new history book for Christmas and birthdays. I also have in my possession family documents and records dating back one hundred and fifty years.

Having said this, the impact of tribal wars on slavery was minimal and only partially true at best. The best accounts of history that I have been able to find and all the primary sources I could locate on it, affirm that Africans first came to America as "indentured servants", as many Europeans and other had also done. Their term of indenture provide them passage across the seas and productive work and shelter once they arrived. John Rolf, in a letter to the Virginia Company of London, reported the arrival of Negroes in Jamestown, Virginia in 1619. John Winthrop reported the arrival of Negroes in Massachusetts Colony in 1630. The same thing was occurring in the West Indies as well.

Unfortunately, Africans proved to be strong and capable workers who were diligent in their work. The latitude and similarity between the climate of West African and the lower colonies made them the most suitable workers for the economic industries of Cotton, Tobacco and Rice. Additionally, the latitude and geographic location of West African and the Colonies in the American States made for quick passage across the Atlantic and the importation of blacks, European having come from a much colder climate, much further to the north.

Massachusetts became the first colony to give statutory recognition to slavery in 1641. Other colonies followed: Connecticut 1650; Virginia, 1661; Maryland, 1663; New York and New Jersey, 1664; South Carolina, 1682; Rhode Island and Pennsylvania, 1700; North Carolina. 1715; Georgia, 1750. This practice also caught on in The Caribbean and West Indies.

Slavery was shot lived and soon abandoned in many of the colonies mentioned above. Vermont in 1777 being the first to abolish it; Followed by Massachusetts and New Hampshire in 1783; Pennsylvania in 1780; Connecticut and Rhode Island in 1784; New York in 1799 and New Jersey in 1804. However, Maryland, the District of Columbia, Virginia and the southern colonies held firmly to it, finally resulting the Civil War.

The most profound of these were the Colonies of Virginia in 1661 where Tobacco was a major crop and Maryland in 1663, because the supply of indentured servants was quickly dwindling and coming to an end. The laws in these colonies were specifically directed at West Africans (who were black) and stated that they would not be free citizens when their term of indenture came to an end. Because of Virginia's strong stand on Slavery practices and laws, the state was literally split and the new state of West Virginia was formed.

Since these laws did not apply to Europeans and indentured servants from other parts, it was primarily an institution directed towards backs. While not all Africans in America have ever been slaves, even before and after the Civil War, The Institution of Slavery, American Slave Trade and Laws were directed towards West Africans, whose complexion was definitely black.

Although Slavery was economic and afforded much to those who enslaved, it translated into being racial towards persons who were black. This is even evident in the master's offspring who were "house slaves" and who often lived and worked in the master's house as opposed to the "field slave" with skin of darker hues who lived in the shanties and huts and worked the crops.

On an aside related note: The family of Bishop Henry Mcneal Turner lived among slaves in South Carolina but always lived free. The reason for this was that as a Colony of South Carolina was under British Law. British Law expressly prohibited royalty from being enslaved. Bishop Turner's matriarchal grandfather, David Greer, was brought to the Colony of South Carolina as an African slave. Shortly after his arrival it was discovered that he was also an African Prince. Thus, making David Greer and his descendants forever free. It is said that the Turner men were strong, hardy, and robust men who would physically challenge and beat any person of any color who abused or threatened them. It is also said that Bishop Turner chose not to die on American soil. Although he was a resident of Atlanta, Georgia at the time of his death, He went to Detroit, Michigan and across to Windsor, Ontario when he knew his death was near.

-- Anonymous, November 05, 2003

Excellent history lesson. I really needed that. However, I find it hard to accept that tribal warfare did not exist then--since millions have been and are being killed even now in tribal warfare on the continent of Africa. Some tribes have lost millions in the last 50 years.

-- Anonymous, November 06, 2003

Thanks Bro. Matthews for taking the time to share this history. With respect to the original question, I am reminded that the love of money is the root of all evil. Racism is not a root but rather a hideous branch that stretches out and cast an appalling darkness over many things. Unfortunately it is not the only branch..there are others: political corruption (from stealing and taking bribes to putting hazardous plants in poor areas), incentivizing ignorance (illegal drug trade; why should Johnny go to college when he can earn more than his college degree daddy) objectifying and perverting the body (porn industry)on and on. It's hard to tell when race began to play a factor ( was it even in the thought process from the get go) I'm not sure it makes much difference. It's here. Still real. Still blocking some of the light.

