Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Forgotten History of White Slaves in America
#1
Okay, it's time for a history lesson. The BLM group thinks they are owed today because their great-great-great grandparents might have been slaves in America. But... they weren't the only ones. A lot of white Irish people were slaves also.

Hey, I have Irish in my blood.  If I demanded everything for free because of something that happened back in the early 1600's would the government appease me?  I think not!  (And I wouldn't EXPECT them to.)

[Image: IMG_1585-678x381.jpg]

Quote:Kirsters Baish| The Left is convinced that all African Americans are owed everything they could possibly want because of the fact that slavery once existed in America. There’s a big problem with these claims. White slaves existed as well.


America is going through what seems like a never-ending race war. The Left is livid with whites for ever having own slaves. The mainstream media outlets have been on a rampage to attack Conservatives, calling them a bunch of racists. They are preaching about killing White Supremacists. The problem with their argument is that blacks weren’t the only ones who were enslaved. White slaves existed as well! Why don’t Irish families whose ancestors were slaves receive compensation for their suffering?

It seems like the Left is always demanding that every race except for white people deserve a free ride? We have established that there is no superior race, but the Left is hellbent on dividing our country. When our country began, white slaves were just as relevant as black slaves, but we wouldn’t know that thanks to the way our mainstream media reports and race baits.
Political Mayhem wrote:

Hate groups like Black Lives Matter assert that all white people are inherently racist and that because of slavery, white people in America should feel responsible and be made to pay reparations to blacks. This way of thinking is completely back to how we progress as a society and does not take into consideration that when the Irish came to the United States, they were heavily discriminated against, Dating all the way back to the 1600’s, the Irish were subjected to slavery. White slavery.

Before the Irish became slaves, many of them were killed in wars or sent to work on plantations by Oliver Cromwell. From 1641 to 1652, 300,000 Irish people were sold into slavery. These slaves were sent to places like Virginia, New England, and the surrounding colonies. It was not until 1834 that the Irish were saved from slavery when the British government outlawed the practice in the colonies. Still, the Irish though free were subjected to racism. Leading all the way into the 1900’s, signs that read “Irish Need Not Apply” were commonplace. Discrimination against the Irish persisted during the 20th century despite the fact that many Irish immigrants fought against the British in the War of Independence between 1775-1783.

Dean James, from America’s Freedom Fighters wrote an interesting piece on the history of the Irish Slave trade. “The Irish slave trade began when James VI sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners to be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid-1600’s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.

Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.” Irish slaves were also treated much more harshly than their African counterparts, and African slaves were also more expensive to purchase. Slavery, regardless of who is subjected to it is an abhorrent and cruel practice. However, liberal agitators today seem to not know their history when they demand reparations and how ridiculous it sounds.




Source




Reply
#2
Well done, Mystic. The truth is that in history, all different types of folks
get used and the colour of one's pelt makes no difference to those doing
the ordering.

Like I keeps saying... this is a class-war, it's just that they haven't told us
it is yet.
But we'll get there.
minusculethumbsup
[Image: attachment.php?aid=953]
Reply
#3
I can see the difference in the two. When African people were kidnapped and brought in the bottom of filthy ships to America and subjected to generations trapped in slavery, it was a far cry from how some of the others were enslaved. For example there was the indentured servant, which was a form of slavery. I doubt these servants were treated as ugly as the people kidnapped from Africa though. Because of their skin color they were perceived as less than human, which is in and of itself a disgusting attitude to have, especially in this day and age when we are supposedly more civilized. Two of my ancestors were indentured servants for at least seven years, the usual term for that, and their story of how they came to America is one of my favorites that I've run across since I've been doing my genealogy.

In England (and most likely other places as well) some ship owners had a shanghai system. The owner or captain of a seafaring vessel would employ a teen he could trust, and have them go around town bragging to other teens about the ship he works on... it's a real fine ship... come on down to the dock on this certain night and I'll show it to you. They would go, and while they were being given a "tour," the captain would set sail taking however many hostages the teen managed to talk onto the ship. There was no way out once they set sail. A few months later they would arrive in America and start out as indentured servants.

