The Term "African American" was it a Mistake?
With the awaking of "SOME" Blacks who were still in a racism induced stupor during the world-wide independence movements, and the "Civil Rights" movement in the United States. A new racial term was needed to UNITE the formally disparate Blacks in the United States. Logically, the things that could Unite all Black Americans was the facts that they were all now Americans, and that at one time, irrespective of recent nationality, like all humans, they all originated in Africa. So the term "African American" was used: casually at first, then as a standard term. Because there was no knowledge of ancient Black history among the people who created the term, there was no thought as to what confusions and misconceptions would me caused by the term "African American".
Where did most Black Americans come from?
All serious scientists agree that the TOTAL number of African slaves imported into the United States was approximately 500,000.
Doubling time: (Wiki) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubling_time
For example, given Canada's net population growth of 0.9% in the year 2006, dividing 70 by 0.9 gives an approximate doubling time of 78 years. Thus if the growth rate remains constant, Canada's population would double from its 2006 figure of 33 million to 66 million by 2084.
In 1808 the importation of Slaves from Africa was outlawed. At that time there were about 1,377,808 Blacks (1810 numbers, actual number was a little less) in the United States. Using the Canadian doubling time of 78 years, by 1886 the BEST the Black population of the United States COULD have been was: 2,755,616. So that by the time of the 1900 census, the MOST the Black population of the United States could have been would be about 2,810,000.
THE ACTUAL BLACK POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES IN 1900 WAS 8,840,789
Question: WHERE DID THE OTHER 6,030,789 BLACK AMERICANS, NOT FROM AFRICA, COME FROM?
That question is answered below.
Albinos and unscrupulous Negroes have done many studies which seek to tie Black Americans to Africa. The Albinos do it to further their Bogus "Fantasy History": the Negroes do it to make money on many Black Americans yearnings to know their history. One of the most famous Albino studies is Sarah A. Tishkoff's "The genetic structure and history of Africans and African Americans". We will now do an analysis of her study.
The (4) African American populations that she took her samples from were the following U.S. cities: (Chicago, population 2,874,312), (Pittsburgh, population 307,484), (Baltimore, population 621,342), (North Carolina, which is a state with many cities and a population of 9,752,073). Those cities are in "NO WAY UNIQUELY" representative of Black Americans!
Already it must be apparent that Tishkoff's study is a cruel joke on Black people; but it gets worst!
She uses a total of 98 people to represent the over 44 million Blacks in the United States! The breakdown of the 98 people is as follows: 15 people from Chicago, 21 from Pittsburgh, 44 from Baltimore, 18 from North Carolina. Anyone thinking: "Those ridiculously few people were at least scientifically chosen" NO!
It still gets worst:
Tishkoff states that: "The ancestry of African Americans is predominantly from Niger-Kordofanian (approximately 71%)."
What she means is NOT the Niger-Kordofanian people - there is no such thing. What she means is the Niger-Kordofanian "LANGUAGE GROUP". Another name for the "Niger-Kordofanian" language group, is the Niger–Congo language group. The problem is that most people in Africa speak the Niger–Congo languages - so no uniqueness there.
But the true stupidity of Tishkoff's study does not become apparent until you ask the question; What does DNA have to do with what language you speak? The people reading this are English speakers, so lets use English as the example. English is a Indo-European language:
The American news program "60 Minutes" did an expose: "DNA HOAX - African Americans Aren't African"
Click here for the "60 minutes Video" DNA HOAX - African Americans Aren't African!
England made its first successful efforts at colonization at the start of the 17th century for several reasons. During this era, English proto-nationalism and national assertiveness blossomed under the threat of Spanish invasion, assisted by a degree of Protestant militarism and the energy of Queen Elizabeth. At this time, however, there was no official attempt by the English government to create a colonial empire. Rather, the motivation behind the founding of colonies was piecemeal and variable. Practical considerations, such as commercial enterprise, overpopulation and the desire for freedom of religion, played their parts.
In June of 1606, King James I granted a charter to a group of London entrepreneurs, the Virginia Company, to establish a satellite English settlement in the Chesapeake region of North America. By December, 104 settlers sailed from London instructed to settle Virginia, find gold, and seek a water route to the Orient. Some traditional scholars of early Jamestown history believe that those pioneers could not have been more ill-suited for the task. Because Captain John Smith identified about half of the group as "gentlemen".
On May 14, 1607, the Virginia Company explorers landed on Jamestown Island to establish the Virginia English colony on the banks of the James River, 60 miles from the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. While disease, famine, and continuing attacks of neighboring Algonquians took a tremendous toll on the population, there were times when the Powhatan Indian trade revived the colony with food in exchange for glass beads, copper, and iron implements. It appears that eventual structured leadership of Captain John Smith kept the colony from dissolving. The "Starving Time" winter followed Smith's departure in 1609 during which only 60 of the original 214 settlers at Jamestown survived. That June, the survivors decided to bury cannon and armor and abandon the town. It was only the arrival of the new governor, Lord De La Ware, and his supply ships that brought the colonists back to the fort and the colony back on its feet.
Although the suffering did not totally end at Jamestown for decades, some years of peace and prosperity followed the wedding of Pocahontas, the favored daughter of the Algonquian chief Powhatan, to tobacco entrepreneur John Rolfe. The first representative assembly in the New World convened in the Jamestown church on July 30, 1619. The General Assembly met in response to orders from the Virginia Company "to establish one equal and uniform government over all Virginia" which would provide "just laws for the happy guiding and governing of the people there inhabiting."
Also in August of 1619, the first Supposedly "documented Africans Slaves" were brought to Jamestown. There are many differing stories about this "supposed" event: From PBS: "It is late summer: Out of a violent storm appears a Dutch ship. The ship's cargo hold is empty except for twenty or so Africans whom the captain and his crew have recently robbed from a Spanish ship. The captain exchanges the Africans for food, then sets sail."
When digesting Albino presented history, we must all use critical analysis: Question, what would colonist, who could barely feed themselves, want with 20 Slaves in August, when all that is left to do is the harvest? Slaves that they would have to feed over the Winter, with little work done in return. If they put them in the fields, how would they keep them from running away? Crops take months to grow, if they could hardly feed themselves, how would they feed 20 more mouths in the meantime - pure Albino nonsense. Better yet, recently uncovered census shows that Blacks were present in Virginia before 1619 (Digital History consortium ID 3576: Quote - Black slavery took root in the American colonies slowly. Historians now know that small numbers of Africans lived in Virginia before 1619). Which of course means that Blacks were part of the original expedition.
These first foreign born Blacks in Virginia (as opposed to Native American Blacks) were probably the Black Scotsman who were defeated by Oliver Cromwell in his invasions of Scotland in the 1600s. This is detailed in the book: " White People, Indians, and Highlanders: Tribal Peoples and Colonial Encounters in Scotland and America by Colin G. Calloway". Quote: When Oliver Cromwell defeated the Scots at Worcester, Cromwell transported hundreds of Scots prisoners as indentured servants to Virginia and the West Indies" Page 26.
The fact that these Scotsman were Black men, is confirmed by many publications of those times: and as detailed by quotes from them on page (3) of this section "Black Britain". Click here for link to first hand quotes about Black Scots
Comment: It is from these sources that we can envision what really happened in Europe:
The Albino People ended Black Rule by Exterminating Black People and Expelling the Survivors into Slavery. They then took their lands and their History and called it their own.
Click here for links to pages on this issue
New Netherland, chartered in 1614, was a colonial province of the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands in what became New York State and parts of Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware. The peak population was less than 10,000. The Dutch established a patroon system with feudal-like rights given to a few powerful landholders; they also established religious tolerance and free trade. The colony's capital, New Amsterdam, founded in 1625 and located at the southern tip of the island of Manhattan, would grow to become a major world city. The city was captured by the English in 1664; they took complete control of the colony in 1674 and renamed it New York. However the Dutch landholdings remained, and the Hudson River Valley maintained a traditional Dutch character until the 1820s.
Plymouth Colony was an English colonial venture in North America from 1620 to 1691. The first settlement of the Plymouth Colony was at New Plymouth, a location previously surveyed and named by Captain John Smith. The settlement, which served as the capital of the colony, is today the modern town of Plymouth, Massachusetts.
The Puritans, a much larger group than the Pilgrims, established the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1629 with 400 settlers. They sought to reform the Church of England by creating a new, pure church in the New World. By 1640, 20,000 had arrived; many died soon after arrival, but the others found a healthy climate and an ample food supply. The Massachusetts settlement spawned other Puritan colonies in New England, including the New Haven, Saybrook, and Connecticut colonies. During the 17th century the New Haven and Saybrook colonies were absorbed by Connecticut.
The Province of New Hampshire is a name first given in 1629 to the territory between the Merrimack and Piscataqua rivers on the eastern coast of North America. It was formally organized as an English royal colony on October 7, 1691, during the period of English colonization. The charter was enacted May 14, 1692, by William and Mary, the joint monarchs of England and Scotland, at the same time that the Province of Massachusetts Bay was created.
Providence Plantation was an American colony of English settlers founded in 1636 by Roger Williams, a theologian, independent preacher, and linguist on land gifted by the Narragansett sachem, Canonicus. Williams, fleeing from religious persecution in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, agreed with his fellow settlers on an egalitarian constitution providing for majority rule "in civil things" and liberty of conscience. He named the colony Providence Plantation, believing that God had brought him and his followers there. "Plantation" was used in the 17th century as a synonym for "settlement" or "colony.
New Sweden was a Swedish colony along the Delaware River Valley from 1638 to 1655. The few hundred settlers huddled around Fort Christina. It was captured by the Dutch in 1655 and merged into New Netherland, and most traces of Swedish culture faded away.
Under King James II of England, the New England colonies (as well as New York and the Jerseys) were briefly united as the Dominion of New England (1686–89). The administration eventually led by Governor Sir Edmund Andros seized colonial charters, revoked land titles, and ruled without local assemblies, causing anger among the population. The 1689 Boston revolt, inspired by England's Glorious Revolution against James II, caused Andros, Boston Anglicans, and senior dominion officials to be arrested by the Massachusetts militia. Andros was jailed for several months, then returned to England. The Dominion of New England was dissolved and governments resumed under their earlier charters. However, the Massachusetts charter had been revoked in 1684, and a new one was issued in 1691 that combined Massachusetts and Plymouth into the Province of Massachusetts Bay. Although King William sought at least to unite the New England colonies militarily (for example, by appointing the Earl of Bellomont to three simultaneous governorships, and military command over Connecticut and Rhode Island), these attempts at unified control failed.
French Louisiana, first settled at Mobile in 1702, started its growth when 7,000 French immigrants arrived in New Orleans in 1718. The areas around New Orleans and west of the Mississippi were given to Spain in 1760. Louisiana was taken back by France in 1800, and sold to the United States in 1803 in the Louisiana Purchase.
The Thirteen Colonies were English, Dutch, Swedish, and later British colonies established on the Atlantic coast of North America between 1607 and 1733. The colonies were: Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, Massachusetts Bay, Maryland, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. Each colony developed its own system of self government. The white Americans were mostly independent farmers, who owned their own land and voted for their local and provincial government.
Initially, English colonists relied on indentured white servants rather than on black slaves. Over half of all white immigrants to the English colonies during the 1600's consisted of convicts or indentured servants. After 1700 most immigrants to Colonial America arrived as indentured servants—young unmarried men and women seeking a new life in a much richer environment. In addition the British shipped 50,000 convicts to its American colonies.
