• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The first legal slave owner in America was a Black Man

volsrock said:
North didnt kick the South ass

Strength

North 698,000 (peak)
South 360,000 (peak)

Casualties

North 365,000+ total dead 282,000+ wounded
South 290,000+ total dead 137,000+ wounded



North had South out numbered 2 to 1 but the South whipped that ass killing and wounding 225k plus more men THAT'S AN ASS WHIPPING!!!!

The South just ran out of money and fighters
Click to expand...

So, if you measure by some metric other than who won, the south didn't get their ass kicked. That is hilariously wrong.

In truth, the south was losing from early on, the north had the war won by 62 from the fighting in the west, the only thing the south proved good at was being on defense against weak generals. Once Grant took over in the east, it was all over.
 
Paperview said:
:screwy: :screwy :screwy ^

Go back to Stormfront.
Click to expand...

You would look less silly if you just admitted defeat. Then again...anytime one of you guys do your silly 'Stormfront' dance....well...it's kinda the same thing, isn't it?

Can I ask WHY you bothered to respond? I mean...it was in no way shape or form a debate or counter argument.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
volsrock said:
North didnt kick the South ass

Strength

North 698,000 (peak)
South 360,000 (peak)

Casualties

North 365,000+ total dead 282,000+ wounded
South 290,000+ total dead 137,000+ wounded



North had South out numbered 2 to 1 but the South whipped that ass killing and wounding 225k plus more men THAT'S AN ASS WHIPPING!!!!

The South just ran out of money and fighters
Click to expand...

...so they lost is what you're saying. They did lose, they couldn't win and were brought back into the Union. Slavery was ended and the South never has and never will rise again.
 
Redress said:
As people have pointed out repeatedly, he was not the first to own slaves. However, I have a better question for you: why do you think it matters one bit?
Click to expand...

It matters in a climate where some individuals and black power/empowerment groups try to lay most or all of the culpability for the slave trade at the feet of the white population in an attempt to generate some sense of guilt, sympathy, and advance a reparations agenda. It's a lie that some are tired of being repeated. Few (probably less than 10%) of the slaves brought to the North American or Caribbean colonies were captured by Europeans. Almost all of them were purchased through Africa's slave export market - which pre-dated the entry of Europeans by hundreds of years. For example, East African kingdoms had been selling slaves to the kingdoms of Arabia, India, and North Africa since the 7th century. Internal African slave markets are as old as time and still exist today! Europeans certainly did not introduce the slave trade to the continent.

The predominate forms of slavery at the time of European entry were debt bondage and conscription but chattel slavery was also practiced, mostly on spice and fruit plantations or grain farms. Europeans had a demand primarily for chattel slaves that was supplied by various African kingdoms most commonly in exchange for muskets, gunpowder, textiles, salt, iron ore, glass beads, and cowry shells. This exchange propelled a number of those kingdoms into a golden age of prosperity and expansion. Of course, it wasn't a good experience for the people they enslaved to meet that demand but the involvement of blacks as enslavers did not end at the shores of Africa.

There were free blacks in the "New World" who had slaves of their own. One of the more interesting turn of events in this arena followed the Louisiana Purchase. Some free blacks rightfully feared for their future when the territory was sold to a nation in which slavery was legal. Others saw economic opportunity, established sugar cane plantations, and became slave masters. Some of the biggest slave owners in the South right up to the end of the Civil War were free blacks.

The Europeans of the era undeniably bear some of the culpability. To try to lay all or most of it at the feet of white people today is just willful ignorance of the truth that it was their people who enslaved and sold them in the first place, that they were standing on both sides of the slave auction block on both sides of the Atlantic, and that for all of their faults it was the European colonial governments and the Ottoman Empire that forced the end of slave exports from Africa.
 
Last edited:
So why does that self-justification for white racists matter one bit?
 
volsrock said:
North didnt kick the South ass

Strength

North 698,000 (peak)
South 360,000 (peak)

Casualties

North 365,000+ total dead 282,000+ wounded
South 290,000+ total dead 137,000+ wounded



North had South out numbered 2 to 1 but the South whipped that ass killing and wounding 225k plus more men THAT'S AN ASS WHIPPING!!!!

The South just ran out of money and fighters
Click to expand...


check your facts, you are making stuff up again
 
Napoleon said:
It matters in a climate where some individuals and black power/empowerment groups try to lay most or all of the culpability for the slave trade at the feet of the white population in an attempt to generate some sense of guilt, sympathy, and advance a reparations agenda. It's a lie that some are tired of being repeated. Few (probably less than 10%) of the slaves brought to the North American or Caribbean colonies were captured by Europeans. Almost all of them were purchased through Africa's slave export market - which pre-dated the entry of Europeans by hundreds of years. For example, East African kingdoms had been selling slaves to the kingdoms of Arabia, India, and North Africa since the 7th century. Internal African slave markets are as old as time and still exist today! Europeans certainly did not introduce the slave trade to the continent.

