Blacks owning Blacks...

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
4,488
Reaction score
2,834
Here is one story but I hope to find more:


On March 26, 1857, William Ellison wrote to his son Henry Ellison about the family business. Life was going well and Ellison wanted to update his son on how things were going at home. John, one of Ellison’s 53 slaves had just been to the river to collect payment from a number of white slaveowners for the cotton gins they had purchased from Mr. Ellison. He came back with no money at the end of the day though. Ellison’s customers had either made excuses such as wanting to consult their overseer before paying or had not been where they said they would be. There was no frustration in Ellison’s tone as though this is something that he has had to deal with before. He then gave instructions to his son to purchase a number of farming tools that would inevitably be used in the fields by his slaves. He gave a brief farewell and ended the letter.
This same type of letter may have been sent a thousand times from a slaveholding father to his slaveholding son in mid nineteenth century American South. But William Ellison and his son, Henry Ellison, were different. William Ellison was African American, born into slavery in April of 1790 with the name April Ellison to a slave mother and white slavemaster father, Mr. William Ellison. As a young man he was apprenticed to a cotton gin maker rather than working in the fields and allowed to keep a portion of the wages he earned for his master and father, money that he later used to purchase his freedom. At the same time, he changed his name to William Ellison, after his father, to fit in with higher society. After purchasing his family, he moved to Sumter County, South Carolina and hired out other free African Americans to work in his cotton gin shop. While working, he discovered a common problem among freed slaves in the South. The expense of wages left him with a profit that would never compete with what slaveowners were earning. Wanting to move up in society, he purchased his first slaves in 1820.
By 1850, Ellison had 37 slaves while his sons owned another 16. He was one of about 180 black slave masters in South Carolina at the time, most of whom were former slaves themselves. Like Ellison, they realized that the only way to get out of the lower middle class that so many freed blacks were stuck in, was slave labor. With nearly 9,000 free blacks in South Carolina, that 180 made up a tiny percentage who were willing to do anything to compete with the upper class white slaveowners at the time. Just because they owned slaves though did not mean they were treated equally among slaveowners. As Ellison subtly hints in his letter, white slave owners would avoid interacting with African Americans as much as possible. Ellison provided many whites in the area with what were the best cotton gins available which meant that if they wanted to produce the most cotton, they would have to do business with them. They would often try to avoid paying him though. Despite the discrimination, blacks owning blacks continued all the way up to the Civil War, with many African American slave owners, including Ellison, contributing and supporting the Confederate side. Stories like Ellison’s and other black slave owners showed the economic power of slavery in Southern America in the nineteenth century. The easiest way to achieve financial and social success was to own slaves and the allure of southern wealth was enough that it convinced a few of slavery’s former victims to switch to the other side.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
4,488
Reaction score
2,834
Here a list of 10...


Here is another look at William Ellison, he was now than a cotton gin maker...

William (April) Ellison

In 1862, William Ellison was one of the largest slave owners in South Carolina as well as one of the wealthiest. He was born a slave and was given the name April, after the month in which he was born. He was luckier than most and was bought by a white slave owner named William Ellison, who took the time to educate him. When he was 26 years old, he was freed by his master and began building his expansive cotton plantation. As a free man, he had his name changed to William Ellison, that of his former owner.
What makes Ellison so despicable and earns him the number-two spot on this list is how he collected his wealth. Ellison was known to have made a large proportion of his money as a “slave breeder.” Breeding slaves was illegal in many Southern states, but Ellison secretly sold almost all females born, keeping a select few for future breeding. He kept many of the young males, as they were considered useful on his plantation. Ellison was known to be a harsh master, and his slaves were almost starved and extremely poorly clothed. He kept a windowless building on his property for the specific purpose of chaining his misbehaving slaves
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
4,488
Reaction score
2,834
Here is number one on the list... He was a man of first many first...

1. Anthony Johnson

Nobody on this list has affected the history of slavery quite as much as Anthony Johnson. He is rumored to have been the first black man to arrive in Virginia as well as the first black indentured servant in America. He was also the first black man to gain his freedom and the first to own land. As a true pioneer of firsts, Johnson couldn’t stop there. Ironically, he became the first black slave owner, and it was his court case that solidified slavery in America.
In 1635, Johnson was freed and given a 250-acre plantation where he was master over both black and white servants. In 1654, Johnson sued his neighbor in a case that would change America’s history forever. Johnson’s servant, John Casor, claimed he was an indentured servant who had worked several years past the terms of his indenture for Johnson and was now working for Johnson’s neighbor, Parker. Johnson sued Parker, stated that Casor was his servant “in perpetuity,” and the courts ruled in his favor. Casor had to return to Johnson, and the case established the principle in America that one person is able to own another person for the rest of their life.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
4,488
Reaction score
2,834
Here is a good article about Free Blacks owning Slaves... The laws of that day were odd causing odd situations to accrue... There is some good details because they found letters, diaries and documents of black slave owners...


snip...