Virginians experimented with a variety of labor sources, including Indian slaves, penal slaves, and white indentured servants. Convinced that England was overpopulated with vagabonds and paupers, the colonists imported surplus Englishmen to raise tobacco and to produce dyestuffs, potash, furs, and other goods that England had imported from other countries. Typically, young men or women in their late teens or twenties would sign a contract of indenture. In exchange for transportation to the New World, a servant would work for several years (usually four to seven) without wages.
The status of indentured servants in early Virginia and Maryland was not wholly dissimilar from slavery. Servants could be bought, sold, or leased. They could also be physically beaten for disobedience or running away. Unlike slaves, however, they were freed after their term of service expired, their children did not inherit their status, and they received a small cash payment of "freedom dues."
The English writer Daniel Defoe (1661?-1731) set part of his novel Moll Flanders (1683) in early Virginia. Defoe described the people who settled in Virginia in distinctly unflattering terms: There were convicts, who had been found guilty of felonies punishable by death, and there were those "brought over by masters of ships to be sold as servants. Such as we call them, my dear, but they are more properly called slaves."
George Alsop, an indentured servant in Maryland, echoed these sentiments in 1666. Servants "by hundreds of thousands" spent their lives "here and in Virginia, and elsewhere in planting that vile tobacco, which all vanishes into smoke, and is for the most part miserably abused." And, he went on, this "insatiable avarice must be fed and sustained by the bloody sweat of these poor slaves."
As is typical with Albino history, the honest and logical is often replaced by some concocted story. During their fight to conquer the Americas, European Albinos found it necessary to exterminate the indigenous Black population. Thus the need to import Black workers became automatic, the reason for that is quite simple: though Albinos freely admit that White indentured servants often died long before their time of indenture was completed, they always attribute this to overwork and poor nutrition. But that was not so in the southern states, there the problem was much more basic - the Sun! The average Albino European simply could not safely work the fields in the Southern United States - and still cannot. Today it is accomplished with imported "Colored" seasonal labor and covered vehicles. The average uncovered European Albino would last only about 20 minutes in the fields of the Southern United States. At the time of secession, the State of Mississippi unabashedly explained that the Albinos sensitivity to the Sun was their main reason for secession.
Thus the "REAL" reason for the American Civil War was that Southern elites HAD to fight for Slavery - or go broke. The Southerners unwillingness to allow Blacks full franchise on the land led to deterioration, and today, the former Confederate states are the "Poorest" states in the United States.
From Wiki article:
The soldiers had their own reasons for fighting. First and foremost, they sought to protect hearth and home from Yankee threats. White supremacy and masculinity depended on slavery, which Lincoln's Republicans threatened. Plain-folk concepts of masculinity explain why so many men enlisted: they wanted to be worthy of the privileges of men, including the affections of female patriots.
The White mans stated reason for Slavery
(As enunciated by the State of Mississippi)
Throughout the pages of Realhistoryww, we harp on the fact that the only reason for Black Slavery was the White/Albino Mans inability to stay out in the Sun long enough to do normal farming. This meant that without help, White people/Albinos could not feed themselves. Thus without Blacks/pigmented people to do outside work for them, Whites/Albinos would starve or die in the fields.
When we deduced that reality from an analysis of the evidence, we thought that we had achieved a great breakthrough in understanding not just American history, but also World History.
Silly us, once again we had failed to take into account the abject worthlessness of the Negro: as opposed to the Black and even the "Colored" Man. For you see dear reader, unknown to the everyday Black person, and even the average White/Albino person, the Albinos reason for Black Slavery has been known all along. One hundred and sixty years ago, the Southern Albinos themselves, told us in surprising honesty their reasons for enslaving Blacks.
Later Albinos didn't repeat it for obvious reasons, and the Negroes, especially those associated with Negro Institutions (Like Negro Colleges), didn't broadcast it, also for obvious reasons - Albino contributions to their Institutions. The result of this withholding of the "Truth" of why Blacks were enslaved, led to some Blacks “Internalizing” their treatment, a psychological torture of sorts: with many of them wondering why they were so low in human kind, that God had abandoned them to a life of subjugation, oppression and misery. All the while, not knowing that it was NOT their lacking, but rather, the severe lacking’s of their Enslavers and Oppressors, which precipitated their predicament.
Though in fairness, we must allow that it had to be difficult for the Albinos too: each time they saw a Black face, they were reminded of their affliction, and the fact that without the help of Blacks, albeit forced and inhuman, all Albinos below the 40th parallel would die of starvation, because they could not go out in the Sun and Farm.
But that being no excuse, just an understanding: because for some Blacks, being unable to understand that the discrimination leveled against them, was not about them, but really about the incurable pigment disease of their tormentors: and having been miserably failed by the Negro inteligencia, (term used sarcastically): sometimes the “Weak-Minded” did this to themselves.
The Protestant Albinos used two particular passages in their newly created Bible to justify their atrocities. Genesis 9, 18–27: (The curse of Ham), and the other favorite came from the Apostle Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, VI, 5-7: Quote - “Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; with good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.” (Paul repeated himself, almost word for word, in the third chapter of his Epistle to the Colossians.)
The Albino Catholic Atrocities:
TENANT FARMING AND SHARECROPPING (Wiki article)
When the Civil War ended, European albinos still couldn't safely work the fields, so the big question concerned the state of the freed slaves of the South. Recovery of the southern economy depended on getting Blacks back into the fields. During the period of Reconstruction some Republicans in Congress tried to convert the freedmen into small free-holding farmers,
but the former slaves were simply not ready to manage their own farms (Albino Propaganda). What emerged out of necessity was southern farm tenancy, a system of near slavery without legal sanctions.
Instead of working in gangs as they had on antebellum plantations, the freedmen became tenants. The planter or landowner assigned each family a small tract of land to farm and provided food, shelter, clothing, and the necessary seeds and farm equipment. When the crop was harvested, the planter or landowner took the cotton to market and after deducting for the "furnish" (the cost of the items the tenant had been furnished during the year), gave half of the proceeds to the tenant. This arrangement became known as sharecropping.
However, for some European Albinos there was no choice but to work the fields; these people were known as "Rednecks". The term characterized farmers having a red neck caused by sunburn from hours working in the fields. A citation from 1893 provides a definition as "poorer inhabitants of the rural districts...men who work in the field, as a matter of course, generally have their skin stained red and burnt by the sun, and especially is this true of the back of their necks".
In the decades after Reconstruction tenancy and sharecropping became the way of life in the Cotton Belt. By 1930 there were 1,831,470 tenant farmers in the South. What began as a device to get former slaves back to work became a pernicious system that entrapped white as well as black farmers. After 1900 the number of white tenant farmers grew alarmingly. By 1935 nearly half of white farmers and 77 percent of black farmers in the country were landless.
As farm tenancy grew, a tenancy ladder evolved. From the bottom rung, the hapless sharecropper could climb to share tenant if he could accumulate enough of his own equipment and money. Share tenants kept two-thirds or three-fourths of the crop, depending on how much they could furnish. If a share tenant progressed to a point of needing nothing but the land, he could become a cash tenant by paying a fixed rental. Cash tenants kept all of the proceeds from the crop.
As an example of the damage the Sun can do to a White person in the Southern United States:
Tuesday, July 28, 2015 05:51PM
Shaunna Broadway dropped off her sons Conner and Trey, ages 7 and 5, at the Happiness Is a Learning Center in Vinita, Oklahoma, last Friday morning for a planned trip to a local water park. When Shaunna arrived to pick them up at the end of the day, she found the boys were badly sunburned. As it turns out, her two sons suffered second and third degree Burns from playing in the Sun without shirts or Sunscreen, and eventually required hospitalization. The boys were transferred to Hillcrest's burn center in Tulsa, before being flown to Shriners Hospital for Children in Galveston, Texas.
Link to News Story: Caution, graphic photographs.
As we continue along this page, the case will be made statistically that the majority of Black Americans (U.S.) are actually Black Europeans, NOT Africans. This is a truth that the Albino power structure in Europe and the United States has tried very hard to hide, as it opens the door to the question: what happened to them, and thus the atrocities suffered by Blacks as a result of the race Wars of the 1600s - 1700s in Europe: wars that the Albinos want desperately to continue to hide as religious and political wars - think race relations are bad now?
The average Albino is as oblivious to true history as most Blacks, thus many scientific genetic studies have accidentally uncovered the fact that Blacks in the United States are mostly of European extraction. But the Albinos innocently cover them up by saying that the overlap in statistics means that Black Americans must be of mixed race, apparently because that is all they can imagine to explain the confusing data. There are many of these studies, and they all have one thing in common, when overlap is found between Blacks and Albinos in the U.S, the Albinos always attribute it to admixture during slavery or after emancipation. The problem for them is that admixture between Blacks and Albinos in the U.S. during slavery was very low (Yes, masters did use female slaves at will, but slaves were plentiful, not masters, and the masters had wives). For the purpose of procreation, Black females were mated with Black males.
Quite to the contrary of what many Albino historians say, procreation between Whites and others was often illegal.
Women servants who produced children by their masters could be punished by having to do two years of servitude with the churchwardens after the expiration of the term with their masters. The 1661 Virginia law reads: “that each woman servant got with child by her master shall after her time by indenture or custom is expired be by the churchwardens of the parish where she lived when she was brought to bed of such bastard, sold for two years.”
Virginia Act XII
Whereas some doubts have arisen whether children got by any Englishman upon a Negro woman should be slave or free, Be it therefore enacted and declared by this present grand assembly, that all children borne in this country shall be held bond or free only according to the condition of the mother, And that if any christian shall commit fornication with a Negro man or woman, he or she so offending shall pay double the fines imposed by the former act. 38
Most slave colonies or states enacted similar laws. There are a number of court cases concerning slave women who either killed their masters who forced them to have sexual relations or killed the children rather than have the children enslaved.
Miscegenation laws, forbidding marriage between races, were prevalent in the South and the West. This is evinced by a court decision from 1630, the first court decision in which a Negro woman and a white man figured prominently. Re Davis (1630) concerned sexual relations between them, the decision stating, “Hugh Davis to be soundly whipped . . . for abusing himself to the dishonor of God and shame of Christianity by defiling his body in lying with a Negro, which fault he is to acknowledge. next sabbath day.”40
Virginia passed its first miscegenation law in 1691:
And for prevention of that abominable mixture and spurious issue which hereafter may increase in this dominion, as well by negroes, mulattoes, and Indians intermarrying with English, or other white women, as by their unlawful accompanying with one another, Be it enacted by the authorities aforesaid, and it is hereby enacted, that for the time to come, whatsoever English or other white man or woman being free shall intermarry with a Negro, mulatto, or Indian man or woman bond or free shall within three months after such marriage be banished and removed from this dominion forever.
Another section of the law closed the loophole created by the 1662 birthright law, which mandated that children born of a free white mother and Negro father were technically free. This amendment stated that a free white woman who had a bastard child by a Negro or mulatto man had to pay fifteen pounds sterling within one month of the birth. If she could not pay, she would become an indentured servant for five years. Whether or not the fine was paid, however, the child would be bound in service for thirty years.
(self-proclaimed: one of the United States' leading agencies for history and culture).
