Black Slave Owners in the United States

[jamil]

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.

There were indeed black slave owners. In many southern states free Blacks could own property including slaves. In Missippi, one could argue is the most quintessential “Southern” state, free Blacks could own property. Some even owned plantations, mostly around Natchez, and they owned slaves and they treated them like slaves. And as I’ve said, some Black slave owners just bought their relatives to free them.

Have I ever been blamed for slavery personally? Well not personally, but collectively as a white person, the first time was in the 5th grade back in the early 70s. There have been many mire times since. Does that count?

 

[buckwacker]

Tiberius Claudius Narcissus. Need another?

Sure.

 

[jamil]

Sure.

If you’re interested in knowing the history it’s a simple Google search. If you are unwilling to do it, it seems that’s more about arguing points thst don’t really matter. It’s a thing. In Roman culture slaves were often freed, and there was nothing preventing them from becoming aristocracy or even slave owners themselves.

But, one thing to note, once a slave, and freedom gained, they were always marked as a former slave. That did not prevent former slaves from becoming aristocracy. But it’s a sort of asterisk.

But it’s true that slavery in Rome had nothing to do with race. And so the same dynamic that accompanied slavery in the US was not present in Rome. The romans marked people as former slaves, and that had a social impact. But former Roman slaves weren’t exactly regarded as being less than human. In the US, slaves and former slaves were indeed looked upon as being less than human. And so no black person, no matter how affluent, could be regarded as peers by white aristocracy.

So in that point Kut was correct. But. It’s not much of a point in the argument about the topic. It’s just a point of contention that both sides seem to need victories. It’s pretty safe to let it die in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Kutnupe14]

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.

They tried to pass off their original argument, as it being nationwide. They didn't clarify, until they had to walk it back because someone decided to call them out on it. Further, they used the best example they could find, New Orleans, Louisiana. Louisiana was place that was completely unique amongst slaveholding states, as slavery was governed under "Code Noir."
Under Code Noir, slaves could not be tortured, beat unless under certain conditions, mothers could not be separated from children, allowed marriage, prohibited separation of married slaves. Continuing, and also relevant, during French rule, Mulattos were considered a separate entity, away from being "Black or White," and held elevated status above slaves or even Black freemen. Upon Louisiana changing hand from French to American, "Mulattos," became "Black." So Mulattos, quadrooms, and even otcoroons (who could typically pass as white), where considered "Black," legally, but socially within the constraints of Code Noir they still kept an elevated status. That seems to be a glaring omission by the article.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Sure.

Care to make an admission first?

 

[buckwacker]

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.

Not really. It's a bit of an archaic term with respect to US social and political structure, which is why I used the word prominent. He was well known and respected. He is a known historical figure. How many blacksmiths or general store owners from the period can you name? They lived relatively inconsequential lives and are long forgotten. To me that means enough people of Douglas' time felt that he was an important enough figure to record his life for posterity. In that light, I'm not sure how we don't consider him to reside at a higher social status than the white village shopkeeper of his day.

 

[buckwacker]

Care to make an admission first?

Perhaps, but I have no idea what you're referring to. Perhaps use more words than you did in this post, but fewer than is typical for jamil.

 

[jamil]

Not really. It's a bit of an archaic term with respect to US social and political structure, which is why I used the word prominent. He was well known and respected. He is a known historical figure. How many blacksmiths or general store owners from the period can you name? They lived relatively inconsequential lives and are long forgotten. To me that means enough people of Douglas' time felt that he was an important enough figure to record his life for posterity. In that light, I'm not sure how we don't consider him to reside at a higher social status than the white village shopkeeper of his day.

I don’t think “prominent” meant what Kut meant by “upper echelons”. Douglass only reached the status he did in a state that did not allow slavery. The Slave states antebellum would have been happy to re-capture and enslave this prominent black man. But to the point. Douglass could not have been regarded as upper echelon in the same way whites were. Black people antebellum, were regarded even in the North as lesser beings than Whites.

 

[buckwacker]

If you’re interested in knowing the history it’s a simple Google search. If you are unwilling to do it, it seems that’s more about arguing points thst don’t really matter. It’s a thing. In Roman culture slaves were often freed, and there was nothing preventing them from becoming aristocracy or even slave owners themselves.

But, one thing to note, once a slave, and freedom gained, they were always marked as a former slave. That did not prevent former slaves from becoming aristocracy. But it’s a sort of asterisk.

But it’s true that slavery in Rome had nothing to do with race. And so the same dynamic that accompanied slavery in the US was not present in Rome. The romans marked people as former slaves, and that had a social impact. But former Roman slaves weren’t exactly regarded as being less than human. In the US, slaves and former slaves were indeed looked upon as being less than human. And so no black person, no matter how affluent, could be regarded as peers by white aristocracy.

