Observed 'Black Confederate' Types

[O' Be Joyful]

The Other Slavery: The Uncovered Story of Indian Enslavement in the Americas by Andres Resendez.

Why make him read?? Most folks are visual in their larnin' habits.

 

[byron ed]

Got some reading for you, byron-ed!...The Other Slavery: The Uncovered Story of Indian Enslavement in the Americas by Andres Resendez...I can get you more if you like that - it's an appetizer.

And yet quite certain that this source will not support that a quarter of the slave population in the U.S. slave South was indian. It will likely demonstrate that yes, natives were the first population to be enslaved by Euros in North America, and it will likely demonstrate that indigenous populations made up a considerable population of slaves in the early colonization years, and continued as such in the Caribbean, middle and South America, but not in the developed U.S. Cotton South.

By the 19th century -- the period we are interested in after all, that leading up to the Civil War -- indians (meaning native Americans) had been phased out as slaves in favor of readily-marketed and much more containable black African slaves. The condition we know as chattel slavery in the secession South and the Confederacy was most entirely that. There was nowhere near a 25 percent content of indian slaves left in the slave population of the U.S. South by that time -- not that indians fared any better otherwise.

I also trust your source will concur that among those indians who remained U.S. slaves in Antebellum times, many of them were by then mixed-breed. In other words that population was not so distinct that they were specifically sorted out in any document as a percent. Nobody took the time to count out the indian and mixed-breed indian slaves that way. With that in context, I'm confident your source, being academically viable, doesn't actually claim that a quarter of the population of slaves in the U.S. slave South were indian.

Sometimes we find the answers we want from a source (the way we want things to have been) and kind of don't remember the context.

 

[diane]

Actually, @byron ed , I didn't just pull that estimate of one quarter out of my basket hat. It's from John Hope Franklin, who was part Choctaw and born in the Chickasaw nation. He has some very interesting insights into black/Indian slavery. (I think he's a reliable source, too. Very.)

 

[byron ed]

Actually, @byron ed , I didn't just pull that estimate of one quarter out of my basket hat. It's from John Hope Franklin, who was part Choctaw and born in the Chickasaw nation. He has some very interesting insights into black/Indian slavery. (I think he's a reliable source, too. Very.)

And yet I'm equally confident he neither claimed such high a percentage for indian slaves in the U.S. slave south* -- the place and period we are interested in here. Context is important. It's disingenuous to have allowed us to suppose that you meant 25 percent of slaves in the U.S. slave South, leaving off the context provided by your author that such a figure was only ever intended to apply to all of the Americas over time, whereas it turned out that the U.S. slave South became an exception.

The question is, what is the motivation for wanting it to appear as though a quarter of all slaves in the U.S. South were indian?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* There was no U.S. before the Declaration of Independence, by which time native american slaves were already largely replaced with black Africans in the cotton region of North America.

 

[diane]

The question is, what is the motivation for wanting it to appear as though a quarter of all slaves in the U.S. South were indian?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* There was no U.S. before the Declaration of Independence, by which time native american slaves were already largely replaced with black Africans in the cotton region of North America.

The African slave trade was stopped. Indians aren't in Africa. The laws said they could be slaves just as well as blacks. Check out the causes of the Seminole wars, for instance.

 

[Jim Klag]

And yet I'm equally confident he neither claimed such high a percentage for indian slaves in the U.S. slave south* -- the place and period we are interested in here. Context is important. It's disingenuous to have allowed us to suppose that you meant 25 percent of slaves in the U.S. slave South, leaving off the context provided by your author that such a figure was only ever intended to apply to all of the Americas over time, whereas it turned out that the U.S. slave South became an exception.

The question is, what is the motivation for wanting it to appear as though a quarter of all slaves in the U.S. South were indian?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* There was no U.S. before the Declaration of Independence, by which time native american slaves were already largely replaced with black Africans in the cotton region of North America.