Many of these early slaves were American Indians, mostly Algonquian-speakers of coastal Virginia and North Carolina. By the 1680s, English settlers routinely kidnapped Native American women and children in the coastal plains of North Carolina and Virginia. This Native American slave trade involved a number of colonies, including Virginia, Carolina, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Jamaica, Barbados, St. Kitts, and Nevis. So many Indian slaves were traded to Pennsylvania that a law was passed in 1705 forbidding the importation of Carolina Indian slaves. This was done in part because many of the slaves were Tuscarora who were aligned militarily with the Iroquois Confederacy, which threatened to intervene to stop the trade.
From 1680 to 1715, the English sold thousands of Indians into slavery, some as far away as the Caribbean. Indian slavery, however, had many problems, not the least of which were Indian attacks, and by 1720, most colonies in North America had abandoned it for African slavery. In 1670, Virginia passed a law defining slavery as a lifelong inheritable “racial” status. After the passage of this law many “black Indians” found themselves classified as black and forced into slavery.
In the fields and homes of colonial plantations, mutually enslaved African Americans and American Indians forged their first intimate relations. In spite of a later tendency in the Southern colonies to differentiate the African slave from the Indian, chattel slavery was built on a preexisting system of Indian slavery. Even though the arrival of Africans in 1619 began to change the face of slavery in North America from “tawny” Indian to “blackamoor” African, Indian slaves were exported throughout the Caribbean often in trade for Africans. As the 18th century dawned the slave trade in American Indians was so serious that it eclipsed the trade for furs and skins and had become the primary source of commerce between the English and the South Carolina colonials (Minges 2002:454).
During this transitional period, Africans and Americans Indians shared the common experience of enslavement. They worked together, lived together in communal quarters, produced collective recipes for food, shared herbal remedies, myths and legends and in the end they intermarried. Africans had a disproportionate numbers of males in their population while Native American women and children were disproportionately enslaved. American Indians males were shipped to the Caribbean, died in wars or of European diseases. As traditional societies in the Southeast were primarily matrilineal, African males who married American Indians women often became members of the wife’s clan and of her nation
The 1740 slave codes of South Carolina served to blur the distinction between African, American Indian and the children of their intermarriage, declaring: All negroes and Indians, (free Indians in amity with this government, and negroes, mulattoes, and mustezoses, who are now free, excepted) mullatoes and mustezoes who are now, or shall hereafter be in this province, and all their issue and offspring…shall be and they are hereby declared to be, and remain hereafter absolute slaves (Hurd 1862:303 as cited in Minges 2002:455)
Even in modern times, contrary to media depictions, Black and Albino admixture is still very low: From the page "Interracial marriage in the United States" in Wiki. While it is true that Interracial marriages are INCREASING! The rate of Black/Albino marriages is still very small.
Quote: In 2007, 4.6% of all married Blacks in the United States were wed to a White partner.
Today: 7% of married African American men have European American wives.
In the study below: the overlap between Black and Albino genes is so great that the authors cite an outrageous admixture rate of 30%: clearly indicating that they are lying. Somewhat to their credit, at the end, they allude to the impossibilities of their initial conclusions.
By: Peter M. Vallone, Ph.D. and John M. Butler, Ph.D.
Journal of Forensic Sciences, July 2004, Vol. 49, No. 4 Paper ID JFS2003303
Click here for link to the Study online
U.S. African American and Caucasian DNA Samples Anonymous liquid blood samples with self-identified ethnicities were purchased from Interstate Blood Bank, Inc. (Memphis, TN) and Millennium Biotech, Inc. (Ft. Lauderdale, FL) and extracted using a modified salting out procedure (19). Carll Ladd from the Connecticut Forensic Laboratory (Meriden, CT) kindly provided extracted DNA for 20 U.S. Caucasian and 20 African American samples used as part of this study. The extracted DNA was quantified using ultraviolet (UV) spectrophotometry followed by a PicoGreen assay (20) to adjust concentrations to approximately 1 ng/μL. All samples were examined with 15 autosomal short tandem repeats and the amelogenin sex-typing marker using the AmpFSTR Identifiler Kit to verify that each sample was unique (21). A total of 229 male samples were typed (115 African Americans and 114 Caucasians).
(Note that the samples were taken from former Slave States - Tennessee and Florida - where African slaves were more likely to be used).
The 50 markers examined here define 45 of the 153 YCC haplogroups described in a recent publication (22). Figure 1 illustrates the position of each Y-SNP on the YCC tree and highlights markers that are common between the two assay formats (boxed). Haplogroup Frequencies for African American and Caucasian Samples We examined 114 U.S. Caucasians and 115 African American samples across these 50Y-SNPs.Atotal of 18 different haplogroups were observed out of a possible 45 defined by these 50 Y-SNPs (Fig. 1). A majority of the African American samples (58%) fell in the E3a haplogroup as they were derived at M2 (sometimes designated DYS271 or sY81) (13). The derived allele was observed in a majority of the Caucasian samples for Y-SNP markers M207 and P25 and thus can be placed in the R haplogroup. A number of African Americans were also in haplogroup R(xR1a,R1b) and R1b, demonstrating that admixture may be present at a level of 30% as recently reported using Y-STR data (27). YCC haplogroups unique to African American samples in this dataset included A1, B, B2a, E1, E2, and E3a. Haplogroups unique to the Caucasian samples were E, E3, J2, K, N3, R1a1, and R1b6. Haplogroups shared between these two sample sets included E3b, G, I, R(xR1a,R1b), and R1b.
Y-SNPs Specific to a U.S. Sample Group
While there is a degree of admixture between U.S. African American and Caucasian samples that has been noted with Y-STR data (27), Y-SNPs have been proposed as genetic markers for inferring the population-of-origin for a crime scene stain should that ability be desired in the future (2). For our purposes a good candidate marker for inferring population-of-origin should be specific to a group and should exist in most, if not all, individuals associated with the group. However, our data suggest that currently available Y-SNPs will have little value for reliably inferring populations-of-origin from U.S. male DNA samples. For example, in our dataset the derived allele for M2 (defining haplogroup E3a) was exclusive to African Americans. However, only 58% of the African American males examined were derived at M2 with 23% of the total.
Samples falling into a common Caucasian haplogroup (R1b).
Other than M2, no other Y-SNP markers were uniquely observed to an extent of greater than 6% in either our Caucasian or African American
Link to the News Story
A study from Ancestry.com has determined that President Obama is related to John Punch, the first black African enslaved for life in America--which would make Punch the 11th great-grandfather of Obama. The connection is made through Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunhan. The website's records say she had ancestors who were white landowners in Colonial Virginia who descended from an African man, Punch.
According to the site's press release, Punch tried to escape indentured servitude in colonial Virginia in 1640 and was punished by becoming enslaved for life. The records show that Punch had children with a white woman, and her status as free was passed on to her offspring. Punch's descendents became successful landowners in the slave-owning state of Virginia.
A few things to be noted about the News Story:
1) Albinos are still lying as to where American Blacks came from. In 1640, there was no African Slave trade to the U.S. Thus "Punch" could not have been an African. Additionally, logically it would make no sense:
2) ONLY Europeans were indentured servants: Africans were bought and paid for, as Chattel Slaves. Because that was their condition when they were purchased by the Albino, from the African Slave trader, who had enslaved them for the purpose of selling them.
The passage to America was expensive, and many of the immigrants were too poor to pay for the journey. Therefore they indentured themselves to wealthier colonialists - selling their services for a period of years, in return for the price of the passage.
In 1819 the fare from Liverpool to New York averaged between two and three pounds. The exchange rate in 1800 was 1 pound = 5 dollars: thus the fare was $10-15.00. At the same time, an African male slave cost about $1,100.00 in New Orleans. Who in their right mind would pay that kind of money for an African: ONLY TO RELEASE HIM AFTER ONLY 2 to 8 years?
Bacon's Rebellion was an uprising in 1676 in the Virginia Colony in North America, led by a 29-year-old planter, Nathaniel Bacon.
In 1674 a group of yeomen farmers on the Virginia frontier demanded that American Indians living on treaty-protected lands be driven out or killed. There were frequent conflicts between the groups. In September 1675, a group of Doeg Indians allegedly stole hogs from planter Thomas Mathews, in retaliation for his failure to pay them for trade goods. Colonists killed several Indians in the raiding party. In retaliation, the Doeg killed Mathews's herdsman, Robert Hen. Two militia captains, both with a history of aggression toward the Indians, went after the Doeg, but indiscriminately killed 14 friendly Susquehannock in the process. A series of retaliatory raids ensued. John Washington took a party from Virginia into Maryland, and with Maryland militia surrounded a Susquehannock fort. Although the Susquehannock held out for six weeks, when five chiefs came out to parley, the colonists attacked and killed them.
Seeking to avoid escalation of war with the tribes, Governor Berkeley advocated a policy of containment of the Native Americans. He proposed building several defensive forts along the frontier. Frontier settlers thought the plan both expensive and inadequate. They regarded it as an excuse to raise tax rates. When Berkeley refused to go against the Native Americans, farmers gathered around at the report of a new raiding party. Nathaniel Bacon arrived with a quantity of brandy; after it was distributed, he was elected leader. Against Berkeley's orders, the group struck south until they came to the Occaneechi tribe. After getting the Occaneechi to attack the Susquehanock, Bacon and his men followed by killing most of the men, women, and children at the village. Upon their return, they discovered that Berkeley had called for new elections to the Burgesses in order to better facilitate the Indian problem.
The recomposed House of Burgesses enacted a number of sweeping reforms. (Bacon was not serving his duty in the House; rather, he was at his plantation miles away). It limited the powers of the governor and restored suffrage rights to landless freemen. After passage of these laws, Bacon arrived with 500 followers in Jamestown to demand a commission to lead militia against the Indians. The governor, however, refused to yield to the pressure. When Bacon had his men take aim at Berkeley, he responded by "bearing his breast" to Bacon and told Bacon to shoot him himself. Seeing that the Governor would not be moved, Bacon then had his men take aim at the assembled burgesses, who quickly granted Bacon his commission. (It is interesting to note that Bacon had been promised a commission before he retired to his estate if he could only be on "good" behavior for two weeks.) While Bacon was at Jamestown with his small army, eight colonists were killed on the frontier in Henrico County (where he marched from) due to a lack of manpower on the frontier.
On July 30, 1676, Bacon and his army issued the "Declaration of the People of Virginia." The declaration criticized Berkeley's administration in detail. It accused him of levying unfair taxes, appointing friends to high positions, and failing to protect frontier settlers from Indian attack. Beginning to move against the Indians, Bacon and his men attacked the innocent (and friendly) Pamunkey. The tribe had remained allies of the English throughout other Indian raids. They were supplying warriors to aid the English when Bacon took power.
After months of conflict, Bacon's forces, numbering 300-500 men, moved to Jamestown. They burned the colonial capital to the ground on September 19, 1676. Outnumbered, Berkeley retreated across the river. Before an English naval squadron could arrive to aid Berkeley and his forces, Bacon died from dysentery on October 26, 1676. Berkeley launched a series of successful amphibious attacks across the Chesapeake Bay and defeated the rebels. John Ingram took over leadership of the rebellion, but many followers drifted away, the Rebellion didn't last long after that. When British troops arrived in 1677 they confronted a puny rebel force: eighty Blacks and twenty servants.
Governor Berkeley returned to power. He seized the property of several rebels for the colony and executed 23 men by hanging, including the then-governor of Virginia, William Drummond. After an investigative committee returned its report to King Charles II, Berkeley was relieved of the governorship, and recalled to England.