Two of my ancestors, boyfriend and girlfriend, fell victim to this practice. They served their time as indentured servants, and then when he could finally afford to buy his freedom, she did not have enough money. He took on work and stayed around to help her buy her freedom, and they went off and got married. He ended up serving in the Revolutionary War (as did several more of my ancestors), and later on as a pension he received 300 acres of land in what was originally Virginia. When the Civil War rolled around that part of the state split off and formed a new state, West Virginia. The land my ancestors received as a war pension is now much of Wyoming County, WV.
Reply
#4
@Spirit Scribe 
That's really excellent information, have you ever looked into Black Slave Owners in the South and who were more than likely would not allow their Slaves to buy their freedom?
It's interesting History that is Not Taught in School or College's and the MSM would never allow this information to be Headline News.
[Image: n1z9lbyonrig8gjmj4km.png]
Nicolas Augustin Metoyer of Louisiana owned 13 slaves in 1830. He and his 12 family members collectively owned 215 slaves.
Quote:One of the most vexing questions in African-American history is whether free African Americans themselves owned slaves. The short answer to this question, as you might suspect, is yes, of course; some free black people in this country bought and sold other black people, and did so at least since 1654, continuing to do so right through the Civil War. For me, the really fascinating questions about black slave-owning are how many black "masters" were involved, how many slaves did they own and why did they own slaves?

The answers to these questions are complex, and historians have been arguing for some time over whether free blacks purchased family members as slaves in order to protect them — motivated, on the one hand, by benevolence and philanthropy, as historian Carter G. Woodson put it, or whether, on the other hand, they purchased other black people "as an act of exploitation," primarily to exploit their free labor for profit, just as white slave owners did. 


They owned Slaves and Indenture Servants in the Free Colonies to.


Quote:The great African-American historian, John Hope Franklin, states this clearly: "The majority of Negro owners of slaves had some personal interest in their property." But, he admits, "There were instances, however, in which free Negroes had a real economic interest in the institution of slavery and held slaves in order to improve their economic status."  


In a fascinating essay reviewing this controversy, R. Halliburton shows that free black people have owned slaves "in each of the thirteen original states and later in every state that countenanced slavery," at least since Anthony Johnson and his wife Mary went to court in Virginia in 1654 to obtain the services of their indentured servant, a black man, John Castor, for life.

And for a time, free black people could even "own" the services of white indentured servants in Virginia as well. Free blacks owned slaves in Boston by 1724 and in Connecticut by 1783; by 1790, 48 black people in Maryland owned 143 slaves. One particularly notorious black Maryland farmer named Nat Butler "regularly purchased and sold Negroes for the Southern trade," Halliburton wrote.
There is more to this article here: Source
Also, Slave (mostly from White Owners) could buy their freedom.
Here is an example:

Quote:William Ellison Jr., born April Ellison, (c. April 1790 – December 5, 1861) was a cotton gin maker and blacksmith in South Carolina, a free negro and former slave who achieved considerable success in business before the American Civil War.
He eventually became a major planter and one of the medium property owners, and the wealthiest black property owner in the state.

He held 40 slaves at his death and more than 1,000 acres (400 ha) of land. From 1830-1865 he and his sons were the only free blacks in Sumter County, South Carolina to own slaves. The county was largely devoted to cotton plantations and the majority population were slaves.

Ellison and his sons were among a number of successful free people of color in the antebellum years, but Ellison was particularly outstanding.

His master (and likely father) had passed on social capital by apprenticing him to learn a valuable artisan trade as a cotton gin maker, at which Ellison made a success. He took a wife at the age of 21.

After buying his own freedom when he was 26, a few years later Ellison purchased his wife and their children, to protect them from sales as slaves.
The Act of 1820 made it more difficult for slaveholders to make personal manumissions, but Ellison gained freedom for his sons, and a quasi-freedom for his surviving daughter.

During the American Civil War, Ellison and his sons supported the Confederate States of America and gave the government substantial donations and aid.
A grandson fought informally with the regular Confederate Army and survived the war.
Source
Now who's going to tell Maxine Watters a Former Slave, was a Slave owner and Supported the South in the Civil War and had a Grandson who Fought For The Confederates.
[Image: unnamed.gif]
Once A Rogue, Always A Rogue!
[Image: attachment.php?aid=936]
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)