-- Anonymous, November 07, 2003

Robert opines -

"Having said this, the impact of tribal wars on slavery was minimal and only partially true at best."

Global history teaches us that to the victor goes the spoils. One of the spoils is the subjugation of your enemy. Parson Paris' issue about the role of tribal warfare as a contributing factor in the regime of West African slavery is not a trivial point or misapplied form of analysis. On this point he is fundamentally correct. One of the best scholarly volumnes ever produced on this topic is Slavery & Social Death written by the erudite Harvard scholar Orlando Patterson. Professor Patterson's historical contribution is significant because he is able to demonstrate by using comparative international examples that the common denominator across all slave regimes is the status of the slave being reduced to a "dishonored" person. This phenomenon is independent of race or color because throughout Greek and Roman antiquity slaves and masters in many cases were physically indistinguishable from one another. Patterson also demonstrates that the role of race is further exaggerated when you examine slave societies in ancient African and South American societies. In slave societies, status and privilege are only confered on individuals who have power. The US experience as a slavocracy only showed that race is a necessary not a sufficient condition for this form of tyranny to persist. The primary cause of black African enslavement by Europeans is no different than prior slave regimes. Conquest via superior technology remains the key. There is nothing unique about the slavocracy experiment in the US. The "uniqueness thesis" is an urban myth. QED

-- Anonymous, November 07, 2003

Rev. Paris:

I believe this sums it up. I do not believe it is what you want to hear, but it is an exerpt from a document written by the third President of the US, Thomas Jefferson.

"And whether the slave may not as justifiably take a little from one, who has taken all from him, as he may slay one who would slay him? That a change in the relations in which a man is placed should change his ideas of moral right or wrong, is neither new, nor peculiar to the colour of the blacks. Homer tells us it was so 2600 years ago.

Jove fix'd it certain, that whatever day Makes man a slave, takes half his worth away. But the slaves of which Homer speaks were whites. Notwithstanding these considerations which must weaken their respect for the laws of property, we find among them numerous instances of the most rigid integrity, and as many as among their better instructed masters, of benevolence, gratitude and unshaken fidelity. The opinion, that they are inferior in the faculties of reason and imagination, must be hazarded with great diffidence. To justify a general conclusion, requires many observations, even where the subject may be submitted to the anatomical knife, to optical classes, to analysis by fire, or by solvents. How much more then where it is a faculty, not a substance, we are examining; where it eludes the research of all the Senses; where the conditions of its existence are various and variously combined; where the effects of those which are present or absent bid defiance to calculation; let me add too, as a circumstance of great tenderness, where our conclusion would degrade a whole race of men from the rank in the scale of beings which their Creator may perhaps have given them. To our reproach it must be said, that though for a century and a half we have had under our eyes the races of black and of red men, they have never yet been viewed by us as subjects of natural history. I advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind. It is not against experience to suppose, that different Species of the same genus, or varieties of the same species, may possess different qualifications. Will not a lover of natural history then, one who views the gradations in all the races of animals with the eye of philosophy, excuse an effort to keep those in the department of man as distinct as nature has formed them?

This unfortunate difference of colour, and perhaps of faculty, is a powerful obstacle to the emancipation of these people. Many of their advocates, while they wish to vindicate the liberty of human nature are anxious also to preserve its dignity and beauty. Some of these, embarrassed by the question `What further is to be done with them?' join themselves in opposition with those who are actuated by sordid avarice only. Among the Romans emancipation required but one effort. The slave, when made free, might mix with, without staining the blood of his master. But with us a second is necessary, unknown to history. When freed, he is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture."

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2003

Mary, I am somewhat disappointed that you think I have an answer in mind. I truly want to know what you think. Secondly, I am loathe to accept the definitions of that slaveholder rapist, Jefferson. I admit I did not fully understand what the qoutations meant, hopefully you can summarize it in your words for me. I think he said colour was not a factor. My arguement was that the color of skin was not the reason Africans were "chosen" by slavetraders as targets. That it began as a means of disposing of ones captured enemies. Then when the slave traders acame and I had no captives, they took me.