The fear of civil war among whites frightened Virginia’s ruling elite, who took steps to consolidate power and improve their image. Restoration of property qualifications for voting, reducing taxes and adoption of a more aggressive Indian policy to name a few. Indentured servants both black and white joined the frontier rebellion. Seeing them united in a cause alarmed the ruling class. Historians believe the rebellion hastened the hardening of racial lines associated with slavery, as a way for planters and the colony to control some of the poor.
In 1705, the Virginia General Assembly made a declaration that would seal the fate of Black Americans for generations to come...
"All servants imported and brought into the Country...who were not Christians in their native Country...shall be accounted and be slaves. All Negro, mulatto and Indian slaves within this dominion...shall be held to be real estate. If any slave resist his master...correcting such slave, and shall happen to be killed in such correction...the master shall be free of all punishment...as if such accident never happened."
The code, which would also serve as a model for other colonies, went even further. The law imposed harsh physical punishments, since enslaved persons who did not own property could not be required to pay fines. It stated that slaves needed written permission to leave their plantation, that slaves found guilty of murder or rape would be hanged, that for robbing or any other major offence, the slave would receive sixty lashes and be placed in stocks, where his or her ears would be cut off, and that for minor offences, such as associating with whites, slaves would be whipped, branded, or maimed.
After Bacon's Rebellion the American colonists started to transition to African slaves as the preferred source of labor.
Jacobite risings were attempts after 1689 to reverse the expulsion of the senior branch of the Stuart family. Supporters of the exiled dynasty were known as Jacobites from the Latin form of the name James which is Jacobus. James VII and II fled from England in December 1688. He landed in Ireland in March 1689, with French troops, but left when defeated at the Boyne in 1690.
The first Jacobite rising was in Scotland in 1689 led by Viscount Dundee. Large clans and great magnates were inactive, apart from the Campbells, whose chief, Argyll, was restored by the events of 1688-9. Dundee died in victory at the battle of Killiecrankie in July 1689, and the Jacobite army was finally routed at the Haughs of Cromdale in May 1690.
Not until the passage of the Union of 1707 did outraged Scottish national sentiment make another rising thinkable. In March 1708 James Francis Edward Stuart, after his father's death in 1701 the Jacobite claimant, was off the coast of Fife with a French expedition, but the French fled north at the sight of Royal Navy ships.
Queen Anne's death in 1714 was followed by the smooth accession of the protestant Hanoverian dynasty. The Whig coup at the accession of George I drove many Tories to despair, some to rebellion. After failing to get a job from George I, the earl of Mar started a Scottish national rising. There was also a small English rising in Northumberland. The Scottish rising failed due to the action of Argyll, and Mar's incompetence. An attempt to raise the Lancashire catholics was foiled at Preston on the same day (14 November) that Mar failed to sweep Argyll aside at Sheriffmuir.
The next Jacobite rebellion was a fiasco cynically sponsored by a Spanish government which was quarrelling with the British over Mediterranean issues. The main invasion force was intended to strike at the west of England, but was scattered by storms. A purely diversionary force did invade the north-west Highlands, only to be crushed by General Wightman at Glenshiel in June 1719.
Prince Charles Edward Stuart landed in Scotland in July 1745 to raise his standard again. Although initially he only had seven supporters, within weeks the last feudal host to be raised in Europe had answered the call of its clan chieftains and he had an army of 1, 500 men to confront Hanoverian troops under Sir John Cope numbering about 4, 000. Cope marched north from Stirling to intercept the Jacobite forces but found them entrenched on the Corrieyairack pass in an impregnable position and diverted instead to Inverness. This allowed Charles to proceed to Edinburgh where he took the town but not the castle. Cope, meanwhile, sailed his forces from Inverness to the Firth of Forth and engaged the Jacobite army at Prestonpans on 21 September, where he was routed. On 3 November Charles led his troops, now some 5, 500 strong and including elements of Scots and Irish regiments in French service, south to Carlisle, thus avoiding Gen Wade who was stationed at Newcastle with superior forces including 6, 000 Dutch soldiers. Wade tried to intercept the Jacobites but got no further than Hexham, his route being blocked by snow. The Jacobite army proceeded south, reaching Derby by 4 December. There was then no army between them and London, Cumberland being at Lichfield, having been tricked by the prince's Lt Gen Lord George Murray into believing that the Jacobites were heading for Wales.
Though obviously crudely modified, the only known authentic portrait of Prince Charles.
Four thousand regulars who were in the capital were mobilized to protect the northern approach to the city at Finchley, but perhaps fortunately for them on 6 December the prince and his advisers decided to retreat to Scotland. Some at the time and since have maintained that if they had advanced they could have taken London. Others claim it was a sound decision, since few recruits had joined them in their march through England—they left more men to garrison Carlisle than they had been able to recruit subsequently. Also Cumberland was no more than a day's march away, while Wade was at Wetherby, threatening their retreat north. Whatever the second-guessing, it was the high water mark of the rebellion and the Jacobites were hotly chased by Cumberland, his advance guard encountering their rearguard in a skirmish at Penrith, the last battle to be fought on English soil. The bulk of the Jacobite army reached Scotland and even defeated Hanoverian troops at Falkirk in January, only to be decisively beaten at Culloden in April 1746.
Despite persistent attempts to portray the risings as Scots versus English, the truth is more complex. There were many Scots in Cumberland's army, and some of the worst excesses in the suppression of ‘the Forty-Five’ were perpetrated by Lowland Scots officers. There were some flickerings of Jacobitism in the Highlands after 1746, despite the government's ruthless repression, which included the deportation of thousands to the West Indies, and the banning of traditional Highland dress and tartan. London also abolished the hereditary, essentially feudal jurisdictions which had helped create the army that perished at Culloden, but it was the Albino Highland chieftains who had seized Black lands, who completed the process by dispossessing their tenants, driving yet more thousands to the Americas.
Efforts at common defense of the colonies (principally against shared threats from Indians, the French, and the Dutch) began as early as the 1640s, when the Puritan colonies of New England formed a confederation to coordinate military and judicial matters. From the 1670s several royal governors, notably Sir Edmund Andros (who at various times governed New York, New England, and Virginia) and Francis Nicholson (governed Maryland, Virginia, Nova Scotia, and Carolina) proposed or attempted to implement means to coordinate defensive and offensive military matters. Andros successfully negotiated the Covenant Chain, a series of Indian treaties that brought relative calm to the frontiers of the middle colonies for many years. One event that reminded colonists of their shared identity as British subjects was the War of the Austrian Succession (1740–1748) in Europe. This conflict spilled over into the colonies, where it was known as "King George's War". The major battles took place in Europe, but American colonial troops fought the French and their Indian allies in New York, New England, and Nova Scotia. At the Albany Congress of 1754, Benjamin Franklin proposed that the colonies be united by a Grand Council overseeing a common policy for defense, expansion, and Indian affairs. While the plan was thwarted by colonial legislatures and King George II, it was an early indication that the British colonies of North America were headed towards unification.
At about that same time (1751) Benjamin Franklin, who was one of the Founding Fathers of the United States. A noted polymath, Franklin was a leading author, printer, political theorist, politician, postmaster, scientist, musician, inventor, satirist, civic activist, statesman, and diplomat:
Franklin, perhaps alarmed by the growing number of Black people being imported as Indentured Servants from Europe, and the growing number of Africans being imported as Slaves; early-on saw the the potential for those Black people taking power. Franklin himself was the grandson of a former indentured servant, Mary Morrill, and he experienced first-hand how it was possible to climb from those humble beginnings to positions of power. Thus in 1751 he penned the following cautionary essay. But more importantly, Franklin's essays describe a Europe and European populations, which is completely at odds with what the Albinos claim and teach.
The first U.S. postage stamp
The Franklin $100.00 bill
Note: if this transcription by Digital History, of the University of Houston, is accurate; then we know that by 1751 only England, but NOT Ireland, Wales, and Scotland, were at that time, completely cleared of all Blacks.
As we can see from this portrait, almost a century after Benjamin Franklin's 1751 essay, (where he declared that all of Europe's people were of a "swarthy complexion") except the English and the Saxons: Europe was still full of "swarthy Complexion people" (Mulattoes).
But the constant killings and expulsions of European Blacks as a result of the English Civil War (1642), and the Thirty years Wars (1618–1648) in continental Europe: (which were really "Race" wars), left few Blacks in Europe for this type of person to mate with. The result has been an inexorable Whiting of Europe's population through inbreeding: and the associated shrinking of the European gene pool. Today, Europeans have the smallest genetic diversity of all humans, and the greatest risk of inherited disease.
In Scotland, stories such as the Story of "Black Morrow" clearly indicate that Blacks were being targeted; and on trumped-up charges, they could be killed and their lands confiscated.
Black Morrow, also known as Black Murray, is the name given to a bandit whom according to tradition was killed by a MacLellan near Kirkcudbright in Galloway, Scotland. There are several different versions of the story, in which the slain bandit is variously described as a Gypsy, a Moor, or even Irish. The stories may be explanations for the Moor's head that appears on the crest that appears on the Arms of Lord Kirkcudbright, and in consequence the modern crest badge used by Clan MacLellan. The blazon for which is a naked arm supporting on the point of a sword, a moor's head.
According to one tradition he and his followers occupied Clan MacLellan lands. He was killed by Sir William MacLelllan when discovered in a drunken sleep, allowing the MacLellans to regain control of their land. Another version states that a £50 reward was offered for his capture or death and that MacLellan bought the land with the reward. In an elaborate version of the story MacLellan deliberately replaced spring-water in a well with spirits in order to get Black Morrow drunk. The location of the spring in woodland is now known as Black Morrow Wood.
In Scotland in particular, a discussion of the indigenous Non-Albinos, is still being carried on as late as 1894, with the publication of David MacRitchie's book "Scottish Gypsies under the Stewarts".
Muslim Enslavement of Europeans
The Barbary Corsairs
The Barbary Corsairs, sometimes called Corsairs or Barbary Pirates, were Muslim pirates and privateers who operated from North Africa from the time of the Crusades (11th century) until the early 19th century. Based in North African ports such as Tunis, Tripoli, Algiers, Salé, and other ports in Morocco, they sailed mainly along the stretch of northern Africa known as the Barbary Coast. But their predation extended throughout the Mediterranean, south along West Africa's Atlantic seaboard, and into the North Atlantic as far north as Iceland, and they primarily commandeered western European ships in the western Mediterranean Sea. In addition, they engaged in Razzias, raids on European coastal towns to capture Christian slaves to sell at slave markets in places such as Algeria and Morocco.
These Pirates destroyed thousands of French, Spanish, Italian and British ships, and long stretches of coast in Spain and Italy were almost completely abandoned by their inhabitants, discouraging settlement until the 19th century. From the 16th to 19th century, pirates captured an estimated 800,000 to 1.25 million Europeans as slaves, mainly from seaside villages in Italy, Spain, and Portugal, but also from France, Britain, the Netherlands, Ireland and as far away as Iceland and North America.
ESSAY ON THE SLAVE TRADE.
Author: Benjamin Franklin
To the Editor of the Federal Gazette.
March 23rd, 1790.