By the early eighteenth century the Johnson family had disappeared from the historical record. But in the hundred and fifty years that followed, many other black slaveowners imitated Johnson’s example, and for a variety of reasons. According to 1830 U.S. census records, 3,775 free blacks—living mostly in the South—owned a total of 12,760 slaves. Though the vast majority of these owned no more than a few slaves, some in Louisiana and South Carolina held as many as seventy or eighty. Nor was the South the only region to know black slaveowners. Their presence was recorded in Boston by 1724 and in Connecticut by 1783. As late as 1830 some blacks still owned slaves in Rhode Island, Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York, as well as in the border states and the District of Columbia.

snip...

Most often black slaveowners were men who had bought their own family members. For instance, Mosby Shepherd, manumitted by the Virginia legislature for giving information concerning the Gabriel insurrection of 1800, bought his own son with the express purpose of later freeing him. Owning blood relatives could be a convenient legal fiction to protect them from the hostility that free blacks attracted. Often it was a way to evade stringent laws requiring newly freed slaves to leave the state within a certain period. Sometimes free blacks married slaves and raised families. If the slave in such a union was owned by a third party and “threatened” with freedom, the spouse could purchase him or her. Some laws even made it easier for blacks to own family members than to manumit them

snip... Remember William Ellison will his son left SC in a hurry...

As public opinion turned against free blacks, William Ellison, Jr., a free mulatto whose father owned dozens of slaves, attempted to leave South Carolina in 1860. The agents for a Philadelphia steamer refused Ellison and his children passage, claiming that if they turned out to be escaped slaves, anyone found guilty of helping them leave the South could be executed. They suggested instead that Ellison declare his children slaves—though they were not—and put them in the charge of a white passenger. Sensing danger, he obtained passage for them on another ship by using his influence and financial resources. Clearly even the wealthy mulatto caste had come to feel threatened by the eve of the Civil War.

snip...

Andrew Durnford, a free man of color in nearby Louisiana, was a sugar planter who owned seventy-seven slaves at his death in 1859. In his correspondence Durnford describes his 1835 visit to a slave auction in Richmond, Virginia. “I went to see a family of four children, father & mother for 1800$ of yellow complexion,” he wrote to a Louisiana friend. “I acted and played the indifferent saying they were too high. An other family of a father & mother with two children for 1200$. I was requested to make an offer, butt would nott do it as I find that some of the farmers … don’t like to sell to Negro traders butt will, to anybody that buys for their own use.

snip... Why did they do it... Self interest....
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
4,488
Reaction score
2,834
Andrew Durnford, a free man of color
He has a bio... They say he was trouble owning slaves but he also says "self interest" is why... He was not troubled...


1620430441493.png

summary:
The book is based upon the life of Andrew Durnford, an African American. He lived from 1800 to the outbreak of the Civil War. At the time of his birth, Louisiana belonged to Spain. Four years later, the land was given back to France and promptly sold to America. Louisiana prospered as an American slave state. Durnford prospered as a slave owner. Durnford built a large plantation on the west bank of the Mississippi, thirty-five miles south of New Orleans. As a physician, he treated both blacks and whites. As a philosopher, he read and wrote in French and English. But he was troubled owning black slaves, and wrote, "As to that part of my disposition respecting the class to whom I belong, I hope a day will come that I will be able to do better for them. He! Who sees the remotest part of a man's heart knows well that I mean well." Then he boarded ship with that year's sugar production and left for Virginia with Barba, his personal body servant, to buy slaves at bargain prices.