Be Blessed

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2003

Rev. Paris, my apologies if I offended you in any way.

In Jefferson's statement, he continuously makes comparisons of the physical and mental features of the black race to the white race. It is Jefferson's belief, and to be quite honest the majority of the white Americans of that time, that the black man/woman was inferior to that of the white. In each case he alludes specifically to the color black. He goes as far to describe the anatomy of a black to that of a white, and also the mental and spiritual characteristics of blacks to whites. He gives no credence to the poetry of Phyllis Wheatley, but dismisses her by saying, "The compositions published under her name are below the dignity of criticism."

Because of this attitud more blacks were imported to southern states from the years 1788 to 1808 than in any other 20 years. Because of this attitude, most presidents before the civil war would be southern plantation owners (slaveowners), Jefferson would be elected in 1801 on the three-fifths clause, the men who sat in the speaker's chair were slaveholders as well as a majority of the Supreme Court justices.

I refer you to the following website for his complete description of blacks, and the reason for their enslavement: http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/slavery.htm.

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2003

Mary -

Are you familiar with the body of scholarship I refered to by Orlando Patterson? If you are not I would strongly recommend you add his seminal work on global slavery before lending much credibility ot Jefferson's conclusion. Jefferson was indeed a well-read 19th century intellect but his conclusion that Africans were enslaved primarily because of race is simply not supported by modern historical research. If a choice has to be made, I'll side with the distinguished Cambridge, Mass. scholar, who also happens to be a direct descendant of West Indian slaves, over the 3rd Prez of the US. QED

-- Anonymous, December 05, 2003

Bill,

You are already aware of what I think of what Patterson has said regarding the subject above. However, regardless to what I think or feel, Jefferson was present when the actual events occurred and Patterson was not. It is difficult, indeed to refute an eye witness account.

I don't need to remind a person of your intellect and skill that historians and those who engage in serious research, more often than not prefer a primary source.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2003

Robert -

Indeed President Jefferson spoke from a position of one who experienced slavery from his priviliged position. However, Jefferson was not to my knowledge an observer in the many tribal wars which permeated throughout West Africa during the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries. He traveled thoroughout Europe but I missed reading where his worldly travels took him to Sierra Leone, Coite d'Voire, Ghana, Cameroon or Benin. Jefferson was not to my knowledge present during the capture and transport of West African slaves from Goree Island to North America. Jefferson was not to my knowledge actively involved in the Middle Passage. Jefferson's memoirs and reflections describe slavery in America strictly in an ex post setting. That is to say the African was already subjugated to a life of dishonor and permanent indenture prior to arrival on American shores. The cause of enslavement was less about race and more about the maldistribution of power. This is the common denominator to understanding slavery and why Patteson's remarkable study is a true tour de force. Yes, I'm well aware of your dissenting opinion of Professor Patterson's scholarship and it is duly noted, however, the weight of the evidence to answer Parson Paris' initial question rests with historical research and not anecdotal observations. For that reason I continue to side with the distinguished professor from an elite university as opposed to the architect of Monticello. QED

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2003

You know it hurts when you read how people thought of Africans at that time. To date, when I read Jefferson's words, there is something inside that just grates at me, and I say a prayer to the almighty God because contrary to the popular kid's jest of sticks and stones....words really do hurt.

You can believe whomever you want to believe...but the truth is Jefferson's words reflect the sentiment of many (although not all) Europeans of that time. Tribal warfare may have had some cause for enslavement, but if you look at the history of Europe they fought many wars among themselves also, yet the British never enslaved the French, Spanish or Germans or vice versa as they did with the Africans. In fact, all of the above and the Portuguese set up bases in Africa to exact slaves from the continent. The gun portals that faced the ocean against offenders, also turned inward to the land. When Europe discovered gold, ivory and other precious gems on the African continent, claims and fights among European nations took place, but they never enslaved each other. True though, they did commit horrors amongst each other, but they never reverted to enslaving each other and sending the masses to the Americas. Europeans tried enslaving the Indians, but that did not work either. Many aborigines died from disease or simply ran away.

