Posted on 07/13/2020 11:45:32 AM PDT by rxsid
BATISTE: Marxist Take ‘Em Down NOLA Ignores Fact That Blacks Owned Slaves, Too
The Take ‘Em Down NOLA movement ignores unpopular historical facts while leading its removalist campaign. The group crusades against slave owners and people connected to the short-lived Confederate States of America, but it has long avoided the reality that Black people owned Black slaves and Blacks were part of the Confederacy. As complex as that past may be to some, New Orleans, Louisiana, has an even more convoluted history. And some of the Black heroes, honored with memorials, meet Take Em Down’s qualifications for removal.
Louisiana led all states in Black slave ownership, and it was not even close. The 1830 United States census showed that 965 Louisiana Blacks owned 4,206 slaves. According to that census, Louisiana had 25% of the total number of “free Black slave owners” in America and 33% of the total number of “slaves owned by free Blacks” in America. The next highest in each category were Virginia with 948 Blacks owning 2,235 slaves and South Carolina with 464 Blacks owning 2,715 slaves. The New Orleans population was 46,082 in 1830, and locally 753 Blacks owned 2,349 slaves in the Crescent City.
Thirty years later, the number of Black slave owners had quadrupled. According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860, New Orleans had 10,689 non-slave Black residents, or free people of color as was a phrase of the era. Of those “over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city,” according to Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, America’s leading African American historian.
Take ‘Em Down NOLA has never addressed Black ownership of other Blacks. Nor have its members discussed the impact of segregation on the mixed-race Creoles of Louisiana. Yet those issues play a part in the histories of some well-known Black New Orleanians from the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Author Tom Sancton wrote about the Creole Black population’s opposition to segregation in his 2006 memoir, Song For My Fathers. The book contains insightful quotes regarding the now monumental civil rights Plessy vs. Ferguson U.S. Supreme Court case of 1896, but also contains the little discussed motivation of Black Creole Homer Plessy.
In the nonfiction book, Antoine Plessy, Homer Plessy’s cousin, discussed Homer’s father and grandfather. Their original name was du Plessis. A major revelation was “The grandfather, in fact, had been a wealthy free man of color who owned slaves, ‘threw his lot in with the Confederacy,’ and was wiped out by the collapse of Confederate money.”
Sancton quoted Antoine Plessy stating, “Homer felt superior to the American-speaking colored because they had been slaves and were from a lower social level than him. See all the Creole families thought they were better than the ex-slaves. And to keep from going with these people—you know, there was prejudice—they established their own social clubs and dance halls all through the city. … Sometimes you would go in those places when they were holdin’ a soiree and you wouldn’t see a dark face. Well, they done that purposefully.”
...
The Horrible Fate of John Casor, The First Black Man to be Declared Slave for Life in America
It’s estimated that upwards of 27% of New Orleans’ 5,000+ Free Negroes owned one or more slaves.
Particularly in NewOrleans, as I understand it
Slaving is not a contest.
I never understood the slave defending or excusing or deflecting on Free Republic.
Owning, buying, and selling people as if they were cattle has never been a good thing. In fact, in almost all American’s eyes its a horrible thing. About the worst thing you could do to a person.
So, can we stop pointing the finger elsewhere. Accept that it was bad. And move on.
This article, and comments supporting it, sound like the arguments of children.
Drive down Canal Street to find all the folks on the dumbocrat plantation today.
[[So, can we stop pointing the finger elsewhere.]]
NO Because liberals ONLY accuse white people are accused of having slaves— hardly anyone is aware THAT black folks owned slaves and were slave traders themselves- Fewer people still are unaware that white people were also slaves- and evidence is emerging that whites were likely slaves in larger numbers than blacks-
ONLY whites are being accused of owning and selling slaves and ONLY whites are ‘required’ to pay reparations- not blacks who owned slaves, not indians. not muslims etc- all of whom owned slaves
Hardly anyone knows that white slaves were much cheaper than black slaves, and were therefore killed and abused more- since it was so cheap to replace them
[[Slaving is not a contest.]]
Nobody said it was- but getting FACTS out to people who aren’t aware of our history is a good thing- not sure why you oppose it! Or do you think only black people can complain about racism and slavery?
Just like in a courtroom, it is important to know the whole truth, not just a sliver of it. Also the story barely touches on the entire creole issue that persists to this day. When it is time to air dirty laundry, it has to be done in the open.
No.
The facts, the history must be known, must become part of the public discussion.
There are way too many ignorant people in this country as a result of suggestions like yours.
Part of acknowledging the past evils of slavery, is acknowledging the entire scope of the issue.
This is one arrow in the quiver to knock down the reparation's b.s. talk, the whites are the only racists b.s. talk, and on and on.
I don’t think anyone is defending slavery.
As I read the posts they’re just saying no one’s history is clean. Which is obvious to anyone without a political agenda,
I don’t need to knock down reparations talk. That will never happen.
The fact that we are STILL fighting the civil war after 120 years is a testament to the fact that many southerners bought into the Lost Cause bull crap.
You lost. Slavery is bad. Blacks are people with equal rights and protections under the law. Everyone gets the same rights, no one gets special rights.
Now stop pining over the thought of owning negroes and pull yourself into the 21st century.
Well put-
[[This is one arrow in the quiver to knock down the reparation’s b.s. talk,]]
Exactly- some however want to suppress the info i guess so that white folks don’t have any chance of combating the reparations nonsense-
over 600,000 White folks died to free the black slaves- that is reparations enough- IF black folks want to pursue money- let them get it from liberals who opposed freeing them from slavery- republicans voted 100% to free them, democrats barely 1/3 voted for it
I never understood the slave defending or excusing or deflecting on Free Republic.
You are ignoring history.
It is a fact, and relevant, that American slavery was some of the most humane in that period of history.
It is a fact that most people who became slaves would have been killed if they were not made slaves, as they were captured in warfare.
The alternative, in the period being discussed, was not slavery v. no slavery. It was slavery where the slaves were treated well enough to reproduce, v. slavery where they were worked to death, as they tended to be in Brazil or under Muslim slavery, where black Africans left very few descendants. It was slavery or death for the people enslaved in the African tribal wars.
These facts are relevant to the discussion of the history of American slavery, because they put the "peculiar institution" in context.
The Left would have us believe slavery was created by Americans.
It wasn't. It was Americans who were part of the near elimination of slavery in the second half of the 19th century, though it is now staging a comeback in Islamic lands and in Africa.
I think you're missing the point. The point is that, contra the Commies--foreign and domestic--Western Civilization and Western white folks didn't invent slavery. In anthropological terms, slavery is a human universal. There's no culture that hasn't practiced it--or suffered from it. It's still practiced in Africa, parts of India, the Middle East, and covertly and illegally, in some households of Asian immigrants in the West. Not to mention that in China today, there are about 1 billion slaves--that is, everyone who isn't part of the ruling class.
Here's why all that matters. What Western Civ did that's unique is that it abolished slavery.
The descendants of those blacks must therefore pay reparations to those who are descendants of slaves. But no one knows how to determine that.
My son had to write an “argumentative” paper back in High School. He figured the most challenging one would be about why slavery in America was good.
I thought he was nuts.
The paper was VERY interesting. Not that slavery was “good”, but he emphasized on how in America it was so much better than anywhere else. IIRC, in the the early 1800’s we passed a law that prevented the importation of new slaves. So the owners had to take good care of their existing slaves.
In the Caribbean the average life-span was a year or two.
He also made some really good arguments on how the Civil War (and the South’s loss) was bad for the slaves. It was on the decline and would have been better for the slaves if slavery had just died a “natural” death rather than the war. I forget now what those arguments were - but it made sense at the time.
He ended up getting an “A” on the paper.
Slavery is the most universal and historically long lived institutional method of labor discipline. Slavery began to decline in the west as economies began shifting from agrarian staple production and merchant capitalism to manufacturing and finance capital. As long as the institution was vital to the economies of Great Britain and France it was not going to be disturbed. Less developed countries with colonial empires such as Spain and Portugal continued to have a vital interest in the health of slavery. The bottom line is those in the UK and the US that were most interested in spreading the peculiar institution became very righteous when they found they could make much more money from manufacturing and compound interest and commenced the anti-slavery crusade.
Its not.
The other side is trying to portray slavery as a whites-only creation, to go along with their incorrect and incredibly hypocritical theme that only whites can be racist.
further the other side isn’t ‘moving on’ and has no intention to as they plan to beat this as long as they can play the race card.
letting them simply lie and omit true history to furthwr their lying claims to get what they want is insane, and you ought to recognize that. Also that truth and accurate history is also important to defend and preserve.
i cannot believe you are this myopic on the subject to undersrand why the context of this is important.
If you are on social security, the government owns you. What's the difference?
As to your opinion about slavery, without it happening as it did in the United States of America, the black race would not now be seated at the table of the modern world with the rest of the races. In this sense, slavery in America is one day going to be appreciated for the opportunity it presented to the black race to be seen on equal footing with all of the other races. It placed them at the table with everyone else. Instead of bitching and moaning about how they got to that table, they'd be much better off taking advantage of the opportunity that seat provides.
And guess who sold blacks from Africa? Other Africans. It is simply how things worked in tribalist societies. Win the war, take the remaining men and women as slaves, sell some of them to Europeans.
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.