Here a summary of another book about the man:

Andrew Durnford (born 1800, New Orleans; died 1859, St. Rosalie Plantation), Free Man of Color, was born of an English father and a free woman of color. The Louisiana Purchase made him a citizen of the United States. Thomas Durnford, his father, and John McDonogh, a prosperous merchant of New Orleans and Baltimore, were friends and business associates. On Thomas's death Andrew continued the friendship and association (McDonogh was the godfather of Andrew's first son, Thomas McDonogh Durnford). Draw-Ing on McDonogh for credit, Durnford purchased land south of New Orleans In Plaquemines Parish and, with a small cadre of slaves, established a sugar plantation. David O. Whitten's biography of Durnford draws on extensive primary materials, including letters between the principals, that bespeak not only an active correspondence but two extraordinary careers.Reinforced with newspaper accounts and court records, the Durnford-McDonogh letters offer an intimate view into the life and work of an antebellum planter and depict the social intercourse of a black man in a society built on black slavery. Facile in English and French, Durnford read widely and commented in letters on works of the day. He journeyed to distant Pennsylvania and Virginia in 1835 to procure slaves and then return with them to his Louisiana plantation. Letters between Durnford and McDonogh during the lengthy trip provide a unique travelogue - a black man, in the company of his black bondsmen, traversing the heart of slave country.Had Durnford done no more than build a sugar plantation out of the wilderness with black slave labor, his accounts would be valuable, but he also practiced medicine, recounting his experiences in a journal and in letters to McDonogh. The Durnford volume offers singular accounts of American life and labor in the first half of the nineteenth century. Had he been white, the narrative would be of inestimable value, but because Durnford was black, free, and a medical practitioner, his life stands as a rare example of a man and a culture adjusting to peculiar social orders.Noted historian John Hope Franklin sums up this contribution to African American studies: "David Whitten has performed an important service in bringing the life of Andrew Durnford to the attention of students of the an-tebellum South, of the plantation economy, and of race relations - He has placed us all in his debt and he has set an example for others to follow."

Here is a poor short bio of the man:
A Black Sugar Planter in the Antebellum South
By David O. Whitten

Durnford, Andrew (1800–12 July 1859), free man of color, planter, and physician, was born in New Orleans, Louisiana, the son of Thomas Durnford, an English immigrant and merchant, and Rosaline Mercier, a free woman of color. Thomas Durnford was a cousin of Colonel Elias Durnford (1739–1794) of the Royal Engineers, lieutenant governor of British West Florida. Andrew Durnford, reared by parents who were denied marriage by law, grew up in New Orleans’s free colored community with the comforts afforded the family of a successful merchant and speculator. His schooling, like most of his early life, is a matter of conjecture. In his adult years he revealed a working knowledge of written and spoken English and French, the rudiments of elementary arithmetic, and medical procedures. He apparently passed freely between the white community with his father and the free colored community with his mother and her family. For example, John McDonogh, a successful merchant and planter of New Orleans and Baltimore, had business ties with both Durnford and his white father. In 1825 Durnford married fifteen-year-old Marie Charlotte Remy, a free woman of color; they had four children, three of whom lived to adulthood. Thomas Durnford died in 1826, two weeks before his namesake, Thomas McDonogh Durnford, was born. In 1828 Andrew Durnford left New Orleans to build a plantation on lands purchased from McDonogh, where he resided until his death....
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
4,488
Reaction score
2,834
We have Indian Masters... a book...


1620490845872.png

Summary...

From the late eighteenth century through the end of the Civil War, Choctaw and Chickasaw Indians bought, sold, and owned Africans and African Americans as slaves, a fact that persisted after the tribes' removal from the Deep South to Indian Territory. The tribes formulated racial and gender ideologies that justified this practice and marginalized free black people in the Indian nations well after the Civil War and slavery had ended. Through the end of the nineteenth century, ongoing conflicts among Choctaw, Chickasaw, and U.S. lawmakers left untold numbers of former slaves and their descendants in the two Indian nations without citizenship in either the Indian nations or the United States. In this groundbreaking study, Barbara Krauthamer rewrites the history of southern slavery, emancipation, race, and citizenship to reveal the centrality of Native American slaveholders and the black people they enslaved.
Krauthamer's examination of slavery and emancipation highlights the ways Indian women's gender roles changed with the arrival of slavery and changed again after emancipation and reveals complex dynamics of race that shaped the lives of black people and Indians both before and after removal.
 

nicholls

Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2020
Messages
53
Reaction score
41

rittmeister

trekkie in residence
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
2,902
Reaction score
2,168

nicholls

Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2020
Messages
53
Reaction score
41
These are some interesting articles on the subject:

The Standard View of Psychiatry on Statutory Rape (Sex between Adults and 13-17 Year Old Girls) – Beyond Highbrow

Why Has a Sexual Preference for Pedophilia Been Wired into So Many Men? – Beyond Highbrow

Quote from the article I posted:

"One key reason for the change has to do with child bearing. Until better nutrition, sanitation and medical help came about, many women died in child birth. It was thought to be a safer thing for a young woman to have a child than an older one (30 years old). If an older man lost his first wife in child birth, then he would often seek a younger wife to care for his current children AND provide more children to him. One can see the tradition in Joseph accepting the pregnant Virgin Mary to care for his older children. "
 

dedej

Active Member
Joined
May 25, 2019
Messages
98
Reaction score
175
Free People of Color (Most) did not see themselves as "Black" - therefore - I don't see them as "Blacks owning Blacks."