Still today, Arabs enslave Africans in the Sudan...but that is something never discussed either.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2003

Although this is off the topic, I am truly blown away by the depth and breadth of this discussion. Each argument is being supported with cited evidence and Mary, Bill and Robert are truly up to the challenge of supporting their positions. It truly brings tears to my eyes (okay that's overstated) but I am thankful for the discourse.

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2003

Mary opines -

"Still today, Arabs enslave Africans in the Sudan...but that is something never discussed either."

Perhaps not among your intimate circles but the issue has been addressed by TransAfrica, Congressional Black Caucus and members in the Academy. I even recall a thread introduced on this BB several years ago about the horror of slavery in both Sudan and Mauritania. Now before I forget, a point of correction is needed in your last post. You state that tribal warfare "may" have been a contributing factor for European enlavement. Tribal warfare "was" a major contributing factor for European, African, South American and East Asian slave societies. The history of the United Kingdom, beginning with the conquest of England in 1066 by William of Normandy, is filled with conquest, control and yes the enslavement of conquered foes. The hostilities between Britain and Ireland was not exactly resolved by friendly mediation. Whether we are talking about the Berbers in France, the Vikings in Sweden or Spartacus leading a slave revolt in ancient Rome, each historical event concluded in Europeans enslaving fellow "europeans". This fact has been established by academic historians, archeologists and sociologists. I remain puzzled why you display a reluctance to accept this truth yet feel comfortable in accepting the veracity of Prez. Jefferson who Parson Paris correctly described as a rapist (TJ's tryst with Sally Jennings was not consensual) and a liar (TJ's Preamble was based on fraud and deception). Since you chose not to directly answer my question about Professor Patterson I assume you are not familiar with his work so I no need not refer to him as an independent authority. QED

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2003

Mary wrote this: "You know it hurts when you read how people thought of Africans at that time. To date, when I read Jefferson's words, there is something inside that just grates at me, and I say a prayer to the almighty God because contrary to the popular kid's jest of sticks and stones....words really do hurt."

Mary, I understand how you feel and I think that that feeling is shared by many of our people. Now, we know that mans inhumanity to his fellowman is rooted in hearts that need the changing power of Christ. Humans without Christ are capable of all manner of evil. Therefore, those that are enslaved bear no responsibility for being enslaved; nor should their descendants be ashamed of the state of their ancestors. If fact it is a tribute to the power of God that we have been freed and have achieved so much in such a short time. I am proud of my slave heritage and wear it proudly, perhaps a bit too proud. forgive the slavemasters, past and present. Psalm 37 is the cure for handling evildoers. FRET NOT. . . !

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2003

"That is to say the African was already subjugated to a life of dishonor and permanent indenture prior to arrival on American shores."

Bill, I respectfully challenge that statement. If is possible to enslave the body but not the mind or spirit. I think that you will agree that the Africans who were enslaved in this country were enslaved as a group in body only. The Underground Railroad is only one example of the constant effort to free themselves from the bondage. Indeed, some individuals accepted their plight (Just as some in Israel wanted to go back to Egypt); but the vast majority of our people yearned for the day that God would come and get them just as He did the children of Israel. He brought the Children of Africa out of our "Egypt" and I believe that we are here in this nation for a greater purpose that has not been revealed as yet. We as a people will be ablessing for the United States and to the world. For example, as the sons and daughters of slaves, the most mistreated of all immigrants to this land, we have served and continue to serve this nation in the Armed Forces and not a single one of us has been convicted of spying or being a traitor to this nation. No other ethnic group can say the same. BE Proud and Blessed

-- Anonymous, December 06, 2003

Hi Bill,

You are correct, I have not read Patterson's book, but it is now included on my must reads list. But still, in answer to the question, Rev. Paris asked, I still believe from the documents left behind by the actual slave traders, the reason for enslavement of Africans was due to color and other physical traits of black people. It has always been my belief to go straight to the source for an answer. Get an honest and truthful answer and deal with it from there.