The predominate forms of slavery at the time of European entry were debt bondage and conscription but chattel slavery was also practiced, mostly on spice and fruit plantations or grain farms. Europeans had a demand primarily for chattel slaves that was supplied by various African kingdoms most commonly in exchange for muskets, gunpowder, textiles, salt, iron ore, glass beads, and cowry shells. This exchange propelled a number of those kingdoms into a golden age of prosperity and expansion. Of course, it wasn't a good experience for the people they enslaved to meet that demand but the involvement of blacks as enslavers did not end at the shores of Africa.

There were free blacks in the "New World" who had slaves of their own. One of the more interesting turn of events in this arena followed the Louisiana Purchase. Some free blacks rightfully feared for their future when the territory was sold to a nation in which slavery was legal. Others saw economic opportunity, established sugar cane plantations, and became slave masters. Some of the biggest slave owners in the South right up to the end of the Civil War were free blacks.

The Europeans of the era undeniably bear some of the culpability. To try to lay all or most of it at the feet of white people today is just willful ignorance of the truth that it was their people who enslaved and sold them in the first place, that they were standing on both sides of the slave auction block on both sides of the Atlantic, and that for all of their faults it was the European colonial governments and the Ottoman Empire that forced the end of slave exports from Africa.
Click to expand...

black people sold other black people as slaves and they deserve blame for that ok

but that dosent take away any blame from evry pen else who purchased peoples and accepted the practice

The Europeans of the era undeniably bear most of the culpability
 
blarg said:
black people sold other black people as slaves and they deserve blame for that ok

but that dosent take away any blame from evry pen else who purchased peoples and accepted the practice

The Europeans of the era undeniably bear most of the culpability
Click to expand...

No one is taking blame away from anyone else - only making the proportions more reflective of the facts. The Europeans of the era bear some of the culpability because they chose to enter the market. Africans and the free blacks of the United States bear most of it for the reasons I outlined in my last post and the Africans have never stopped.
 
Last edited:
Napoleon said:
No one is taking blame away from anyone else - only making the proportions more reflective of the facts. The Europeans of the era bear some of the culpability because they chose to enter the market. Africans and the free blacks of the United States bear most of it for the reasons I outlined in my last post and the Africans have never stopped.
Click to expand...

most free black people had slaves?

and most slaves weer owned by them in america?
 
volsrock said:
North didnt kick the South ass

Strength

North 698,000 (peak)
South 360,000 (peak)

Casualties

North 365,000+ total dead 282,000+ wounded
South 290,000+ total dead 137,000+ wounded



North had South out numbered 2 to 1 but the South whipped that ass killing and wounding 225k plus more men THAT'S AN ASS WHIPPING!!!!

The South just ran out of money and fighters
Click to expand...

Yeah bud the south lost, so it's hard to argue that they "whipped the north's ass".

Especially given the fact that of course the north had more casualties--- not only did they have more soldiers to begin with, they were on the offensive, which always is more costly in military terms if you look at history.

The South lost a string of major battles which doomed it, but then again it was doomed from the start.
 
blarg said:
most free black people had slaves? and most slaves weer owned by them in america?
Click to expand...

Only a very small minority of free black or white people owned slaves in the United States. Many of the richest and largest slave holders in the Southern States were indeed free black men and women. For example, C. Richards was the largest slave owner in Louisiana, holding 152 slaves on her sugarcane plantation and Justus Angel and his mistress collectively held 168 slaves in South Carolina. The black slave owners of the South also supported the Condfederacy in the civil war. To tie back into the OP, Anthony Johnson was famous for not only owning black slaves but for white debt bondage slaves as well - both of which toiled on his 250 acre tobacco farm.
 
Last edited:
Napoleon said:
Only a very small minority of free black or white people owned slaves in the United States. Many of the richest and largest slave holders in the Southern States were indeed free black men and women. For example, C. Richards was the largest slave owner in Louisiana, holding 152 slaves on her sugarcane plantation and Justus Angel and his mistress collectively held 168 slaves in South Carolina. The black slave owners of the South also supported the Condfederacy in the civil war.
Click to expand...

they deserve condemnation to but this still sees to be a mostly white thing
 
Napoleon said:
Only a very small minority of free black or white people owned slaves in the United States.
Click to expand...
A tiny, tiny percentage of free blacks. Free white families in the south accounted for near 30% of slaveowners.