Reading in the newspapers the speech of Mr. Jackson in congress against meddling with the affair of slavery, or attempting to mend (the condition of slaves), it put me in mind of a similar speech, made about one hundred years since, by Sidi Mahomet Ibrahim, a member of the divan of Algiers, which may be seen in Martin's account of his consulship in 1687. It was against granting the petition of the sect called Erika, or Purists, who prayed for the abolition of piracy and slavery, as being unjust. Mr. Jackson does not quote it: perhaps he has not seen it. If, therefore, some of its reasonings are to be found in his eloquent speech it may not only show that men's interests operate, and are operated on, with surprising similarity, in all countries and climates, whenever they are under similar circumstances. The African speech, as translated, is as follows:
"Alia Bismillah, God is great, and Mahomet is his prophet.
"Have these Erika considered the consequences of granting their petition? If we cease our cruises against the Christians, how shall we be furnished with the commodities their countries produce, and which are so necessary for us? If we forbear to make slaves of their people, who, in this hot climate, are to cultivate our lands? Who are to perform the common labors of our city, and of our families? Must we not then be our own slaves? And is there not more compassion and more favor due to us Musselmen than to those Christian dogs? We have now above fifty thousand slaves in and near Algiers. This number, if not kept up by fresh supplies, will soon diminish, and be gradually annihilated. If, then we cease taking and plundering the infidels' ships, and making slaves of the seamen and passengers, our lands will become of no value, for want of cultivation; the rents of houses in the city will sink one half; and the revenues of government, arising from the shares of
And if we set our slaves free, what is to be done with them? Few of them will return to their native countries; they know too well the greater hardships they must there be subject to. They will not embrace our holy religion: they will not adopt our manners: our people will not pollute themselves by intermarrying with them. Must we maintain them as beggars in our streets; or suffer our properties to be the prey of their pillage? for men accustomed to slavery will not work for a livelihood when not compelled. And what is there so pitiable in their present condition? Were they not slaves in their own countries? Are not Spain, Portugal, France, and the Italian states, governed by despots, who hold all their subjects in slavery, without exception? Even England treats her sailors as slaves; for they are, whenever the government pleases, seized and confined in ships of war, condemned not only to work, but to fight for small wages, or a mere subsistence, not better than our slaves are allowed by us.
Is their condition then made worse by their falling into our hands? No, they have only exchanged one slavery for another; and I may say a better: for here they are brought into a land where the sun of Islamism gives forth its light, and shines in full splendor, and they have an opportunity of making themselves acquainted with the true doctrine, and thereby save their immortal souls. Those who remain at home have not that happiness. Sending the slaves home, then would be sending them out of light into darkness.
"I repeat the question, what is to be done with them? I have heard it suggested, that they may be planted in the wilderness, where there is plenty of land for them to subsist on, and where they may flourish as a free state. But they are, I doubt, too little disposed to labor without compulsion, as well as too ignorant to establish good government; and the wild Arabs would soon molest and destroy, or again enslave them. While serving us, we take care to provide them with everything; and they are treated with humanity.
The laborers in their own countries are, as I am informed, worse fed, lodged and clothed. The condition of most of them is therefore already mended, and requires no farther improvement. Here their lives are in safety. They are not liable to be impressed for soldiers, and forced to cut one another's Christian throats, as in the wars of their own countries. If some of the religious bigots, who now teaze us with their silly petitions, have, in a fit of blind zeal, freed their slaves, it was not generosity, it was not humanity, that moved them to the action; it was from the conscious burden of a load of sins, and hope, from the supposed merits of so good a work, to be excused from damnation.
How grossly are they mistaken, in imagining slavery to be disavowed by the Koran! Are not the two precepts, to quote no more, 'Masters, treat your slaves with kindness — Slaves, serve your masters with cheerfulness and fidelity,' clear proofs to the contrary? Nor can the plundering of infidels be in that sacred book forbidden; since it is well known from it, that God has given the world, and all that it contains, to his faithful Musselmen, who are to enjoy it, of right, as fast as they conquer it. Let us then hear no more of this detestable proposition, the manumission of Christian slaves, the adoption of which would, by depreciating our lands and houses, and thereby depriving so many good citizens of their properties, create universal discontent, and provoke insurrections, to the endangering of government, and producing general confusion. I have, therefore, no doubt, that this wise council will prefer the comfort and happiness of a whole nation of true believers, to the whim of a few Erika, and dismiss their petition."
The result was, as Martin tells us, that the divan came to this resolution: "That the doctrine, that the plundering and enslaving the Christians is unjust, is at best problematical; but that it is the interest of this state to continue the practice, is clear; therefore, let the petition be rejected." And it was rejected accordingly.
Please note that the 1761 muster roll of Capt. Barnaby Byrn's company of New York provincial troops (who were mostly born in Europe), matches EXACTLY Benjamin Franklins description of Europe's people BEFORE the Albino annihilation of Europe's Blacks.
For those needing more proof of the Albinos degeneracy: note the 1761 muster roll of Capt. Barnaby Byrn's company of New York provincial troops (who were mostly born in Europe).
It clearly shows that The American Revolutionary War was fought and Won, by (perhaps): a MAJORITY of Black and Brown soldiers! Yet according to Albino history, it was just THEM.
The American Revolution was the political upheaval during the last half of the 18th century in which thirteen colonies in North America joined together to break free from the British Empire, combining to become the United States of America. They first rejected the authority of the Parliament of Great Britain to govern them from overseas without representation, and then expelled all royal officials. By 1774 each colony had established a Provincial Congress, or an equivalent governmental institution, to govern itself, but still within the empire. The British responded by sending combat troops to re-impose direct rule. Through representatives sent in 1775 to the Second Continental Congress, the states joined together at first to defend their respective self-governance and manage the armed conflict against the British known as the American Revolutionary War (1775–83, also American War of Independence). Ultimately, the states collectively determined that the British monarchy, by acts of tyranny, could no longer legitimately claim their allegiance. They then severed ties with the British Empire in July 1776, when the Congress issued the United States Declaration of Independence, rejecting the monarchy on behalf of the new sovereign nation separate and external to the British Empire. The war ended with effective American victory in October 1781, followed by formal British abandonment of any claims to the United States with the Treaty of Paris in 1783.
Strangely we don't know when the first "regular route" slave ship arrived in the United States, as we saw, the 1619 landing was a lie, but come they did. As we can see from the letter on the left "Nobody Knows" how many slaves were imported from Africa. Some say as little as 200,000-300,000, Wiki says 645,000. Independent Researchers who have studied the slave trade itself, like Hugh Thomas, gives the total number of African slaves imported into the US (and British Colonial North America) as 500,000 persons. (Thomas, Hugh. The Slave Trade. The Story of the Atlantic Slave Trade: 1440-1870. New York : Simon and Schuster, 1997.)
(You will find that the Albinos characterize these events, and the Black people involved, in any number of ways. Clearly indicating that "they make it up as they go". It is best to stay as close to the bare facts as possible).
South Carolina, September 9, 1739 - A band of slaves marches down the road, carrying banners that proclaim "Liberty!" they shout out the same word. Led by a man named Jemmy, the men and women continue to walk south, recruiting more slaves along the way. By the time they stop to rest for the night, their numbers will have approached one hundred.
What exactly triggered the Stono Rebellion is not clear. Many slaves knew that small groups of runaways had made their way from South Carolina to Florida, where they had been given freedom and land by the Spanish who were at war with the English. Looking to cause unrest within the English colonies, the Spanish had issued a proclamation stating that any slave who deserted to St. Augustine would be given the same treatment.
But what may have actually triggered the rebellion was the soon-to-be-enacted Security Act. In mid-August, a Charlestown newspaper announced the Security Act. A response to the white's fears of insurrection, the act required that all white men carry firearms to church on Sundays, a time when whites usually didn't carry weapons and slaves were allowed to work for themselves. Anyone who didn't comply with the new law by September 29 would be subjected to a fine.
Whatever triggered the Rebellion, early on the morning of the 9th, a Sunday, about twenty slaves gathered near the Stono River in St. Paul's Parish, less than twenty miles from Charlestown. The slaves went to a shop that sold firearms and ammunition, armed themselves, then killed the two shopkeepers who were manning the shop. From there the band walked to the house of a Mr. Godfrey, where they burned the house and killed Godfrey and his son and daughter. They then headed south, it was not yet dawn when they reached Wallace's Tavern. Because the innkeeper at the tavern was kind to his slaves, his life was spared. The white inhabitants of the next six or so houses they reach were not so lucky, all were killed. The slaves belonging to Thomas Rose successfully hid their master, but they were forced to join the rebellion. (They would later be rewarded). Other slaves willingly joined the rebellion, by eleven in the morning, the group was about 50 strong. The few whites whom they now encountered were chased and killed, though one individual, Lieutenant Governor Bull, eluded the rebels and rode to spread the alarm.
The slaves stopped in a large field late that afternoon, just before reaching the Edisto River. They had marched over ten miles and killed between twenty and twenty-five whites. Around four in the afternoon, somewhere between twenty and 100 whites had set out in armed pursuit. When they approached the rebels, the slaves fired two shots. The whites returned fire, bringing down fourteen of the slaves. By dusk, about thirty slaves were dead and at least thirty had escaped. Most were captured over the next month, then executed; the rest were captured over the following six months, all except one who remained a fugitive for three years.
Uncomfortable with the increasing numbers of blacks for some time, the white colonists had been working on a Negro Act that would limit the privileges of slaves. This act was quickly finalized and approved after the Stono Rebellion. No longer would slaves be allowed to grow their own food, assemble in groups, earn their own money, or learn to read. Some of these restrictions had been in effect before the Negro Act, but had not been strictly enforced.
After the Stono Rebellion (1739), South Carolina suspended the trade for a few years because its leaders believed that large numbers of freshly imported Africans would undermine the safety of the colony. Then in 1751 South Carolina imposed a special tax on foreign slaves to slow the trade and, nine years later, once again banned it altogether because leaders of the colony still feared the growing number of African-born slaves. The royal authorities disallowed the law. But in 1764 the colony levied new taxes on African-born slaves because, as the legislature noted, their rising number "may prove of the most dangerous consequence."
During the Revolution, all of the new states banned or suspended the international slave trade. Most slaves arrived on English ships, and even those on American ships were purchased from agents of the Royal African Company stationed on the west coast of Africa. Thus, all the colonies (which soon became the states) banned the African slave trade as part of their overall policy of refusing to import anything from Britain. The "non-important" movement was an attempt to cut all economic ties with Britain. Since most slaves were brought in by British ships, and virtually all were purchased from the British on the coast of Africa, a ban on the trade was an important part of the colonists' general policy not to trade with Britain.
After the Revolution, South Carolina reopened its international trade, but then suspended it in 1785 because of the ongoing depression in the state. Similarly, North Carolina levied a prohibitive tax on newly imported slaves and then in 1794 banned the trade altogether. The trade remained open in Georgia in 1787, but in the wake of the Haitian Revolution, that state also banned it. At the end of the war, leaders in the Deep South fully expected to reopen the trade at some point, to replenish their slave holdings. However, in 1787, when the Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia, no American state except Georgia had yet reopened the African trade. Nevertheless, with the expectation of reopening the international slave trade, the delegates from the Deep South jealously guarded their right to import more slaves. They succeeded with the provision in Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, which prevented Congress from ending the trade before 1808.
While Congress did not have the power to end the international slave trade, it did have the power to regulate it, and starting in 1794, it did just that.