Remember, the time period involved. Ignorance was pervasive at taht time and people were not as knowledgeable as they are now. With all the wars that took place during that period, why weren't other ethnic groups brought to America the same way Africans were? I'm now reading a book about Fanny Kemble of Philadelphia fame wherein, again, the slavers said they rescued the "inferior Africans" from their "Dark Continent" and delivered them to "civilization and Christianity." Again, that was the thought and motives of those who enslaved the Africans. Greed also played a significant part as well. And not all whites felt this way.

To be quite honest, even today, the basic concept of dismissing color continues in America today. If you ask the average African American about his ancestory...he will immediately begin to quip about his Irish grandmother, Italian father, Indian great gand....and so on and so on. More than likely, they are telling the truth, but they dismiss the African side of their families altogether. Remember Tiger Woods? Although he is half Black and half Asian, he started with he was 1/5 Indian, 1/5th French, 1/5th blah blah blah... He seemed quite silly standing there with his brown self and his very, very black daddy. In addition, many whites in America always point back to their Indian great grand..... Some may have, but most likely not have Indian heritage. More whites of older immigration have African heritate than they realize or admit to. Some know it and they dismiss it. When you ask who the dark ruddy colored one in the family was...he was an Indian. Many Indians in the midwest know they have African blood as well as Hispanics in the islands as well as America, but they deny that black part as well. You can see it in their hair, eyes nose and lips, and yet they deny that Black heritage. Why blacks continue to deny the obvious I cannot fathom, but it is true.

The original slavers made many in our race hate ourselves because of our skin color and hair and flat wide noses and beautiful full lips, sultry wide hips and big behinds.

All I have to say about it is that is too sad as I sit in the sun with my sun tan oil, crinkly hair and the other parts mentioned above reading about Jefferson and his cronies.

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2003

RE: Tiger Woods,not that he needs any defense but we ought not distort the facts: ) His "very black daddy" - Reality is that Tiger is darker than his father. As his father ages, his Native American ancestry becomes obvious. His dad is of African and Causcian ancestry also of course. Tiger's Mother: She half Thai and half Chinese, not unusal of folk who are native to Thailand. All Tiger did was explain the components of his true documented ancestry and black folk jumped on him about it. So the truth is that Tiger is more Asian than anything else. Perhaps most members of this board do not remember how hard we fought the one-drop rule, one drop of black blood makes you black, instituted by whites to try to keep the race pure I guess. Now, black so-called leaders reinstituted the rule during the 2000 census to keep the black population from becoming a "minority" to the hispanic population. They did not want a "mixed race" category on the census. The "mixed race" category was included, but they did succeed in getting all "mixed-race" where African or Black was part of the mixture to be counted with the Black and/or African American Group. The one-drop rule is pure garbage! Now that Tiger is engaged to be married, I guess his children will be asked to deny their Swedish\Asian\Chinese\Caucasian\Native American ancestry and embrace the African American or Black ancestry.

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2003

Need I say any more..................

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2003

I have a question for all who believe that color was the primary determinant for why Africans were enslaved in the US. Are you ready? Please, just answer the question. Here goes. Why did some free blacks in the US buy and own slaves in the ante-Bellum South? According to the US National Slavery Museum, which incidentally broke ground today for their new building in Fredericksburg, VA, there were close to 4,000 freed blacks who were slave owners. What is the reason for this anomaly? I will be in Fredericksburg later this month and plan to visit the site for the new museum. To learn more about the National Slavery Museum see the following link http://www.usnationalslaverymuseum.org/aboutslavery.htm QED

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2003

Mary,

I agree wholeheartedly with you. I recall a workshop I had as a teacher in the Public Schools. The Subject was "Cultural Diversity" I have forgotten the name of the person who conducted the workshop but he is a well know educator-- a principal in NYC. The person I have in mind was Puerto Rican by birth.

The major point he made was that when we speak of cultural diversity the African influence too often is either left out, underemphasized or completely denied. I see evidence of that even on the AME-Today Bulletin Board.

The educator, I mentioned above, whose name I simply forgot used a Puerto Rican poem to illustrate his point. The poem was entitled, "Where Your Grandma Be?"

According to the poem it seems that in many Puerto Rican homes when the family entertains guests, the grandma who lives there is never seen. She is hidden in the kitchen or someplace well out of view, because her dark complexion would betray the fact that the family is of African descent.