Many of the richest and largest slave holders in the Southern States were indeed free black men and women. For example, C. Richards was the largest slave owner in Louisiana, holding 152 slaves on her sugarcane plantation and Justus Angel and his mistress collectively held 168 slaves in South Carolina. The black slave owners of the South also supported the Condfederacy in the civil war.
Click to expand...

It is certainly true there were black slaveowners, but I'm sure, as many know, those free blacks were often prisoners in their own states.
Laws in many Southern states forbade them to even leave the state - unless it was permanent, they were restricted in commerce, legal matters, etc...; just simply living for a free black, even ones who had built up wealth was not as some would have you believe.

As the war approached, even more laws were written that could snatch away their "freedom" at any given moment
...and of course, Dred Scott made it clear they were not even citizens of the country they lived in. read that again: Even Free Blacks were not citizens of the country they lived in

Yes, some black slaveowners bought slaves to purchase their kin's freedom, sometimes a husband would purchase a wife, some did it for economic, pragmatic reasons, and some were just as dastardly as their fully white counterparts. All true.

Note also, a good portion of those "negro slaveowners" were mulattoes -- by all appearances, quite white. But coal black, brown or white - still, all in all, the numbers were very, very small.

Also, the preponderance of those (what are referred to as) "black slaveholders" were actually Colored Creoles.

An important legal distinction, which I'll explain in my next post.

Not to veer too off-topic, but I think a few might find it interesting.
 
Antoine Dubuclet is brought up by often in the "black slaveholder" discussion. It's true he was a wealthy slaveholder.

In fact most of the slaveholders brought up in the "black slaveholder" discussion came from Louisiana, and that state was rather unique. They were "Colored Creoles," - many were upwardly mobile, wealthy and a disproportional number owned slaves.

The distinction is often blurred though when referring to them as "Black slaveowners" as

1) most looked quite fair skinned by appearance.

2) many were of European ancestry, not considered "African" or "Black" - and were given special status for a time.

"By 1843, the Colored group was no longer named as legislative special case, but they still considered themselves exempt, and the courts still usually upheld their special status. Numerous court cases held that the Colored Creoles were not considered Black regarding freedom papers, curfews, and the like. But by the 1850s, the courts had begun to treat all but the wealthiest and most powerful Colored Creoles as free Blacks."

The One-Drop Rule Arrives in the Postbellum Lower South | | The Color Line and the One-Drop Rule

In fact it was considered an insult to call a Colored Creole a "Free Black."

Legally, They were "Colored" a serious distinction made by numerous courts.

A Free Black there was not allowed a trial by Jury BUT! “Free persons of Colour" *were* entitled to a trial by jury.

"Justice Porter went on to explain that, since the [Colored Creole] was not Black..."

Legal History of the Color Line: The Rise and Triumph of the One-drop Rule

It's a rather fascinating nugget regarding the caste system back then which some probably didn't care to hear, (or maybe even bother to read) -- but I enjoy sharing these little bits of history. It's how I roll.
icon_smile.gif


How many knew there three legal color lines back then? White, Colored, and Black.
 
volsrock said:
View attachment 67206829
Click to expand...

1) This is a lie
2) This is the general politics forum
3) You made no comment

Seeing how you made this race related thread in the general politics forum, it would seem you want to play the race card for a political discussion. Why would you not make a comment? What's the point of this thread, especially in the general politics forum?
 
blarg said:
they deserve condemnation to but this still sees to be a mostly white thing
Click to expand...

It was. Consider:



Also, as I noted earlier, a goodly percentage of these "black slaveowners" bought slaves to purchase their kin's freedom, sometimes a husband would purchase a wife, and vice versa.
 
Paperview said:
:screwy What % of free blacks / creoles do you surmise owned slaves?
Click to expand...

I'm asking you. You said that 30% of slave owners were free white people in the south. Who were the other 70%? I do remember reading that there were around 4,000 black slave owners in the first few decades of the 19th century. I don't know how many white slave owners there were in that period.
 
Last edited:
So what's the political point being made with this post? This isn't a random history appreciation forum.
 
Napoleon said:
I'm asking you. You said that 30% of slave owners were free white people in the south. Who were the other 70%?
Click to expand...

I said: Free white families in the south accounted for near 30% of slaveowners.

The other 70% were...*hold onto your hat!* nonslaveowners.

I'll ask again: What % of free blacks / creoles do you surmise owned slaves?
 
"Timmy did it first" has never been a good excuse for bad behavior.Check with your mama on this issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom