Black Slave Owners in the United States

[jamil]

Well. I calls them like I sees them.

 

[buckwacker]

It was clear to me from the context of that post that it was constrained to the period of slavery and within slave states. Specifically y'all were talking about Black slave owners.

And. Don't forget. Douglas, though he reached a high status for a Black person, and though he had earned the respect of many, he was not regarded as equal to Whites. He was just an exceptional Negro. So Douglas doesn't really serve the purpose of counterpoint. In fact, as I initially read Kut's post, Douglas came to mind as a counterpoint, but I quickly dismissed it because it wasn't.

I didn't make a single argument about black slave owners, or reparations. He said America and I took that to mean all of it, not just the southern slave states. If he meant Confederate States, he could say so.
Kut also didn't say equal, he said upper echelons, which as I said, I interpret as prominence. We've both agreed Douglas was prominent.

 

[jamil]

I didn't make a single argument about black slave owners, or reparations. He said America and I took that to mean all of it, not just the southern slave states. If he meant Confederate States, he could say so.
Kut also didn't say equal, he said upper echelons, which as I said, I interpret as prominence. We've both agreed Douglas was prominent.

Okay, let's look at the statement.

There are plenty of examples of slaves reaching the upper echelon of the societies that enslaved them. That never could have occurred in America. The reason is that American slavery, was based entirely on race. There weren't enough free blacks who had never been slaves, so stigma of Black=Slave endured. This of course made the company of such undesirable. A Black person could own 100,000 slaves, but socially and legally, he was not the equal of the gravedigger.

YOU didn't take it that way. You didn't say anything about black slave owners/reparations. But Kut is the one who said what he said. The context was obviously during the period of slavery. Because he said American slavery was based entirely on race (I wouldn't concede that it was) but nevertheless it does establish the context to me.

But, I have the advantage of reading entire thread in a sitting, and may have benefited from having the full context in mind as the conversation progressed. And this is also what established the context of slave states to me.

But let's say none of that is true. That Frederick Douglass is a counterexample is still false, because he was an asterisk. When Kut was talking about achieving the upper echelon of the societies that enslaved them, I took it that he's talking about achieving the upper echelons of those societies as peers. Why make the point otherwise? Frederick Douglass rose to prominence for a Black man. He was never in the club of upper echelon white people as those others were in the societies that enslaved them. The Romans were a good example of that.

Maybe I'm giving Kut more credit than he deserves. So he can correct me if I'm wrong. That's how I read it.

 

[1DOWN4UP]

 

[1DOWN4UP]

 

[buckwacker]

Okay, let's look at the statement.

YOU didn't take it that way. You didn't say anything about black slave owners/reparations. But Kut is the one who said what he said. The context was obviously during the period of slavery. Because he said American slavery was based entirely on race (I wouldn't concede that it was) but nevertheless it does establish the context to me.

But, I have the advantage of reading entire thread in a sitting, and may have benefited from having the full context in mind as the conversation progressed. And this is also what established the context of slave states to me.

But let's say none of that is true. That Frederick Douglass is a counterexample is still false, because he was an asterisk. When Kut was talking about achieving the upper echelon of the societies that enslaved them, I took it that he's talking about achieving the upper echelons of those societies as peers. Why make the point otherwise? Frederick Douglass rose to prominence for a Black man. He was never in the club of upper echelon white people as those others were in the societies that enslaved them. The Romans were a good example of that.

Maybe I'm giving Kut more credit than he deserves. So he can correct me if I'm wrong. That's how I read it.

If reading the entire thread in a sitting gives you more clarity, how did you get that I was making arguments about black slave owners and reparations?

With regards to this peers or equals thing: peers or equals to whom? I'd argue that Douglas' status was above that of the average white butcher, farmer, teacher, cobber, blacksmith etc. In other words the vast majority of white America. Who gathered to listen to those people make speeches or took the time to read their writings?

 

[DadSmith]

The 28% was of the 10,689 iirc free Blacks in New Orleans only not over all. Did you not understand that part. He was talking New Orleans only. Where 28% of free Blacks were slave owners not 28% of all free Blacks in the south. So better read that one more time both of you.

"According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city."

Notice New Orleans and in that city part?

Nowhere did he say 28% of all Blacks in the south or the United States. So the professor's math is 100% correct.

"To return to the census figures quoted above, this 28 percent is certainly impressive when compared to less than 1.4 percent of all American whites and less than 4.8 percent of southern whites. The statistics show that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters."

He was comparing the free Blacks in New Orleans and how many were slave owners compared to that of the 8 million whites in the south.

 

[jamil]

If reading the entire thread in a sitting gives you more clarity, how did you get that I was making arguments about black slave owners and reparations?

With regards to this peers or equals thing: peers or equals to whom? I'd argue that Douglas' status was above that of the average white butcher, farmer, teacher, cobber, blacksmith etc. In other words the vast majority of white America. Who gathered to listen to those people make speeches or took the time to read their writings?

1) I didn’t say you were making that argument. I said the context of what Kut said was about that.

2) The antebellum butcher, farmer, teacher did not regard Douglass as superior. But that wasn’t a requirement to meet the assertion. The upper echelons did not regard Douglass as upper echelons.

Honestly I think it’s amazing how you guys argue a minor point like this so vigorously. It’s not an important point. It doesn’t serve the argument.

What Kut said about slaves in other societies where race wasn’t a significant reason for the enslavement itself is historically correct. A Roman slave could become a Roman aristocrat, for example. That was not an anomalous thing. A black North American slave could not become a North American aristocrat. Douglass was prominent, for a Black man. But he was hardly an aristocrat. But even if he was, it would be an anomaly. So go abead. Name some other Black aristocrats during the antebellum period who were former slaves.

Even if you can, even if Kut is wrong, what grand point does that serve? This thread is a silly argument.

 

[kickbacked]

The 28% was of the 10,689 iirc free Blacks in New Orleans only not over all. Did you not understand that part. He was talking New Orleans only. Where 28% of free Blacks were slave owners not 28% of all free Blacks in the south. So better read that one more time both of you.


Notice New Orleans and in that city part?

This is incorrect and skews the data to make it look like something its not.

"Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city."

"Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country"

You cant compare the percentage of 1 city where slavery is legal to the percentage of the entire country where slavery is not legal everywhere. In 1860 when this data is provided its was illegal in more states than it was legal.

You cant compare the percentage of 1 city where slavery is legal to the percentage of the entire country where slavery is not legal everywhere.

You cant compare the percentage of 1 city where slavery is legal to the percentage of the entire country

You cant compare the percentage of 1 city

percentage of 1 city

1 city

 

[DadSmith]

Yes it's over your head and beyond your understanding I agree.

Yet he did and it is driving you insane because you don't like his numbers.

You can't understand he was making a point of it.

Did you read the rest of the article or stop at the 28%


The last I read they are asking over 20 trillion dollars in reparations. Have fun with that.

 

[buckwacker]

1) I didn’t say you were making that argument. I said the context of what Kut said was about that.

2) The antebellum butcher, farmer, teacher did not regard Douglass as superior. But that wasn’t a requirement to meet the assertion. The upper echelons did not regard Douglass as upper echelons.

Honestly I think it’s amazing how you guys argue a minor point like this so vigorously. It’s not an important point. It doesn’t serve the argument.

What Kut said about slaves in other societies where race wasn’t a significant reason for the enslavement itself is historically correct. A Roman slave could become a Roman aristocrat, for example. That was not an anomalous thing. A black North American slave could not become a North American aristocrat. Douglass was prominent, for a Black man. But he was hardly an aristocrat. But even if he was, it would be an anomaly. So go abead. Name some other Black aristocrats during the antebellum period who were former slaves.

Even if you can, even if Kut is wrong, what grand point does that serve? This thread is a silly argument.

1) When you say y'all or you guys were making the arguments to which you refered when responding to my post, I take that as meaning you believe I was making the arguments. I don't think that's an unreasonable interpretation of your words.

2) I offered an example of a prominent former American slave to address kut's assertion that didn't happen in America. Both you and kut said it happened in other cultures, specifically Roman, but did not provide examples. Now we're adding qualifiers like aristocrat.

If you think it's a silly argument, you didn't have to get involved, or keep it going. Obviously you felt it that it wasn't silly enough to preclude your participation.

 

[Kutnupe14]

1) When you say y'all or you guys were making the arguments to which you refered when responding to my post, I take that as meaning you believe I was making the arguments. I don't think that's an unreasonable interpretation of your words.

2) I offered an example of a prominent former American slave to address kut's assertion that didn't happen in America. Both you and kut said it happened in other cultures, specifically Roman, but did not provide examples. Now we're adding qualifiers like aristocrat.

If you think it's a silly argument, you didn't have to get involved, or keep it going. Obviously you felt it that it wasn't silly enough to preclude your participation.

2) ***yawn*** Diocletian. Need another?

 

[buckwacker]

2) ***yawn*** Diocletian. Need another?

Well there is debate around whether he was actually a freedman or simply born of low status, so that's not really a good example. You should have a lot of examples since you said it was common. Not sure why you offered this one.

 

[jamil]

The 28% was of the 10,689 iirc free Blacks in New Orleans only not over all. Did you not understand that part. He was talking New Orleans only. Where 28% of free Blacks were slave owners not 28% of all free Blacks in the south. So better read that one more time both of you.

"According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city."

Notice New Orleans and in that city part?

Nowhere did he say 28% of all Blacks in the south or the United States. So the professor's math is 100% correct.

"To return to the census figures quoted above, this 28 percent is certainly impressive when compared to less than 1.4 percent of all American whites and less than 4.8 percent of southern whites. The statistics show that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters."

He was comparing the free Blacks in New Orleans and how many were slave owners compared to that of the 8 million whites in the south.

You seemed to be arguing with KB because he was saying that you could not extrapolate the 28% to all the free Blacks in the slave states. I said that the article did not support that. But I’m glad now that you are saying it was only in one city. So that part of the argument is resolved.

 

[jamil]

Yes it's over your head and beyond your understanding I agree.

Yet he did and it is driving you insane because you don't like his numbers.

...

The last I read they are asking over 20 trillion dollars in reparations. Have fun with that.

Okay. I guess the argument about that point is not over. Do you not realize that you are now both saying the same thing? The numbers are for one city. He said it. Now you said it.

Here’s the thing. Just because someone disputes a point you’ve made pursuant to an overall conclusion does not indicate a disagreement with the overall conclusion. Who claimed that anyone owes anyone else reparations? Both Kut and KB have argued against specific points brought out on the merits of just those points, not the overall conclusion about reparations.

That’s why this thread is so odd. It’s like you guys are clinging to points that don’t really matter as if they’re vital. Like the point about some slaves owning slaves. If it’s relevant at all it’s only marginally relevant. Again, you guys didn’t bother to point out that many of the slave owning blacks “acquired” their relatives to free them, or in the cases where they couldn’t free them. Husbands bought their wives, children, parents; even in cases where they couldn’t free them, their loved ones could live virtually free. Of course many others owned slaves for the same reasons white slave owners did, and they even owned plantations themselves. In numbers great enough numbers to matter a lot in this argument? Marginally.

In arguing these points I want to make it clear that it’s not personal. I’m not defending them or picking teams, I’m saying what I think is most obviously true.

 

[rhslover]

No, it means that laying the blame on all white people is ridiculous. Plenty of other ethnicities also practiced slavery, or were slaves as well.
Acting like the US and white people are the problem is demonstrating a complete lack of historical education or awareness of the world outside of our borders.

Have you ever been personally blamed for slavery? Had it effected your life in any real tangible way? Or are you just looking for something to be offended about? And no, "large numbers" of black people didn't own slaves. In slave states black people couldn't legally own property.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Well there is debate around whether he was actually a freedman or simply born of low status, so that's not really a good example. You should have a lot of examples since you said it was common. Not sure why you offered this one.

Tiberius Claudius Narcissus. Need another?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Have you ever been personally blamed for slavery? Had it effected your life in any real tangible way? Or are you just looking for something to be offended about? And no, "large numbers" of black people didn't own slaves. In slave states black people couldn't legally own property.

While there were some prohibition to owning property, this wasn't true universally.

 

[jamil]

1) When you say y'all or you guys were making the arguments to which you refered when responding to my post, I take that as meaning you believe I was making the arguments. I don't think that's an unreasonable interpretation of your words.

2) I offered an example of a prominent former American slave to address kut's assertion that didn't happen in America. Both you and kut said it happened in other cultures, specifically Roman, but did not provide examples. Now we're adding qualifiers like aristocrat.

If you think it's a silly argument, you didn't have to get involved, or keep it going. Obviously you felt it that it wasn't silly enough to preclude your participation.

LOL. “aristocrat” is easier than pecking out “upper echelons of society” with my thumbs on an iphone. Do you disagree that they both mean the same thing in this context? If you don’t like that word give me one we can agree means the same thing and I’ll use that.

Assuming you’ll no longer be opposed to what I mean by “aristocrat”, given my reason for using it, do you maintain that Douglass was every bit the peer of white aristocrats? Because that’s the standard that would need to meet the claim.

 

[rhslover]

While there were some prohibition to owning property, this wasn't true universally.

That's true, I didn't mean to say "most." Many of these slave owning blacks were escaped or freed slaves who bought back their family members. I've seen this article before, it's crap, pure and simple.