When are you ever going to learn to shut up? You haven't read the sources offered and yet you dismiss them out of hand and then you question a member's motivation for offering them. I am beginning to think you're not just stupid but it is you who are the foreign agent provocateur you pretend to be afraid of. And, yes, @byron ed , this is a deliberate insult. Your post are always deliberately insulting and a quid pro quo is in order. When you read the sources @diane has put forth, you may make specific criticisms of said sources if, and only if, you have irrefutable documentary proof that they are wrong. You do not just get to say that you don't believe them and you certainly don't get to question the motives of the member posting them. Now. Put up your own sources or shut the fuck up.

 

[byron ed]

The African slave trade was stopped. Indians aren't in Africa. The laws said they could be slaves just as well as blacks. Check out the causes of the Seminole wars, for instance.

and yet, indians were nowhere near 25 percent of the slave population in the U.S. southern states (the ones that became the Confederacy, which is the period we here are interested in).

? Far left field on the other comments. No one here, certainly never myself, has ever claimed the legal African slave trade continued after 1808 in the U.S., and no one here, again surely not me, has ever claimed indians were in Africa. What's going on? Is there a connection to anything regarding this thread in those facts? Explain.

 

[Wehrkraftzersetzer]

Black Confederate Servants
Black Confederate Teamsters
Black Confederate Laborers
Black Confederate Soldiers.
Black Confederate Slaves.
Black Confederate Illegals.
Black Confederate Cooks.
Black Confederate Musicians

Any More?

warrant black men hiding somewhere in the hills (may be well over 500.000)

 

[byron ed]

...When are you ever going to learn to shut up?...I am beginning to think you're not just stupid...When you read the sources [diane] has put forth, you may make specific criticisms of said sources if, and only if, you have irrefutable documentary proof that they are wrong. You do not just get to say that you don't believe them...shut the f--- up.

So much excitement over so little. Just a little clarification over a historical point.

As anyone here can read I've made no criticisms of the sources at all. I've just been confident neither source will support that a quarter of slaves in the U.S. were indian. Why so confident? because I have done the research on slavery in the U.S. I welcome [diane] to provide the quote in which the 25 percent figure was made -- but it must include the context left out of [diane]s first mention of it. (again, the likely context included the whole of indian slavery in the Americas -- including middle and south America and the Caribbean, if a bit of the U.S. southwest going back to Spanish rule).

And again because people can read, it can be seen that I had concurred that the high percent claimed might apply to that greater context.

So after all it is fair to ask about the motivation of leaving out the broader context just to be able to say that "a quarter of slaves were indian," leaving it for us to suppose that applied to the place and period we are interested in. Why promote a false picture of what chattel slavery in the U.S. south consisted of in the years leading up to the Civil War?

 

[Jim Klag]

So much excitement over so little. Just a little clarification over a historical point.

As anyone here can read I've made no criticisms of the sources at all. I've just been confident neither source will support that a quarter of slaves in the U.S. were indian. Why so confident? because I have done the research on slavery in the U.S. I welcome [diane] to provide the quote in which the 25 percent figure was made -- but it must include the context left out of [diane]s first mention of it. (again, the likely context included the whole of indian slavery in the Americas -- including middle and south America and the Caribbean, if a bit of the U.S. southwest going back to Spanish rule).

And again because people can read, it can be seen that I had concurred that the high percent claimed might apply to that greater context.

So after all it is fair to ask about the motivation of leaving out the broader context just to be able to say that "a quarter of slaves were indian," leaving it for us to suppose that applied to the place and period we are interested in. Why promote a false picture of what chattel slavery in the U.S. south consisted of in the years leading up to the Civil War?

No. No. No. @diane has already supplied her sources and I said you don't get to question them without reading them. Put up your own source from which your confidence arises that 25% of the slaves were not Indian. Simple requirement. One member puts up her sources and you, the ridiculously self-described expert on slavery, put up your sources. Surely your confidence is not misplaced. Surely you actually have a source delineating the demographics of the chattel slave population from which you so confidently spew forth the certainty that @diane has posted incorrect percentages. We are waiting. Source now please.

 

[byron ed]

No. No. No. @diane has already supplied her sources and I said you don't get to question them without reading them...

Yet I did that. oops.

... Put up your own source from which your confidence arises that 25% of the slaves were not Indian. Simple requirement...