Andrew Durnford, William Ellison, etc - were not "Black" -- they were free People of Color - and did not see themselves as "Black," did not relate to the enslaved -- and therefore - shouldn't even be classified as "Blacks owning Blacks."

An arm of my ancestors were enslaved by Free People of Color in Lousiana. They certainly didn't see themselves as Black -- and would spit at anyone who claimed they were.

More information on classifications:

"Free People of Color" Descriptions/Types in Colonial and Antebellum North and South

"Free Blacks" or "Free Negros:"
(Classified legally as "Negro"/"Black")
In United States history, a free Negro or free black was the legal status, in the geographic area of the United States, of blacks who were not slaves. Those who were legally free and visibly of ethnic African descent.

Atlantic Creole / Colonial African Indentured Servants (Not Classified As Negro/Black) - They or their descendants were the bulk of the FPOC who went to Liberia.

Atlantic Creole is a term used in North America to describe the Charter Generation of slaves during the European colonization of the Americas before 1660. These slaves had cultural roots in Africa, Europe and sometimes the Caribbean. They were of mixed race, primarily descended from European fathers and African mothers. Some had lived and worked in Europe or the Caribbean before coming (or being transported) to North America. Source

Colonial African Indentured Servants
Slavery in Virginia dates to 1619,[1] soon after the founding of Virginia as an English colony by the London Virginia Company. The company established a headright system to encourage colonists to transport indentured servants to the colony for labor; they received a certain amount of land for people whose passage they paid to Virginia.[2]

Africans first appeared in Virginia in 1619, brought by English privateers from a Spanish slave ship they had intercepted. As the Africans were baptized Christians, they were treated as indentured servants. Some laws regarding slavery of Africans were passed in the seventeenth century and codified into Virginia's first slave code in 1705.[3] Among laws affecting slaves was one of 1662, which said that children born in the colony would take the social status of their mothers, regardless of who their fathers were. This was in contrast to English common law of the time, and resulted in numerous generations of enslaved mixed-race children and adults, some of whom were majority white. Among the most notable were Sally Hemings and her siblings, fathered by planter John Wayles, and her four surviving children by Thomas Jefferson. Source

"Free People of Color" or Louisiana Creoles or gens de couleur libres (Not Classified As Negro/Black)
The term free people of color (French: gens de couleur libres), in the context of the history of slavery in the Americas, at first specifically referred to people of mixed African and European descent who were not enslaved. The term was especially used in the French colonies, including La Louisiane and settlements on Caribbean islands, such as Saint-Domingue (Haiti), Guadeloupe, and Martinique. Freed African slaves were included in the term affranchis, but historically they were considered as distinct from the free people of color. In these territories and major cities, particularly New Orleans, and those cities held by the Spanish, a substantial third class of primarily mixed-race, free people developed.

Mulatto/Biracial/Mixed / "Free People of Color:"
(Not Classified As Negro/Black)
Offspring of Southern slaver owners / "Masters" Children (claimed/low-key claimed) - who classified themselves as "Mulatto" and sometimes "White." Like the Atlantic Creoles - many went on to enslave other Black people and were a different classification. As many did not see themselves as "Black" and often went on to marry other Mixed/Mulatto Free People of Color (light) or even married White to breed out any African / slave ancestry.
  • Confederate defenders say that hundreds of Black people owned slaves. This is incorrect. As of 1830, 474 wealthy biracial families of the South Carolina elite owned 2,794 slaves (about one South Carolina slave in a hundred), but they were not considered socially “Black.” Similarly, in 1830, 967 families of the French-culture Gulf coast gens de couleur libre owned 4,382 slaves (about one Louisiana slave in twenty-five). Seen another way, of the 1,834 Colored Creole households in 1839 New Orleans, 752 of them (41 percent) owned at least one slave. Again however, those families were not considered socially “Black” (a term applied back then only to people of unmixed African appearance).
 