In March, Congress prohibited the use of any U.S. port or shipyard for the purpose of fitting out or building any ship to be used for the introduction of slaves. The law also prohibited ships sailing from U.S. ports from trafficking in foreign countries. Ships sailing from the United States to Africa, even if of foreign registry, were required to "give bond with sufficient sureties, to the treasurer of the United States, that none of the natives of Africa, or any other foreign country or place, shall be taken on board... to be transported, or sold as slaves in any other foreign place, within nine months thereafter." Until 1800 none of the states had reopened the African trade, which had been effectively closed since the Revolution. Before 1800 all introductions into the U.S. were thus illegal, even if the slaves were brought in by foreign ships. After 1800, however, Georgia and South Carolina reopened their international slave trade, and in the next eight years, these two states would introduce about 100,000 new slaves from Africa.
The final statute to regulate the trade was passed in 1820, with the unlikely title "An Act to continue in force 'An act to protect the commerce of the United States, and to punish the crime of piracy,' and also to make further provisions for punishing the crime of piracy." The key element of the law were two sections declaring that any American citizen engaging in the African slave trade "shall be adjudged a pirate; and on conviction thereof before the circuit court of the United States for the district wherein he shall be brought or found, shall suffer death." The same language was applied to non-Americans found on board slavers owned or commissioned by Americans. This law was to be in force for only two years, but on January 3, 1823, Congress made it a permanent statute. This was a dramatic and important change in U.S. policy.
To be sure, some slaves were smuggled into the United States after 1820 from both Africa and other places in the Western Hemisphere. But the risks were high and the numbers were relatively few. In an eight-year period, from 1800 until December 31, 1807, about 100,000 Africans were forcibly brought into the country. After 1820 it is unlikely that more than 10,000 were successfully landed in the United States. It may have been far fewer than that. As the internal slave trade replaced the African trade, hundreds of thousands of African-American slaves were uprooted and moved further south and further west. The cost of ending that trade would be much higher than ending the African trade. But the moral issue was set in 1819 and 1820 when the United States finally stated, in unequivocal terms, that enslaving people was a "wrong" and those who engaged in the African trade were no better than common pirates. And, like common pirates, they deserved to be hanged.
President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law and Public Policy
Albany Law School
Between 1936 and 1938, some 300 interviewers employed by the Federal Writers Project, a federally-financed jobs program, questioned 2200 former slaves in 17 states about life under slavery. This amounted to about 2 percent of all former slaves surviving at the time the interviews were taken. Most were born during the last years of slavery or during the Civil War. Because the interviews were conducted seventy years after the end of slavery, most of the people interviewed were in their 80s or older. Most had only been children during slavery. The overwhelming majority of interviewers were whites, who used dialect to represent the way that the interviewees spoke. Many readers may find this use of dialect patronizing, as well as a little hard to read.The narratives in this online anthology are transcribed verbatim from the interview transcripts collected by writers of the Works Progress Administration (WPA) in the late 1930s. The narratives can be quite challenging to read. The dialect can be difficult to understand; the interviewers usually made an effort to transcribe what they heard the narrators saying, but there is little consistency from interview to interview. One solution is to try to imagine what the language might have sounded like, perhaps by reading the narratives out loud.
Interviewed by Ila B. Prine
Federal Writers' Project, Dist.2.
April 16, 1937.
Aunt Charity Anderson who claims to be one hundred and one years old, (101) was born at Belle's Landing, Monroe County, Alabama. Her white "Marster" was Mr. Leslie Johnson who kept a public wood yard at Belle's Landing on the Alabama River.
Quote: "My old Marster was a good man, he treated all his slaves kind, and took care of dem, he wanted to leave dem hisn chillun. It sho' was hard for us older uns to keep de little cullered chillun out ob de dinin' room whar ol marster ate, cause when dey would slip in and stan' by his cheer, when he finished eatin' he would fix a plate and gib dem and dey would set on de hearth and eat. But honey chile, all white folks warn 't good to dere slaves, cause I'se seen pore niggers almos' tore up by dogs, and whipped unmercifully, when dey did'nt do lack de white folks say . But thank God I had good white folks, dey sho' did trus' me to, I had charge of all de keys in the house and I waited on de Missy and de chillun. I laid out all dey clos' on". End Quote.
Charity Anderson didn't speak like that because she was stupid: she spoke like that because even though she had lived almost 100 years amoung English speakers, her life had been spent in communities whose ancestors came from the African interior. Before they were brought to America, they had never seen a White man before, and new nothing of his language. Thus within the world of slavery, blacks taught themselves a new language, practiced new art forms, and played a new kind of music that enabled them to endure the horrors of their bondage. Although most slaves had lost their African languages over the generations, some managed to hold onto parts of their old ways of speaking. In those areas where fresh infusions of African slaves arrived as late as 1808, like the coastal low-country, Sea Islands off Georgia, and the low-land marshes of Louisiana, African dialects hung on throughout the slave era. The Gullah and Geechees dialects, which are still spoken today, employ African words and grammatical elements within a basic English structure. More importantly, the loss of African language found blacks fashioning a kind of Creole slave language that enabled them to communicate with one another. Most whites looked upon this new language as crude and ignorant instead of seeing it for a new language rich in sense of place and meaning for the enslaved. This Creole English (or Enslaved English) enabled blacks to communicate with each other in ways not easily understood by their white overlords.
South Carolina passed the first laws prohibiting slave education in 1740. While there were no limitations on reading, it became illegal to teach slaves to write. This legislation followed the Stono Rebellion. As fears spread among plantation owners concerning the spread of abolitionist materials, forged passes, and other incendiary writings, the need to restrict slaves’ ability to communicate with one another became more pronounced. For this reason, the State Assembly enacted the following: "Be it therefore Enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That all and every Person and Persons whatsoever, who shall hereafter teach or cause any Slave to be taught to write, or shall use or employ any slave as a Scribe in any Manner of Writing whatsoever, hereafter taught to write, every such offense forfeit the Sum of One Hundred Pounds current Money." While the law does not clarify any consequences for the slaves who might attain this more highly prized form of literacy, the financial consequences for teachers are clear. In 1755, Georgia modeled its own ban on teaching slaves to write after South Carolina's earlier legislation.
According to the (DH consortium) approximately 11,863,000 Africans were shipped across the Atlantic, with a death rate during the Middle Passage reducing this number by 10-20 percent. As a result between 9.6 and 10.8 million Africans arrived in the Americas. About 500,000 Africans were imported into what is now the U.S. between 1619 and 1807--or about 6 percent of all Africans forcibly imported into the Americas. About 70 percent arrived directly from Africa. Well over 90 percent of African slaves were imported into the Caribbean and South America. Only about 6 percent of imports went directly to British North America. Yet by 1825, the U.S. had a quarter of blacks in the New World.
THAT IS AN ASTOUNDING FIGURE! American Slaves must have breed like RABBITS!
Of course that's not true but it does give us an excuse to look at the actual numbers and see what they mean.
Slave Youth in 19th Century America
By Wilma King
Enslaved parents had an unusually heavy responsibility, for they not only had to survive, but they also had to ensure that their children survived. Child-rearing practices among African Americans had roots in their traditional customs; motherhood, however, took on two unique characteristics for enslaved women in the United States, First, because of an accepted pattern of matrilineal or matrifocal families in traditional African societies, many African women reared children without help form the Fathers. Moreover, the disproportionate number of men taken by salve traders left many women with dependent children to care for and a grater portion of the work, ordinarily completed by men, to perform. The women managed with the help of other women. Like their sisters in Africa, many American slave women adjusted to patenting without spouses due to circumstances beyond their control such as imbalances in the sex ratio and the propensity of slaveowners to sell men separately.
Thomas Jefferson's meaning was obvious when he wrote that "a child raised every 2 years is of more profit than the crop of the best laboring man." He considered the "labor of a breeding woman as no object" and instructed his plantation manager to impress upon the overseer that "it is not their labor, but then increase which as the first consideration with us." Jefferson was not alone in this philosophy. In 1858 an unidentified author contributed "'Profits of a Farming'--Facts and Figures" to the Southern Cultivator, which explains his view about the value of reproduction:
I own a woman who cost me $400 when a girl in 1827. Admit she make me nothing--only worth her victuals and clothing. She now has three children, worth over $3000 and have been field hands say three years in that tune making enough to pay their expenses before they were half hands, and then I have the profit of all half hands. She has only three boys and a girl out of a dozen; yet, with all her bad management, she has paid me ten percent interest, for their work was to be an average good, and I would not this might touch $700 for her. Her oldest boy is worth $1250 cash, and I can get it.
The slaveholders financial status and need for laborers determined the numbers of slaves they owned. For example, by 1860 approximately on-half of the slaveholders in Maryland owned less than three slave; therefore, it is unlikely that each adult slave had a spouse in the same household. Children born to men and women owned by different persons became the property of the mother's owner. The father's owner experienced no increase in wealth or workers. John C Cohoon serves as an example in this matter. He recorded 104 births among the sixteen families he owned. Of the children, thirty were born into six female-headed households where family sizes ranged from two to nine children. Cohoon listed Dick Petris, John Saunders, and Henry Arthur as the fathers of several of these children. There is no further information about the men. Nevertheless, their progeny added value to Cohoon's coffer.
Pregnant women were often ignorant of their bodily functions and needs during gestation. They did not own their persons, nor did they have the resources to assure healthy pregnancies and safe deliveries. "Their work could interfere with the blood supply to the placenta and jeopardize the health of the fetus. Some slaveholders were aware of the relationship between heavy physical labor and low-birth weight babies, but they were not aware of the connection to high infant mortality rates. Until owners and overseers knew the women were pregnant, they continued their work as usual. Two women, Treaty and Lousine, who belonged to the Georgia slaveholder John B. Lamar, suffered miscarriages in 1855. Lamar suspected that his overseer Stancil Barwick was abusive, but Barwick maintained that he did not know that Treaty was pregnant and was not aware of Lousine's "condition" until she aborted the fetus. It is possible that neither he nor the women were aware of their conditions or that their work caused the miscarriages.
The loss of a fetus among enslaved women was not uncommon. "I am never been safe in de family way," said Josephine Bacchus, an ex slave from South Carolina when interviewed by a work Projects Administration (WPA; interviewer in the 1930s. She attributed her inability to have a "nine month child" to the lack of "good attention" during slavery. In the late 1830s, slave women on a Georgia plantation owned by Pierce Mease Butler told their pitiable stories of aborted fetuses, difficult births, and infant deaths to his wife Frances Anne Kemble and asked her to help modify their work. The women were essentially correct in believing that a link existed between heavy work and the health of an unborn child, but heavy work is probably most detrimental daring the earlier stages of gestation.
Unlike its legal status, the size of a slave family varied. Many births were one and one half to two and one half years apart. Systematic breastfeeding in conjunction with general poor postnatal health, which interfered with the Fertility of enslaved women, may account for the spacing of their children. Other factors, abstinence while breastfeeding and involuntary abstinence because of abroad marriages, also help to explain the intervals between births miscarriages, still-borns, or infants dying before receiving a name and having it placed in record books are other factors for consideration. Well cared-for children grew into strong healthy adults who could render life-long service, and slaveowners were ever cognizant of that potential. The gulf between a slaveowner's desire and reality often hinged upon the health of the children, whom through no fault of their mothers, entered the world with meager chances of survival. The historian John Blassingame declares that they suffered from neglect and a variety of ills. "Treated by densely ignorant mothers or little more enlightened planters," he writes, "they died in droves. "The deaths of the children often had little to do with the lack of proper medical treatment. What the mothers and children ate is of greater importance. The majority of them breastfed the children, but their poor prenatal and postnatal diets limited the milk's supply of nutrients necessary to support life and prevent diseases. Many suckling children consumed milk that would not keep them alive or healthy. Furthermore, the mothers had limited time in which to care for children because of the demands for their labor.
