Posted on 03/04/2007 5:18:36 PM PST by Chi-townChief
Before Friday, I did not know that my ancestors owned slaves. Now that I know, I almost wish I didn't. As they say, ignorance is bliss. I don't have that luxury anymore. Now I'll have to deal with it. For years, you see, my mom had tried to get me to take an interest in our family history.
She's compiled quite a bit of research and just wanted me to help get it organized and maybe take it to the next level before she's unable.
But for some reason, I never could get interested. When you have a name like Brown, you don't have much confidence that anybody is going to be able to accurately trace your roots.
About the only genealogical finding of my mom's that ever got my attention was learning that my dad's cousin, Clarence "Hooks" Lott, briefly pitched in the Major Leagues for the St. Louis Browns and New York Giants in the 1940s -- thus giving hope that some latent gene in the Brown lineage might yet produce a descendant who will rise above the athletic mediocrity that has characterized the family during my lifetime.
Then I read a story Friday from the Baltimore Sun reporting that it appears one of Sen. Barack Obama's ancestors on his mother's side was a slave owner, the dubious implication being that this somehow makes Obama less attuned to the struggles of American blacks.
My immediate reaction was: What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
But it also prompted me to give mom a call about the family tree, telling myself the worst news she could give me was that some distant relative fought for the Confederacy.
Thought they were poor hillbillies As far as I knew, my family had always been dirt poor. Both my parents trace their roots to the hills of Missouri. Beyond that, I knew my mom's side -- the Richardsons -- came from Kentucky. We're hillbillies, though I never thought of myself as such until I moved to Chicago, and people started asking me about my ethnic heritage. It never was an issue anywhere else I'd lived. I'd answer by explaining what little I knew, and they'd say, "So, you're a hillbilly," and after fighting the notion for a while, I decided they were right.
I'd considered it unlikely that my hillbilly ancestors could afford to own slaves.
Mom set me straight.
"I can tell you that we did have slaves," she said. "At one time, the Richardsons were wealthy, and they did have slaves."
It's probably not coincidental that my mom switched from "we" had slaves in one sentence to "they" had slaves in the next, because I'll tell you, it's a hard thing to say out loud. It's even hard to write.
"I don't remember you ever telling me this before," I told my mom, trying to push some of the guilt I was feeling off on her.
"I don't remember you ever listening to me before," said mom, properly pushing it back.
So here are the ugly facts, as best as I can glean them from some grainy documents from Pulaski County, Kentucky, that mom sent me.
My great-great-great-grandfather David E. Richardson was the last of my direct forebears to own slaves.
It appears he inherited them from the estate of his father Charles (my great-great-great-great-grandfather) just months before selling them on Feb. 25, 1853, to one of his brothers for $170. The brothers also may have inherited other slaves from Charles.
It's unclear to me exactly how many slaves in total they owned, but the handwritten records make specific reference to "one Negro boy named Tom about 17 years old of yellow complexion," as well as a 5-year-old girl named Sarah and 7-year-old boy named Patrick, "both of black complexion."
We had family on the other side of war, too Mom surmises that David Richardson, who had 16 children, sold the slaves because he had little money and couldn't afford them. She believes our family had owned slaves dating back to the late 1700s when my great-great-great-great-great-grandfather Jesse Richardson, a brigadier general in the Revolutionary War, received a grant of land for his war service and became wealthy as a result.
One more pertinent fact: My great-great-grandfather Milford R. Richardson, the son of the last family slaveholder, did fight in the Civil War -- for the Union Army. He enlisted near the end in 1865, just long enough to be seriously injured -- when he was kicked by a mule.
Obama spokesman Bill Burton told the Baltimore Sun that the senator's ancestors "are representative of America."
"While a relative owned slaves, another fought for the Union in the Civil War," Burton said. "And it is a true measure of progress that the descendant of a slave owner would come to marry a student from Kenya and produce a son who would grow up to be a candidate for president of the United States."
An Obama presidential candidacy was always sure to make us re-examine race in America.
I just hadn't counted on the examination hitting so close to home.
mailto:markbrown@suntimes.com
In my genealogy research I have found that many of my South Carolina ancestors owned slaves. I have the copies of the records showing slaves being bought, sold and willed. What effect does that have on me? Absolutly nothing.
The last Confederate general to surrender was Stand Watie, a Cherokee and a slaveowner. Slavery was common among the Cherokee.
Actually, I'm not sure he surrendered. He may have just signed a cease-fire with the Yankees.
