Were freed slaves allowed to own slaves themselves? Cause that will be some messed up sh#t.
126175
For those who said no, do you know that for sure?  I found this quote in an article:\n\nHow many Americans are aware that in New Orleans over 3,000 freed slaves owned slaves? The fact is large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves. \n\nI think the topic needs more research.\n\nHere's another article:\n\nhttp://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a899fdb32fd.htm\n\nIn a society molded by highly skewed and agenda-selective presentations of history, the tightest censorship involves the fact that large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large. In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the U.S. census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states.\nThe census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves (1). Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves).\n\nIn the rare instances when the ownership of slaves by free Negroes is acknowledged in the history books, justification centers on the claim that black slave masters were simply individuals who purchased the freedom of a spouse or child from a white slaveholder and had been unable to legally manumit them. Although this did indeed happen at times, it is a misrepresentation of the majority of instances, one which is debunked by records of the period on blacks who owned slaves. These include individuals such as Justus Angel and Mistress L. Horry, of Colleton District, South Carolina, who each owned 84 slaves in 1830. In fact, in 1830 a fourth of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves; eight owning 30 or more (2).\n\nAccording 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.\n\nTo 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.\n\nThe majority of slaveholders, white and black, owned only one to five slaves. More often than not, and contrary to a century and a half of bullwhips-on-tortured-backs propaganda, black and white masters worked and ate alongside their charges; be it in house, field or workshop. The few individuals who owned 50 or more slaves were confined to the top one percent, and have been defined as slave magnates.\n\nIn 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000 (3). That year, the mean wealth of southern white men was $3,978 (4).\n\nIn Charleston, South Carolina in 1860 125 free Negroes owned slaves; six of them owning 10 or more. Of the $1.5 million in taxable property owned by free Negroes in Charleston, more than $300,000 represented slave holdings (5). In North Carolina 69 free Negroes were slave owners (6).\n\nIn 1860 William Ellison was South Carolina's largest Negro slaveowner. In Black Masters. A Free Family of Color in the Old South, authors Michael P. Johnson
348691
I can tell you that my mother, whose family used to own slaves, believed that the Bible supported slavery.  There was an interpretation that Blacks were descended from the sons of Noah who laughed at their father's nakedness when he fell asleep drunk in the vineyard.\n\nCalvinism held that God ordained that some were meant to rule, and some to serve.  Some would be chosen to enter the Kingdom of God, and some would be shut out, sent to Hell.  Catholics believed some souls which didn't have so much sin accumulated, could serve some "hard time" in purgatory, expiating and doing penance for the sins, until such time as God felt they were ready to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.  This was, I think most people believed, on Judgement Day.\n\nThen, you must recall that churches were supported with the monies (contributions) of plantation owners, business owners, and anyone else who owned or benefited from slavery.\n\nAs a Christian, I believe slavery is wrong, period.  But we live, at least here in the United States, Canada, and other parts of the English speaking free world, in more enlightened times. Or do we?  Human Rights Watch reports there are more slaves in the world now than there were the last year of legal slavery in the US, when Abraham Lincoln declared the signing of the Emancipation Act (1863).
79558
because he liked someone to work foe him!!! and that's what slaves did. after he had all this power he became up tight and spoiled. "why should i free them when they make me happy and do stuff for me?" that's what he thought. selfish man.
341968
Why would you ever believe that a slave owner's profits disappeared into thin air? Its now many major corporations were started in this country.
579118
A God that may give permisson to 'slavery' can approve practically anything else. Nailing and sodomizing included.\nThe question is: Would you follow such a God?
615757
Umm, how about a Black History book?  Try "From Slavery to Freedom" by John Hope Franklin.  Another great historian who covered the topic is John Henrik Clarke.\n\nVery quickly, there was not very much disparity in the way non-free persons were treated.  I don't know why you think there was.  The european slave trade was the most brutal form of slavery the world has ever seen.  And it didn't matter whether it was the Spanish, British, French, etc.  The U.S. Constitution which is a FEDERAL document stated that slaves were 3/5ths human.  Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court (fed law) stated that the Black man/woman had NO rights that whites were bound to respect.\n\nAgain do your own reading and get your own understanding.
117790
If the government was going to pay descendants of former slaves, this would lead to a series of problems.\n\n1. How does the government tell who was a descendant of a former slave and who immigrated after the Civil War?\n\n2. If we are going to pay descendents of slave reparations, what about all the families (like mine) who sacrificed everything running underground railroads? These, mostly white, families often lost EVERYTHING, including their lives, when the bounty-hunters and pro-slavery forces found out who ran a station.\n\n3. What about every other indentured servant or forced laborer and their descendants?\n\n4. Who will pay for this? What about descendants of people who never owned slaves or fought against those who did?  Why should they pay?  What about those who came to America after the Civil War?  Also, since the money from the government comes from taxes, how do we know "who" exactly paid?  How do we know the descendant of a slave is just not paying more taxes to pay themselves?\n\n5. How much is the per capita reparation?  What should each person get?  Will we need, yet another, expensive bureaucracy to manage it?\n\n6. Is this a one time payment or an installment?  If so, then for how long?  Does this reparation mean other assistance programs are discontinued?  If so, which ones? Does this payment continue from generation to generation or just the current generation?  If not, why not?  If so, why?\n\n7. Should we not then demand that EVERY nation which ever held slaves or participated in their trade be forced to pay reparations?  Would it matter if they were not the same country, or a country at all, when it happened?  What about Italy who, when they were the Romans had slaves fight to the death?  What about the Greeks, or the Egyptians, or the Philistines (Palestinians), or the Syrians, or the Chinese, or pick a country? What about the Dutch who had a large role in the slave trade?  Do they not owe reparations as an accomplice in the African slavery issue?  What about the tribes in Africa who helped the Dutch get slaves?  What about those that still own slaves in Africa (Sudan is the center of modern slave trading)?\n\nThese are just a few of the questions this issue raises.
549403
It depended in what region of the US they were enslaved in (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_United_States for more information).\n\nI hope this helps you!!!
107575
was it states rights...that is one in the books..thats not it i think it had alot to do with a power struggle.The north wanting to keep the south in its proper place. Which wud be wrong...i admit i missed something on the subject,i can find out.The north had a little known desire to not let the south persue an industial base, which was growing a  bit before the war broke out.Cotten was king n they knew it,with a strong industry the south could,and would i belief become dominant in the power sruggle.
127253
yse, it is. get reay for reality. drafted into slavery to die for 'freedom'. is the bile of irony workin its way up your throat yet? has any of this dawned on you yet? \ni'll have the link of right now's show for you here tmorow.\nheres the link to now but the shows almost over.\nhttp://www.kaos959.com/128.m3u\nhttp://scotthortonshow.com/\nmoney,\nhttp://www.philipdru.com/griffin_stream.html
189154
As I would not be a slave, I would not be a master.\n\n            A. Lincoln: Famous emancipator\n\n       Even then, some people got it.
205234
Their minds were focused on one goal:  freedom.\n\nWhen you set your mind on something, you achieve it.\n\nUnfortunately the owners took slaves for granted.  As a result, they were not prepared for traps.
406222
Is that the only people you hang out with? You told me to stop dwelling on slavery (which im not) it was a question for people in the myth/folklore topic..I didnt know u specialized in that.
81555
I hope you aren't saying that all whites are descendants of slave owners and all blacks are descendants of slaves.  \n\nI also hope you aren't suggesting that the way to remedy a wrong not committed against a person is to have someone who didn't commit the wrong give the person who wasn't wronged money or land.
606989
Good job! Evidently, you've done your homework! \n\nMany aren't aware that the American Civil War was "NOT" about slavery. Nor are many aware that slaves were still being held as private property in the North during that time. Abraham Lincoln owned a slave during the war, and Union General U.S. Grant owned 4. \n\nThe war was, from the Southern standpoint, over States Rights, i.e., a state had authority over the federal government within it's own borders. And also, to defend against an illegal military invasion from the North. \n\nBut it's always the victors in war that write the history, isn't it?
474420
“Who Freed the Slaves?,” thought-provoking article written by James M. McPherson, asks who or what was responsible for freeing slaves in the United States. Was it Lincoln as most people presume or the slaves themselves?  McPherson explores many theories in this article, including ____________ , _____ and ________. For each theory he observes, probes and calls into question their stability from all points of view.\n\nI would summarize his theories in the blanks above, the way you had it listed before didn't make any sense.\n\nWhat was the assignment, just to summarize what the article discussed? Was there a conclusion in the article? If so, you should discuss the conclusion.
645242
Don't think it's gonna happen, at least not in the US in the near future. Most people at heart are still  racists, tough they may deny it. Unfortunate, but many of em wouldn't want the off-spring of slaves to rule over their good ole white country.\n\nst