I am reminded of a famous figure from Pinpoint/Savannah, Georgia whose name I will not mention here but who like the family in the Puerto Rican poem was raised by a grandma of African descent. Yet, from what we often read or hear one would never know this fact.

Cultural Diversity is important but none of it should be left out. Too often the African influence is disregarded or forgot. Perhaps it is time again in our efforts to become culturally diverse to be reminded or asked the question, whether living or dead, "Where Your Grandma Be?"

-- Anonymous, December 08, 2003

Brother Dickens:

'American Legacy' magazine contained a very informative piece on African Americans holding other African Americans as slaves. And again, yes, it was because of color. Often times blacks were forced to do things to survive. For example, a free male who had an enslaved wife purchased his children. The final goal would be to purchase all children and the spouse. State laws prevented many free blacks from remaining in said state or levied heavy penalties if they remained there. Therefore, it was necessary not to emancipate an individual until the entire family could be freed.

I believe in Bishop Payne's autobiography he addresses the issue of blacks holding slaves. If it were found that an AME held another as a slave, even for the most benevolent reason, he or she would be immediately written out of the church roles.

In the regions of South Carolina and Louisiana where the breeding farms were, there were so called African Americans who held others as slaves for profit. These people today may or may not be thought of as African Americans because in most cases they had at the most 1/16th drop of African blood. In other instances, which were very rare, you had African Americans selling others for profit. This was the exception and not the rule.

What upsets me more are the African Americans who were always willing to assist whites in the capture of runaways. Some were trying to garner favor and others trying to earn money. Sad but true.

-- Anonymous, December 09, 2003

Mary -

I agree that black slave owners were the "exception and not the rule" during the ante-Bellum South but it does not negate the fact that the documented numbers are not trivial. While a disproportionate number of the black slave owners were octogeroons for Census purposes they were still considered "Negro". This was before the cult of multiculturalism. The eminent historian Carter G. Woodson actually was one of the first to estimate this number by using Census Data from 1830-1860 in a pioneering study he authored in the early 1920s. An updated scholarly book appeared in the last ten years which also examined this phenomenon. I just can't seem to recall the author or title. If I remember, I'll pass it on. QED

-- Anonymous, December 09, 2003

When you remember the name of the book, please let me know. I would love to read it. Also, please note the reasons for the vast majority holding slaves. In most cases it served as a protection to the family. I believe Bishop Payne's autobiography provides some insight into this subject and the AME stance during that era.

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2003

Mary -

Here is the information about the book I referred to earlier.

"Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War Virginia" (University Press of Virginia-1995) by Ervin L. Jordan Jr., an African-American scholar and assistant professor and associate curator of the Special Collections Department, University of Virginia Library. Now let me address your poignant observation about the primary motivation for black slave holders. The expectation of freeing relatives by acquiring them as slaves while indeed true does not absolve the slave owner of the act itself. This is sort of like accepting the line of thinking that "the end justifies the means". If chattel slavery is reprehensible, it should be equally reprehensible for blacks who participate as well as whites. I suspect this is why Bishop Payne denounced the practice. The book I referenced provides numerous examples where black slave owners not only held slaves for long time periods but did so solely because of the economic gain such transactions produced. This latter finding puts less empohasis on race. QED

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2003

Thanks Bill. That is another book to add to my list. Again, survival is everything. The examples you mentioned are the exceptions and not the rule.

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2003

Bill,

I don't think the fact that some blacks held slaves makes it less improbable at all that they were held because of color or race. If such were the case, why indeed, were the slaves they held of African descent, rather than European, Native American, Asian or white-- especially those held in the free and border states?

The case that Bishop Payne mentioned was in Ohio. So there was no real economic reason for the slaves to have been black, except that color and ethnic origin made it more acceptable to the General American public and established governments.

Since, Ohio was not a state in rebellion; the terms of the Emancipation Proclamation did not cover slaves being held there. Thus, the AME Church and others were required to impose sanctions on them. This might even apply today in African nations and other nations as well, since the AME Church expressly forbids any slaveholder from being fellowshiped as a member of the AME Church.