Last edited:

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
4,488
Reaction score
2,834
I don't see them as "Blacks owning Blacks."
They may have been mixed raced but White America's did think of them other than black. Once the Spanish left and after 1803 they were treated as second class people and had to carry papers all the time showing they were free men of color...


In 1806, the territorial legislature passed an act (never fully enforced) prohibiting free black males from entering Louisiana and ordering those over the age of fifteen who had been born elsewhere to leave (Louisiana's native free people of color had been granted U. S. citizenship in 1803). In 1812, one year after the failed German Coast uprising (the largest slave rebellion in U. S. history), free black men were denied the right to vote. Throughout this period and until the abolition of slavery made their separate legal status obsolete, free persons of color were required to carry passes, observe curfews, and to have their racial status designated in all public records.

Plantation owner Durnford , even wrote about selling and buying slaves, he admits in his writing is came down to self interest, his self interest. In his writing you can tell he knows he was a black man...
 

rittmeister

trekkie in residence
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
2,902
Reaction score
2,168
They may have been mixed raced but White America's did think of them other than black. Once the Spanish left and after 1803 they were treated as second class people and had to carry papers all the time showing they were free men of color...


In 1806, the territorial legislature passed an act (never fully enforced) prohibiting free black males from entering Louisiana and ordering those over the age of fifteen who had been born elsewhere to leave (Louisiana's native free people of color had been granted U. S. citizenship in 1803). In 1812, one year after the failed German Coast uprising (the largest slave rebellion in U. S. history), free black men were denied the right to vote. Throughout this period and until the abolition of slavery made their separate legal status obsolete, free persons of color were required to carry passes, observe curfews, and to have their racial status designated in all public records.

Plantation owner Durnford , even wrote about selling and buying slaves, he admits in his writing is came down to self interest, his self interest. In his writing you can tell he knows he was a black man...
that's irrelevant in this case - they saw themselves as 'nearly on the same footing' with the pink guys and behaved accordingly. every upstart tries to emulate the behaviour of the class he wants to belong to. when tennis was an upper class sport the upper middle class* took it up immediately.

free people of colour didn't want to be like poor white farmers - they wanted to be like the junker** class of the south aka those who read far more sir walter scott than was good for them.

---

* i hate those class schemata
** forget the link's first paragraph it's irrelevant in this context - it's also false as we still have the rank of fahnenjunker in the german army and airforce (seekadett in the navy)
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
4,488
Reaction score
2,834
they saw themselves as 'nearly on the same footing' with the pink guys and behaved accordingly. every upstart tries to emulate the behaviour of the class he wants to belong to
Free Person of Color is a French-Spanish thing while in America it was the One Drop rule... You all seem to ignore as time went on the Free person of color lost liberties throughout the South... They may have thought or wanted to be white but they knew they were considered black by most... I grew in the south mix race children of a black and white marriage are always considered to be black...


One Drop rule...

The one-drop rule is a social and legal principle of racial classification that was historically prominent in the United States in the 20th century. It asserted that any person with even one ancestor of black ancestry ('one drop' of 'black blood')[1][2] is considered black (Negro or colored in historical terms).


Free men of color were not white but consider black once America took over the Louisiana lands...

All free blacks led somewhat tenuous lives because of their legal disabilities. The presumption was that all blacks were slaves, and free persons of color had to demonstrate on demand that they were legitimately free, making travel to communities where they were unknown dangerous. In 1792 free blacks were subject to a special capitation tax. When accused of crimes, they were tried before slave courts. They could not testify in regular courts for or against whites. Their lives were increasingly circumscribed, especially during times of social instability. New laws following the Denmark Vesey slave conspiracy established fines and enslavement for those leaving the state and attempting to return. Free blacks over age fifteen were also required to have white guardians. As the nation edged toward civil war, the plight of free blacks became more precarious. Reflecting a regional trend, in 1859–1860 South Carolina’s legislature considered bills to expel or enslave free blacks. These measures were not passed, but their discussion terrified free persons of color, many of whom fled the state for the North. Most, however, remained until the end to slavery ended their unique social position.

Free person of color...


In the context of the history of slavery in the Americas, free people of color (French: gens de couleur libres; Spanish: gente de color libre) were people of mixed African, European, and sometimes Native American descent who were not enslaved.

In the Thirteen Colonies (which later became the United States) the term free negro was often used to cover the same class of people – those who were legally free and visibly of ethnic African descent. Many were people of mixed race, freed because of relation to their slaver or other whites.