Africa, not very far back at all. . . still going on in many places. American South, not very far either. Central America, not much earlier. In Europe, there were still slaves in Britain in Christian times, in the rest of Europe you have to go back a bit further. But of course there were slaves everywhere the Roman Empire extended, and before that the Greeks and Egyptians.
But yes, it's just a matter of how far back you have to go.
Nah - he should pay them to the "first black president" Ol' Slick.
In the time of St. Patrick "British slave girl" was a unit of currency, equivelent to three cows.
FWIW, India, SE Asia, China and Japan all had slaves at different times in their history.
Then you can get into some interesting distinctions about what is slavery and what isn't. Serfdom, for instance, shades into slavery, and the word slavery itself covers a remarkable range of institutions.
In the glory period of the Ottoman Empire, for instance, the most powerful and wealthy men in the Empire, who ran the entire government and military (a distinction without much difference in the Empire) were the slaves of the Sultan.
All the liberals whose ancestors owned slaves will come out of the woodwork now and provide cover for Obama.
Exactly.
Their descendants are known as "Redlegs".
If they're kin to me it must be back in Scotland, because my Scottish ancestor in the direct male line left Scotland in the 40s (1740s) one jump ahead of the sheriff. He was a MacGregor (basically the Scottish Mafia) and he changed his name to escape his past . . .
That's an interesting question -- would you rather be descended from a professional criminal, or a slave, or a slaveholder? I know I'm descended from Nos. 1 and 3 . . . and probably No. 2 as well, although I don't know exactly where . . .
Columnist Mark Brown is incorrect about his ancestry. His ancestor "General" Jesse Richardson was actually a private in the Revolutionary War.
I ran across some interesting statistics recently. Less than 5% of the slaves transported across the Atlantic came to what is now the US. The vast majority went to Brazil and the Caribbean. Yet mention guilt for slavery or the slave trade and almost always the country that pops up in most people's minds as being responsible is the US.
How often do you hear about Brazil, the country that actually took a majority of the slaves, being liable for an apology or for reparations?
Intermarriage is the only complete solution for racial disharmony. A Haitian family that has been friends with our family for 20-30 years ranges the gamut from the darkest African black to fair and blond -- all in the same family! One of that family's members is the most beautiful woman I have ever seen, and she is probably 1/8 African descent.
My great grandmother was given four slaves as a wedding present from her parents. My great grandfather a, Methodist circuit preacher, immediately freed them.
In 1864 slaves were about all they had left to give.
How can it be that his slaves were economically unprofitable? He couldn't get more work out of them than the cost of feeding and housing them? If he didn't have work for them to do he could have rented them out.
Guy must have been in quite a jam and he needed quick cash or he was stupid or unlucky.
Wasn't there an old saying, "Give a man some slaves to sell and he eats for a month. Give a man some slaves to do work and he eats for a lifetime."
Not trying to be insensitive, but it was the truth.
You damn betcha it is!
https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html
Click on some dates.
Comes from here:
Maybe he was in a crunch and needed cash more than a longterm investment.
Slave prices went up and down over the years in the South, often fluctuating along with the price of cotton. But in the 1850s a prime male hand was worth at least twice a good annual income.
Think about that when people talk about how the masters should have just freed the slaves. How many of us would be enthusiastic about just giving away a financial asset worth twice our annual income?
BTW, US Grant, often derided as insufficiently anti-slavery, voluntarily freed the only slave he ever owned. This was well before the War, and at a time when he was in pretty desperate financial straits.
In this country, she's black even if she's white.
If Obama's ancestors owned slaves, does he still qualify for REPARATIONS??? /s
That's why he says he opposes reparations - he doesn't want to shell out all that cash.
My family came over from Wales in the early 1700s...into South Carolina. All the up up until 1860...none of them ever owned slaves. All pursued their own small farm and their chunk of the American dream. As I look across at this vast agruement that people want to drag up...I guess I'm missing the boat because I just can't connect myself or my heritage to any part of this entire argument. There are alot southerners like myself...from Scotland or England...who had no ownership connection. As I look across at home county in north Alabama in 1850...less than 5 percent of the adult male population could claim ownership of any slaves. That means 95 percent weren't practicing or participating in the business.
As I look across the line at what lives were expended in this grand civil war...the number of lives lost to bring both the war and slavery to an end...there is an element of payback (in advance). Unlike today's soldiers who die in line for the country...your family in 1865 got nothing much for the life given. Its funny how we will never hear a single black say a word of appreciation for Union soldiers and their fight to the end.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.