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2003

I do feel slavery was an economic issue, and for economic purposes there have been people of diferent nationalities used as slaves. The Africans, however are very strong physically and their skin color allowed them bear the pressure of severe heat and sun, that other races of people could not endure here in America. So race and color had to play as a factor. And even if for economic reasons, the treatment of being less than human from the trip over until, was cruel.

My comment does not answer the question; but it has to do with black "Americans" being enslaved because of being African Americans. In this country, we may not call it slavery, but it is a form of oppression. And no one wants to be at the bottom. Different cultures now live in our country, regardless of how dark they are, if they happen to be African, Hispanic, or whatever, the race under oppression is the African Americans. I believe if there is a racial class scale in America, African Americans have the stigmaticism of being at the bottom.

In the school system here in Indianapolis, there is rivalry between African Americans and Hispanics. Very little solidarity. African Americans are viewed as beneath them. Africans come to this country, and they are respected over African Americans. They view themselves as above African Americans. So this has nothing to do with color, but here in America, African Americans cannot seem to move from the bottom.

Some say we have are on an even playing field, but as long as there is the mental stigmatism of who is on top and who is on bottom, their will be racial divide.

In Christ, Carmen

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2003

Robert opines -

"The case that Bishop Payne mentioned was in Ohio. So there was no real economic reason for the slaves to have been black, except that color and ethnic origin made it more acceptable to the General American public and established governments."

I'm confused about the Payne reference. I thought the sanctions against slave owners was in force in the Southern States since that is where slavery was legal. Since slavery was illegal in the North I would not expect Ohio to have condoned slavery for economic or race considerations. Slavery was peculiar to only the ante-Bellum Southern States. Furthermore, research has also shown that there were some isolated cases where whites were enslaved as well as blacks, further complicating the "color thesis" about slavery. QED

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2003

Brother Dickens:

You are really stretching it now. You know that a slave could be taken out of a southern state by his master and kept in a free state. Various laws governed the length of time a slave could be kept in a free state.

Now, be honest. In all the books you've read on American slavery. Tell me, how many African Americans owned white slaaves? Be real, Bill.

-- Anonymous, December 10, 2003

Bill,

According to the US Census of 1860, the total number of slaves in the Border States: were 432,586 (13% of total population.). The Border States included those, like Kentucky, which did not secede, and those north of the border such as Maryland and Delaware. Total number of slaves in the Lower South: 2,312,352 (47% of total population). Total number of slaves in the Upper South: 1,208,758 (29% of total population).

The Census also states that Almost one-third of all Southern families owned slaves. In Mississippi and South Carolina it approached one half. The total number of slave owners was 385,000 (including, in Louisiana, some free Negroes). As for the number of slaves owned by each master, 88% held fewer than twenty, and nearly 50% held fewer than five.

President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on September 22, 1862. It declares that all slaves held within states in "rebellion" against the U.S. government will be free on January 1, 1863. This explicitly excluded all slaves held in Border States fighting for the Union and in Southern states currently under Union control. So, in fact, the Emancipation Proclamation freed no slaves at all. It is interesting, indeed to read the actual document and see what it actually says. True Emancipation came only when the Union Army won the War and once again united the states. Thus, the Abolition of Slavery became the Supreme Law of the Land.

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2003

One example of the extent to which blacks would go to maintain their cultural identity, their dignity and to survive is Mound Bayou, MS.-- an all black city in the Mississippi Delta--founded by former slaves of Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States.

As soon as their freedom could be obtained from him, they established their own schools, businesses, churches and city government, so as never again to be subjected to the indignities, harsh treatment and cruelties they had know as slaves. The first church they founded was Bethel A.M.E. Church, the central focus of the town's worship, development, progress and cultural events.

Although Mound Bayou's population today is dwindling and small, it still remains and survived virtually undaunted by the Jim Crow Era, Depression, Lynching and otherwise harsh treatment aimed at blacks, especially in the State of Mississippi and the deep rural South.

To many who post on this board, a search of the history and development of Mound Bayou should be inspiring, indeed. Many documents and websites contain historical records and information about it.