Person of color...


The term "person of color" (plural: people of color, persons of color; sometimes abbreviated POC) is primarily used to describe any person who is not considered "white".

The term "colored" was originally equivalent in use to the term "person of color" in American English, but usage of the appellation "colored" in the Southern United States gradually came to be restricted to "Negroes",[12] and is now considered a racial pejorative.[13] Elsewhere in the world, and in other dialects of English, the term may have entirely different connotations, however; for example, in South Africa, "Coloureds" refers to multiple multiracial ethnic groups and is sometimes applied to other groups in Southern Africa, such as the Basters of Namibia.

Man of color...

a man whose skin pigmentation is other than and especially darker than what is considered characteristic of people typically defined as white (see WHITE entry 1 sense 2a) : a man who is of a race (RACE entry 1 sense 1a) other than white or who is of mixed race
 

rittmeister

trekkie in residence
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
2,902
Reaction score
2,168
you don't get it - you look at it from a pink pov, to understand those people you need to look at it from their perspective . those free persons of colour inherited from the french and spanish were not enslaved, were they? they surel thought their pink overloards didn't give them all their proper rights but they still wanted to be like the pinkskins (the better pinkskins, that is)
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
4,488
Reaction score
2,834
those people you need to look at it from their perspective .
I disagree I think they new the were black and did not care about their fellow black slaves...

Durnford was not so sanguine about the prospects of manumission, though he did free four slaves during his life. “Self interest is too strongly rooted in the bosom of all that breathes the American atmosphere,” he wrote in 1843. “Self interest is al la mode.” Paternalism and cruelty went hand in hand at Durnford’s plantation. “Jackson has just left here,” he wrote of a runaway in 1836. “I ordered five rounds to be given him yesterday for cutting my cane and corn. He is a wicked fellow. Was he not a relic I would gett clear of him.”

In fact, Durnford was buying for his own use on the sugar plantation he called St. Rosalie, thirty miles south of New Orleans. A man of business, he lamented the high cost of slaves, complaining that Alabamians had bid too high and driven up the market price. “I could have bought some cheaper but, they are what I call rotten people.”

 

rittmeister

trekkie in residence
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
2,902
Reaction score
2,168
I disagree I think they new the were black and did not care about their fellow black slaves...

Durnford was not so sanguine about the prospects of manumission, though he did free four slaves during his life. “Self interest is too strongly rooted in the bosom of all that breathes the American atmosphere,” he wrote in 1843. “Self interest is al la mode.” Paternalism and cruelty went hand in hand at Durnford’s plantation. “Jackson has just left here,” he wrote of a runaway in 1836. “I ordered five rounds to be given him yesterday for cutting my cane and corn. He is a wicked fellow. Was he not a relic I would gett clear of him.”

In fact, Durnford was buying for his own use on the sugar plantation he called St. Rosalie, thirty miles south of New Orleans. A man of business, he lamented the high cost of slaves, complaining that Alabamians had bid too high and driven up the market price. “I could have bought some cheaper but, they are what I call rotten people.”
that's an arrogant pink pov - why oh why do pink males always believe to know better than the people in question? it's pink logic to say "the guy just needs a mirror to see that he's black'

... btw, your two quotes prove my point - he behaves exactly as a pink slave owner would have, but his pink colleagus still didn't see him as their equal so in his pov they deprived him of his rights. he didn't see himself as black as black people were slaves and he wasn't.

the whole concept of human races is bonkers, there's only one (we are all out of africa, aren't we?)

nobody ever considered redheads a different race - okay, everybody knew they were in cahoots with the devil* and needed to be burned at the stakes but they were never considered a different race (just so evil that you could see it).

it doesn't matter whether the pinkskins saw him as a darkie - he probably saw himself as slightly darker than them. deprivement of rights is a main reason why people take up arms. what happened again when the british saw you guys as yokels who needn't to be taken seriously?

---

*that's sarcasm
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
5,740
Reaction score
3,445
I disagree I think they new the were black and did not care about their fellow black slaves...
If a black man bought his wife from a white master and kept her a nominal slave because of local laws outlawing freeing slaves, he did not care?
 

rittmeister

trekkie in residence
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
2,902
Reaction score
2,168
If a black man bought his wife from a white master and kept her a nominal slave because of local laws outlawing freeing slaves, he did not care?
the guy he's quoting had a truckload of slaves
 
Top