Richard Steckel, for example, answers questions about the health of slaves with height records acquired from 10,562 manifests kept by American ship captains engaged in coastal and interregional slave trade between 1820 and 1860 along with the mortality data in plantation records, and the growth curves from eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth century populations. Steckel concludes that the quality of life for slave children was exceedingly poor. American slaves, in early childhood, were small in stature by comparison with Caribbean slaves and in the selected American and European population in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Infant mortality rates were not light, and communicable diseases were color blind in antebellum America. Slaveowners and slaves alike lived with sickness and death. Planter diaries and overseer records teem with notations of illness and death. One slaveholder complained in 1861 of the "unprecedented mortality" on his plantation, Twenty of his slaves died within fourteen years. Fevers, intestinal worms, measles, and whooping cough took their toll.
In a study of deaths among the African American population in seven slaveholding states in 1849 and 1850, Kenneth and Virginia Kiple found that 51 percent of the deaths among the nonwhite population occurred among children nine years of age and under. Slave children in that age group constituted 31 percent of the sample. These statistics suggest that slave mothers needed and extraordinary amount of fortitude to adjust to the large number of deaths among their children. The Kiples admit that the slave children nine years of age and under fell into an "actuarially perilous category" became of deaths related to several ailments including tetanus, teething, and lockjaw. The slave's chance of living from these ailments was four times greater than that of their white contemporaries. If slave children survived their early years and entered the labor force when they were ten years of age or older, their health improved because of increased food allowances. Until that time, slave parents grappled with the illnesses and deaths. Poor prenatal care and diets rich in calorie content but inadequate in nutrients, combined with heavy physical work were overriding factors in low birth weights and the resulting high infant mortality rates. Frances Kemble thought that "the number [of children] they bear as compared with the number they rear [is] a fair gauge of the effect of the system on their health and that of their offspring."
The high incidence of illness and death among their children affected slave and slaveholding parents. Their reactions ran the full gamut. Many consoled themselves with their religion and saw death as the will of a supreme being, a liberator freeing the deceased from a life of drudgery or a grantor of eternal rest and piece. When talking about her child's death, Tabby Abby said, "I like to went crazy for a long time atta dat." Aside from the mental anguish, some slave mothers were visibly shaken. The former South Carolina slave, Fannie Moore, described her mother's reaction when her younger brother died. The girl cared for the child during the day except when their grandmother could get away "from the white folks' kitchen." When the woman returned from the field one night and learned of the child's death, she knelt "by de bed and cry her heart out," Moore recalled. The mother was also at work when the child's uncle carried the body in a pine box to the cemetery. The girl observed the burial from a distance as her mother "just plow and cry as she watch 'em put George in de ground."
The enslaved woman Lydia felt a sense of relief when death liberated her child from bondage. Her husband, an African, prepared the child's body for burial along with "a small bow and several arrows; a little bag of parched meal; a miniature canoe, about a foot long, and a little paddle." Having armed the boy with a sharpened nail attached to a stick and buried him with a piece of white muslin decorated with "several curious and strange figures," the father anticipated his son's return to his "relations and countrymen," who because of this ritual would recognize and receive the child upon his arrival.
Replacement fertility is a key demographic concept often misconstrued as a constant 2.1 children per woman. Actually it varies by population and over time, from as low as 2.06 children per woman to well over 3. High replacement fertility mostly reflects low survival of female infants (i.e. future childbearers) to their own reproductive age. High sex ratios at birth can also raise replacement fertility values somewhat.
Replacement fertility has long been a basic concept in demography. In 1821, the British writer Piercy Ravenstone used American census data to compute that on average four children per family were needed at that time to maintain a stationary U.S. population, based on his belief that 11 out of every 20 females born survived to middle age and that one of these 11 women remained single (Hutchinson, 1967).
The number computed by Mr. Ravenstone was for a healthy well-fed White family with adaquit medical care. Logically, one would assume that for ill-fed, overworked, high infant mortality Slaves, with no medical attention; the number would be much higher, perhaps 6 or 7 children would need to be born - JUST TO MAINTAIN THEIR POPULATION AT CURRENT LEVELS. As we saw with the Southern Cultivator whose female slave required 12 pregnancys to produce 4 children: being a fool, he did not understand that the ordeal weaken her, and soon she would have to be replaced. Slave breeding was not a worthwhile enterprise, and few tried it.
|Childhood and Transatlantic Slavery
Steven Mintz, Columbia University
Infant and child mortality rates were twice as high among slave children as among southern white children. A major contributor to the high infant and child death rate was chronic undernourishment. Slaveowners showed surprisingly little concern for slave mothers' health or diet during pregnancy, providing pregnant women with no extra rations and employing them in intensive field work even in the last week before they gave birth.
Birth weights and infant mortality among American slaves
This study is concerned with the ongoing debate regarding the health and mortality of slaves that started with the publication of "Time on the Cross". The author argues that living standards of slave children in the United States were poor. Using data from the records of the coastal trade in slaves from the early nineteenth century, it is shown that newborns of slaves weighed on average less than 5.5 pounds and that the infant mortality rate was around 30 to 40 percent.
According to Robert W. Fogel and Stanley Engernan in their monumental study, "Time on the Cross", Slaves usually received a monthly allowance of corn meal and salt-herrings. Frederick Douglass received one bushel of corn meal a month plus eight pounds of pork or fish. Some plantation owners gave their slaves a small piece of land, a truck-patch, where they could grow vegetables. Slave-owners systematically deprived infants and children of resources because it was profitable to do so. Setting aside moral responsibilities to another human being, it is plausible and made economic sense for slave-owners to seasonally be scantily dispersers of resources. Due to diseases related to specific nutritional deficiencies in diet, which were prevalent among the American slave population it is possible that slave were fed diets with adequate micro-nutrients but very few calories.
While working on plantations in the Southern United States, many slaves faced serious health problems. Improper nutrition, unsanitary living conditions, and excessive labor made them more susceptible to diseases than their masters; the death rates among the slaves were significantly higher due to diseases. Human excretions in the water supply caused cholera, diarrhea, typhoid, tuberculosis, influenza, and hepatitis, as well as other things such as STD's.
Indentured Servitude: In the United States, indentured servitude was effectively abolished by the Anti-Peonage Act (1867) which was passed under the powers granted by the Thirteenth Amendment (1865) to the United States Constitution. But aspects of the issue are still unsettled, thus H.R. 1763 (110th): Indentured Servitude Abolition Act of 2007 was sponsored by Rep. George Miller [D-CA7], but not enacted – Died in Committee.
In the early years of the colony, Black exiles and poor whites stood on the same ground. Black and white worked side-by-side in the fields. Black and white men who broke their servant contract were equally punished. All were indentured servants. During their time as servants, they were fed and housed. Afterwards, they would be given what were known as "freedom dues," which usually included a piece of land and supplies, including a gun. Black-skinned or white-skinned, they became free. The first Virginia colonists did not even think of themselves as "white" or use that word to describe themselves. They saw themselves as Christians or Englishmen, or in terms of their social class. They were nobility, gentry, artisans, or servants.
The case of "Antonio the negro," as he was named in the 1625 Virginia census. He was brought to the colony in 1621. At this time, English and Colonial law did not define racial slavery; the census calls him not a slave but a "servant." Later, Antonio changed his name to Anthony Johnson, married an servant named Mary, and they had four children. Mary and Anthony also became free, and he soon owned land and cattle and even indentured servants of his own. By July 1651, he had brought his holdings, which he referred to in a court record as myne owne ground, to 250 acres (100 ha), then a considerable tract by eastern shore standards. He was prosperous enough to import five indentured servants of his own and was granted an additional 250 acres (100 ha) as "headrights"
In 1653 John Casor, a Black man employed by Johnson, said that he had been imported as a "seaven or eight yeares" indentured servant and that after attempting to reclaim his indenture, he had been told by Johnson that he didn't have one. According to the court documents, Casor demanded his freedom, and "Anthony Johnson was in a feare. Upon this his sonne in lawe, his wife and his two sonnes perswaded the said Anthony Johnson to sett the said John Casor free." Casor went to work for Robert Parker, a White colonist who, along with his brother George, later testified that they knew Casor had an indenture. One commentator said that Johnson may have feared losing his headrights land if the case went to court.
Anthony Johnson brought suit in Northampton County court against Robert Parker in 1654 for detaining his "Negro servant, John Casor," saying "Hee never did see any [indenture] but that hee had ye Negro for his life". In the case of Johnson vs Parker, the court of Northampton County upheld Johnson's right to hold Casor as a slave, saying in its ruling of 8 March 1655.
This daye Anthony Johnson negro made his complaint to the court against mr. Robert Parker and declared that hee deteyneth his servant John Casor negro under the pretence that said negro was a free man. The court seriously consideringe and maturely weighing the premisses, doe fynde that the saide Mr. Robert Parker most unjustly keepeth the said Negro from Anthony Johnson his master ... It is therefore the Judgement of the Court and ordered That the said John Casor Negro forthwith returne unto the service of the said master Anthony Johnson, And that Mr. Robert Parker make payment of all charges in the suit.
Sustaining the claim of Anthony Johnson to the perpetual service of John Casor, the court gave judicial sanction to the right of Negroes to own slaves of their own race. The defendant, John Casor, thus became the first individual known to be declared a slave in what later became the United States. In 1670 the colonial assembly passed a law prohibiting free and baptized negroes and Indians from purchasing Christians (in this act meaning English or European whites) but allowing them to buy persons "of their owne nation." In this meaning, purchase also related to buying the contract services of indentured servants of various "nations". In 1665 Anthony Johnson and his wife Mary, his son John and his wife Susanna, and their slave John Casor moved to Somerset County, Maryland. Casor remained Johnson's slave for the rest of his life.
It should be noted that the reason for including the slave interview above, was to demonstrate that even after generations, Africans did not communicate well in English - as we saw in the transcipt, neither did the English. Point being; how could men from the African interior possible know or argue English law in court?
That case, together with the Virginia General Assembly declaration of 1705, meant that whether Black indentured Europeans became slaves or served their time of indenture and became free, depended entirely on where they landed. If they landed in a slave state they became slaves, if a free state, they became free after their service.
Rhode Island was the first state to abolish slavery in 1774, followed by: Vermont in 1777, Pennsylvania in 1780, Massachusetts in 1781, New Hampshire in 1783, Connecticut in 1784, New York in 1799, New Jersey in 1804. These states never allowed slavery within their borders: California, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Ohio, Oregon, Wisconsin.
Not to forget the Blacks from continental Europe: So far we have identified three Ships which regularly transported Blacks from Germany and Holland where they were gathered for the transatlantic trip. The Jamaica, the Glasgow, and the Marlborough.
Ship Jamaica Galley Rotterdam to Cowes in England to Philadelphia 7 February 1738
Ship Glasgow Walter Sterling Commander from Rotterdam but last from Cows in England. Qualified the 9th Day of September 1738
Ship Marlborough, Thomas Bell, Master. Qualified Sept. 23, 1741. From Rotterdam, but last from Cowes.
Carried a cargos of Palatine Males (Electoral Palatinate or County Palatine of the Rhine, a historic state of the Black Holy Roman Empire).