So in that point Kut was correct. But. It’s not much of a point in the argument about the topic. It’s just a point of contention that both sides seem to need victories. It’s pretty safe to let it die in the grand scheme of things.

I didn't deny this aspect of Roman history, you assumed that I did by my asking you and kut to include a few names. I included a name, which is how this whole line of debate started.

 

[jamil]

I didn't deny this aspect of Roman history, you assumed that I did by my asking you and kut to include a few names. I included a name, which is how this whole line of debate started.

Cool. Crisis resolved. High fives everyone!!

 

[buckwacker]

I don’t think “prominent” meant what Kut meant by “upper echelons”. Douglass only reached the status he did in a state that did not allow slavery. The Slave states antebellum would have been happy to re-capture and enslave this prominent black man. But to the point. Douglass could not have been regarded as upper echelon in the same way whites were. Black people antebellum, were regarded even in the North as lesser beings than Whites.

Well no, he wasnt elected POTUS, but social status is a spectrum. I'll agree that generally black folks of the day were by default considered of lower social status by most whites, even in the north. But as I've pointed out, to many people, there were exceptions, Douglas being one of them.

 

[jamil]

Well no, he wasnt elected POTUS, but social status is a spectrum. I'll agree that generally black folks of the day were by default considered of lower social status by most whites, even in the north. But as I've pointed out, to many people, there were exceptions, Douglas being one of them.

Our point of contention is with respect to Kut’s point. Not what you regard as good ‘nuff. The butcher, as in one of your other points, was economically, academically lower in status compared to Douglass. But likely regarded himself has socially superior, because Douglas was black. Douglass did not rise to the standard of “upper echelons”. There weren’t any examples of that as there were in Rome, comparatively.

 

[Dulla]

How is that what you got out of it?

When someone posts an article presenting incorrect and misleading facts about slavery and ends it by saying slave owners weren't that mean that's how I interpret the statement.

That's also why I said correct me if I'm wrong in case I was misinterpreting it.

 

[jamil]

When someone posts an article presenting incorrect and misleading facts about slavery and ends it by saying slave owners weren't that mean that's how I interpret the statement.

That's also why I said correct me if I'm wrong in case I was misinterpreting it.

That post was a while ago, and many added since. Probably you might consider yourself corrected. Well. Maybe. I mean some people doubled down on some stuff that's kinda out there. So maybe not.

 

[ziggy]

A certain political party supported slavery. Let them pay the reparations and they can sort out which of them should pay and who should get the money. As for the rest of us, it should not be an issue that we have to contend with.

 

[Kutnupe14]

A certain political party supported slavery. Let them pay the reparations and they can sort out which of them should pay and who should get the money. As for the rest of us, it should not be an issue that we have to contend with.

Democrats AND Republicans supported slavery. So what, last person at the table gets stuck with the bill? Funny how today’s Republicans are so quick to blame yesterday’s Democrats for things, and still cherish that Democrat imagery and legacy.

 

[DadSmith]

They tried to pass off their original argument, as it being nationwide. They didn't clarify, until they had to walk it back because someone decided to call them out on it. Further, they used the best example they could find, New Orleans, Louisiana. Louisiana was place that was completely unique amongst slaveholding states, as slavery was governed under "Code Noir."
Under Code Noir, slaves could not be tortured, beat unless under certain conditions, mothers could not be separated from children, allowed marriage, prohibited separation of married slaves. Continuing, and also relevant, during French rule, Mulattos were considered a separate entity, away from being "Black or White," and held elevated status above slaves or even Black freemen. Upon Louisiana changing hand from French to American, "Mulattos," became "Black." So Mulattos, quadrooms, and even otcoroons (who could typically pass as white), where considered "Black," legally, but socially within the constraints of Code Noir they still kept an elevated status. That seems to be a glaring omission by the article.

That's BS it was you all that claimed it as all encompassing. You were the ones that started that by misunderstanding the article if you read it. That's why I put it up so all could read it and do their own math which the professor is still 100% correct about.

 

[Kutnupe14]

That's BS it was you all that claimed it as all encompassing. You were the ones that started that by misunderstanding the article if you read it.

Claim what as all encompassing? Louisiana Blacks, even Mulattoes still didn’t reach the heights I mentioned. So yeah, there’s that.

 

[KG1]

Is this still a thing. I thought a general consensus was reached here against reparations?

 

[JCSR]

Claim what as all encompassing? Louisiana Blacks, even Mulattoes still didn’t reach the heights I mentioned. So yeah, there’s that.