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2003

Mary

I'm further confused. You state "You are really stretching it now. You know that a slave could be taken out of a southern state by his master and kept in a free state. Tell me, how many African Americans owned white slaaves? Be real, Bill." Kindly point to where I made a statement that said blacks owned slaves? What I DID say in previous posts is the documentation of black slave owners which is supported by the eminent historian Carter G. Woodson and UVA researcher Ervin Jordan. On yesterday I noted that historical research has shown in some isolated cases that whites were enslaved (I didn't specifiy the race of the owner because it is generally understood given prevailing laws it was white). I also know that the infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857, rendered by Supreme Court Justice Roger B. Taney, stated unequivocally that a black man has no rights which a white man is legally obligated to acknowledge in a free or slave state. This of course was one of the precipitating factors for the Civil War. Your fixation of color as the only determing factor for African American enslavement is honorable and tenacious but it does not refute the emprical evidence about the competing factors articulated by Patterson, Woodson, Jordan and of course the Dickens-Paris wing of the AME Today BB :-) The five of us pose an impressive opposition. Would you not agree? QED

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2003

No. I do not agree with your argument at all. In fact I find it extremely irrational and illogical. The argument comes from excellent soil, yet perfectly untilled on this subject.

The Constitution Center holds weekly lectures on subjects surrounding the US Constitution. Last night I had the pleasure of listening to Dr. Gary Wills and Roger Wilkins. Their lecture concerned Thomas Jefferson and the Impact of Slavery on the Constitution. He not only dealt with TJ but other 18th century American presidents. The question of color again arose, and its impact of black enslavement on the American continent as well as South America and the islands. There was no debate that Africans were enslaved because of their color. Enslavement in Europe and the Middle East during biblical times was different. Wars in Europe were fought against those with comparable social status. Therefore, when Europeans fought and wars won amongst each other, the defeated in most instances were of the same social status as the victor. Africans, at that time were not considered on the same social status as Europeans. TJ wrote, and it was widely accepted by many American leaders that African women bred with orangatags (sorry for the misspelling-but the apes), and that it would be a step up for a black man to breed with a white woman.

The truth is the truth. You keep citing all of these small instances, but my question to you is, if color was not an issue, and we know there were African Americans of wealth-why were not White Americans held in bondage by African Americans?

Color was an issue of slavery in America coupled with racism. A conquered people-thought to be savages by their conqueres, not equals in any way. Even the white abolitionists who fought for African American freedom, in most instances, held racist attitudes.

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2003

In my earlier entry, when I speak of enslavement- I am referring to perpetual enslavement, not indentured servitude.

Additionally, if color was not an issue, there would be no AME, specifically African Methodist Episcopal church. Richard Allen noted the plight of people of "color" in Philadelphia, more particularly the Methodist church. Allen opened his church to everyone, regardless of race. Prior to the walkout, St. George accepted money from its African American congregants for church renovations as it did from its white members; however, when the renovations were complete the black members were separated from the white members, assigned to the rear balcony. Richard Allen and Absalom Jones were men of means, as well as many of the other black members of St. George. Although the color of the money was the same, the congregants differed in hues and treated differently. They were not considered as equals because of the color of their skin.

Even the Quakers of the time, who eventually led as abolitionists, held segregated services. The black Quakers were assigned seats under the stairs or in the rear of the church.

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2003

Mary -

Once again you misrepresent what I write and opine. Just like I never mentioned that blacks owned white slaves (which you fail to acknowledge) I also do not reject the finding that color played a role in North American slavocracies. What I do object to is the thesis that color and color alone served as the determinant for African capture, transport and enslavement in North America. This was the original question Parson Paris posed and my comments reflected the pioneering research by Orlando Patterson, which you acknowledge you have not read, and supplemented by the findings of black slave owners. Just because black slave owners were exceptions does not vindicate your "color thesis". My conclusions on this topic may represent a competing alternative but they meet the litmus test of internal consistency and intellectual rigour. If that means the analysis is illogical and irrational, well that's your opinion and you are entitled to this view. Garry Wills and Roger Wilkins are accomplished researchers and they bring important insight but that doesn't mean they are infallible on this topic. I will not loose any sleep knowing that what I write finds support in the research of Patterson and Woodson. Ultimately, most people will believe only in those things which confirms their personal convictions. The true pursuit of truth is not bound by ideological presuppositions. QED

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2003

yall all need 2 shut up

-- Anonymous, January 09, 2004