The simple requirement was to support the initial claim. It wasn't me that claimed 25% of the slaves were indian without explaining the context of that.

...a claim to begin with One member puts up her sources...

One member provided a source, but not the actual "quarter of the slaves were Indian" statement from that source, or the context of that statement. A simple requirement.

...and you, the ridiculously self-described expert on slavery...

"Expert" is not a claim of mine. I know some primary sources on the topic, though not "ridiculously" so.

...Surely you actually have a source delineating the demographics of the chattel slave population...

Pay attention. The point was that there's been no documentation that indicates what percent of slaves were indian in the U.S. South, much less when a mixed-race slave was to be designated as either a black or an indian slave.

Give [diane] some time to react on her own, and some credit for being quite capable of doing so without her "dad" having a hissy-fit and inventing all kinds of insult where there was never any. [diane] hasn't asked to be "defended" nor is she the one demanding all the back-up.

And speaking of back-up -- I don't recall that there's any listing of sources for each item on the "on this day" lists provided here.

 

[diane]

Well, @byron ed , if the Seminole wars aren't your thing, here's the Yamsee War. What was that about? Same dang thing.

American Indian Slavery in Carolina · African Passages, Lowcountry Adaptations · Lowcountry Digital History Initiative

P S
Did provide a source for the 25 percent (rough, mind). You didn't read that far.

 

[O' Be Joyful]

Looks like we're a gitten' ready to go on a Missouri boat ride.

 

[byron ed]

Well, [byron ed]...Did provide a source for the 25 percent (rough, mind)...

That's great. Just go ahead and drop in the quote right here then, including the context, and we can be done with this. Keep in mind we can check on this.

I'm sorry you've had to endure all the unsolicited and highly condescending remarks made "on your behalf" by a third party.

 

[O' Be Joyful]

Keep in mind we can check on this.

Pardon my french, but whom the Hell is we?

"You, myself and I?"

 

[byron ed]

Pardon my french, but whom the Hell is we?..."You, myself and I?"

Bingo; and whoever else is interested.

So moving on, there's been other "black Confederate" types claimed by the apologists as well. At what point will the difference between "claimed" and "actual" become so strained that the case becomes moot?

 

[O' Be Joyful]

Bingo; and whoever else is interested.

Apparently, but I only throw grenades where I intend them to take effect. Not in a far flung fashion as appears to be your "we" inclination.

 

[diane]

That's great. Just go ahead and drop in the quote right here then, including the context, and we can be done with this. Keep in mind we can check on this.

I'm sorry you've had to endure all the unsolicited and highly condescending remarks made "on your behalf" by a third party.

If Dr Franklin isn't good enough for you, I'd be delighted if you checked on this and posted your findings. I'd also be delighted if you quit beating around the bush and just said what you mean about 'motives'. I'm getting deaf and can't hear whispers as well as I used to!

 

[byron ed]

...if the Seminole wars aren't your thing, here's the Yamsee War. What was that about? [ldhi.library.cofc.edu/exhibits...introduction/american_indian_slavery_caroli]

Yes. Thanks for that link. Here's the pertinent excerpts then:

"...By the 1720s, the Carolina census included 1500 enslaved American Indians out of an estimated total population in the colony of 17,000 [that's .09 percent btw]..."

"...By the late eighteenth century, as the numbers of African arrivals outnumbered enslaved American Indians, the census stopped differentiating between African and American Indian slaves [my points as well btw], and "Negro" increasingly became synonymous with "slave" in the Lowcountry..."

...The Yamassee War ...multiple sources of conflict with enslaved Africans and American Indians [to note, not indian slaves] in the early Carolina colony generated a sense of white unity..."

 

[byron ed]

If Dr Franklin isn't good enough for you, I'd be delighted if you checked on this and posted your findings. I'd also be delighted if you quit beating around the bush and just said what you mean about 'motives'. I'm getting deaf and can't hear whispers as well as I used to!

Dr. Franklin is great; highly qualified. Thanks for that.

So just go ahead and drop in the "quarter of slaves were indian" quote right here then, including the context. I couldn't find where it specified that a quarter of slaves in the U.S. south were indian, but perhaps you did.