They were required to take this oath
* Oath of Allegiance: We Subscribers Natives and late Inhabitants of
the Palatinate upon the Rhine and places adjacent, having transported
our Selves and Families into the Province of Pennsylvania, a Colony
Subject to the Crown of Great Britain, in hopes and expectation of
finding a retreat and peaceable Settlement therein DO solemnly promise
and engage that we will be faithfull and bear true Allegiance to his
present Majesty King George the Second and his Successon Kings of
Great Britain and will be faithfull to the Proprietor of this Province
and that we will demean our Selves peaceably to all his Majesties
Subjects, and Strictly observe and conform to the Laws of England and
of this Province to the utmost of our power and best of our
Note: Albinos will claim that these were Whites, but does "demean ourselves peaceably to all his Majesties Subjects" sound like an oath Protestant allies or Whites would have to take?
As might be expected, Black Europeans were conflicted when there were conflicts involving their former homelands. Which side they fought for was a personal decision.
Version from AfricaWithin
Historians know little about Attucks, and they have constructed accounts of his life more from speculation than facts. Most documents described his ancestry as African (surprise) and American Indian. His father, Prince Yonger, is thought to have been a slave brought to America from Africa and that his mother, Nancy Attucks, was a Natick Indian. Researcher Bill Belton identified Attucks as a direct descendent of John Attucks, an Indian executed for treason in 1676 during the King Philip War. The family, which may have included an older sister named Phebe, lived in Framingham, Massachusetts.
Apparently, young Attucks developed a longing for freedom at an early age. According to The Black Presence in the Era of the American Revolution, historians believe that an advertisement placed in the Boston Gazette on October 2, 1750, referred to him: "Ran away from his Master William Brown from Framingham, on the 30th of Sept. last, a Molatto Fellow, about 27 Years of age, named Crispas, 6 Feet two Inches high, short curl'd Hair, his Knees nearer together than common: had on a light colour'd Bearskin Coat." The owner offered a reward of ten pounds for the return of the slave and warned ship captains against giving him refuge. George Washington Williams noted that the advertisement appeared again on November 13 and November 20. Biographers surveyed that Attucks escaped to Nantucket, Massachusetts, and sailed as a harpoonist on a whaling ship.
Historians definitely place Attucks in Boston in March of 1770. While in Boston, probably awaiting passage on a ship to the Carolinas, he found a job as a dockworker. Some writers proposed that he was using the name Michael Johnson. Assuming that the Boston Gazette advertisement did refer to him, he would have been about 47-years old.
By 1770 Boston had become "a storm center of brewing revolt," according to Benjamin Quarles in The Negro in the American Revolution. The British had stationed two regiments in the city following protests by the colonists against unfair taxes. Citizens welcomed neither the troops walking the streets nor the two canons aiming directly at the town hall. Describing the setting, historian John Fiske explained in Unpublished Orations that "the soldiers did many things that greatly annoyed the people. They led brawling, riotous lives, and made the quiet streets hideous by night with their drunken shouts. ... On Sundays the soldiers would race horses on the Common, or would play `Yankee Doodle' just outside the church-doors during the services."
As tensions mounted, the atmosphere grew ripe for confrontation. Fiske pointed out that during February of 1870, "an unusual number of personal encounters" had occurred, including the killing of a young boy. Regarding the evening of March 5, 1770, he explained, "Accounts of what happened are as disorderly and conflicting as the incidents which they try to relate." A barber's apprentice chided a British soldier for walking away without paying for his haircut. The soldier struck the boy, and news of the offense spread quickly. Groups of angry citizens gathered in various places around town. Someone rang the church bell and such a summons usually meant that a fire had broken out. This night, however, it presaged an explosive situation between the soldiers and the townspeople.
Captain Thomas Preston called his Twenty-ninth Regiment to duty. Townspeople began pelting the troops with snowballs. From the dock area, a group of men, led by the towering figure of Attucks, entered King Street, armed with clubs. Some accounts maintained that Attucks struck soldier Hugh Montgomery. Others, for example, John Fiske, stated that he was "leaning upon a stick" when the soldiers opened fire. However the incident occurred, Attucks lay dead, his body pierced by two bullets. Ropemaker Samuel Gray and sailor James Caldwell also died in the incident. Samuel Maverick, a 17-year-old joiner's apprentice, died the next day. Irish leather worker Patrick Carr died nine days later, and six others were wounded. Citizens immediately demanded the withdrawal of British troops. Fiske noted in Unpublished Orations that the deaths of these men "effected in a moment what 17 months of petition and discussion had failed to accomplish."
John Adams reluctantly agreed to defend the British soldiers, two of whom were charged with manslaughter and branded. At the trial, Adams focused on Attucks, portraying him as a rabble-rouser. Because of accounts given at the trial, some historians have questioned the motives of the massacred men. Fiske evaluated that although we cannot know their motives, "we may fairly suppose them to have been actuated by the same feelings toward the soldiery that animated Adams and Warren and the patriots of Boston in general."
The town's response to the murders expressed the significance of the sacrifices these men made. The bodies of Attucks and Caldwell lay in state at Faneuil Hall; those of Gray and Maverick lay in their homes. For the funeral service, shops closed, bells rang, and thousands of citizens from all walks of life formed a long procession, six people deep, to the Old Granary Burial Ground where the bodies were committed to a common grave. Until the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Boston commemorated their deaths on March 5, "Crispus Attucks Day." According to Ted Stewart in Sepia, Boston abolitionist Wendell Phillips stated on the first such occasion, "I place...this Crispus Attucks in the foremost rank of the men that dared."
Through the years, people have remembered Attucks in a variety of ways. Paul Revere created a woodcut of the incident, and the National Archives housed a painting by noted New England artist Benjamin Champney depicting the event. Negro military companies took the name Attucks Guards. Poets dedicated works to his memory, and communities named schools after him.
When the American Revolutionary War started, many Black British did the opposite of Crispus Attucks, they remained loyal to the British side. The British recognized early on the opportunity to weaken the rebellion by encouraging the slaves of Patriots to run away. "Tens of thousands" of southern slaves entered the British lines and remained in the British-controlled coastal cities at the war’s end, some were still serving the British as “Black Pioneers” in military units.
Colonel Tye, also known as Titus Cornelius (c. 1753–1780), was a slave of African descent in New Jersey who achieved notability during the American Revolutionary War by his leadership and fighting skills, when he fought as a Loyalist. He was one of the most effective guerrilla leaders opposing the American rebel forces in central New Jersey. His knowledge of the terrain in Monmouth County, New Jersey was integral to his success. As the commander of the elite Black Brigade, he led raids against the American rebels, seized supplies and assassinated many American leaders during the war. He provided substantial aid to the British. His aid to the British in New York City helped them withstand a siege by American forces under Gen. George Washington.
In November 1775 John Murray, 4th Earl of Dunmore, the royal governor of Virginia, issued a proclamation offering freedom to all slaves and indentured servants who would leave rebel masters and join the royal Loyalist forces. The proclamation led almost 100,000 slaves to escape and join the British — Titus among them. Going by the name of "Tye", Titus became a captain in Dunmore's Ethiopian Regiment. He survived the famine and sickness that plagued the unit after they retreated from Virginia. Returning to New Jersey, he joined the elite Black Brigade, a guerrilla group of 24. His first recorded military action was at the Battle of Monmouth in June 1778, where he captured an American captain.
Tye's knowledge of Monmouth County and his bold leadership soon made him a well-known and feared Loyalist guerrilla commander. The British paid him and his men to destabilize the region. Colonel Tye led several successful raids during the summer of 1779, seizing food and fuel, taking prisoners, and freeing many slaves. During the winter of 1779, Tye and the 23 members of the Black Brigade served with a white Loyalist unit called the Queen's Rangers, also guerrillas; together they helped defend the British in New York. Tye continued to fight through 1780, exacting revenge against his former owner and others. He killed the well-known rebel Joseph Murray, who was known to summarily execute all captured Loyalists.
In September 1780, Tye was injured by a musket ball that passed through his wrist. He was trying to smoke out the patriot leader Captain Joshua Huddy. Huddy and a female servant had managed to resist Tye's band for two hours before the Loyalists set fire to the house. Colonel Tye developed tetanus and gangrene from his wound, which soon caused his death.
In November of 1776, Thomas Peters joined an all black regiment called the Black Pioneers. Prior to joining the regiment, he was a fugitive slave who left Wilmington, North Carolina. While serving with the Black Pioneers, Peters became well known and progressed to the rank of sergeant. But when the British and their Loyalist allies began to make plans to evacuate in 1782, the Black Americans were the last to be provided for. The Black Pioneers along with about 5,000 others were transported from New York to Nova Scotia. The other refugees scattered across the Atlantic world, profoundly affecting the development of Nova Scotia, the Bahamas, and the African nation of Sierra Leone.
When Peters arrived in Nova Scotia, he became a resident of Brindley a town near Digby. He received rations from the government for a time, but decided to leave Annapolis County for Saint John because he could not secure farmland near his town lot. He relocated to Saint John; unfortunately, the settlement situation was much the same there. Blacks had received only one acre each, many blacks in both Nova Scotia and New Brunswick had a lot of trouble being granted farms. Thomas Peters became their representative and drafted many petitions for them. When they were rejected he decided to travel to England to represent them to the Crown.
In 1790, Thomas Powers carried a petition of protest to London from the Nova Scotia black Loyalists. The British government responded by offering free passage to Sierra Leone to blacks who wanted to leave Canada. Peters' story attracted the attention of the Sierra Leone Company through Granville Sharp a famed abolitionist and philanthropist. The company was working to establish a settlement in Sierra Leone, but badly needed new settlers to rebuild the destroyed settlement. The company offered Peters and his followers a new promised land in the 'Province of Freedom'.
Peters was excited to have a new, more promising settlement opportunity. He reported the news to the blacks he represented and was appointed as an intermediary between the Sierra Leone Company and his people. Peters was influential in many people's decision to go to Sierra Leone and worked closely with John Clarkson the Superintendent, to prepare for the voyage. With few options other than working as servants or tenant farmers, some 1,200 decided to make the journey in 1792. Entire church congregations emigrated, providing a strong institutional basis for the struggling African settlement. In Sierra Leone, Nova Scotians became known as the "Krio".
After Peters arrived in Sierra Leone he found that there were still many problems. The blacks had not received their land grants as soon as expected. In addition, Clarkson was not well and could not hear all of the people's complaints. Peters protested the lies and exaggerations made to his people such as the promises of no land taxes, land grants withing weeks, and a democratic government. Some of his group of Methodists not only agreed with him, but also wanted him to be the governor of the colony. They decided to have him represent their cause to Superintendent Clarkson.
Clarkson did not look upon Peters petition favorably and felt it was an attack on his authority. He confronted Peters publicly and most of the colony sided with Clarkson. Peters lost much of his influence with the blacks of Sierra Leone. Shortly afterwards, Peters was accused of theft from a dead man. When brought before the courts, Peters explained that he simply collecting a debt for having helped the man escape from slavery. A jury of his fellow blacks didn't think much of this explanation, and convicted him. Soon after Peters grew sick and died; a humbling end to a glorious life. The Sierra Leone Company still refused to allow the settlers to take freehold of the land. Some of the Settlers revolted in 1799. The revolt was only put down by the arrival of over 500 Jamaican Maroons, who also arrived via Nova Scotia. The “Nova Scotians” quickly came to dominate life in Sierra Leone, which was largely self-governing until 1801.
During Sierra Leone's colonial history, indigenous people mounted several unsuccessful revolts against British rule. The most notable was the Hut Tax war of 1898. The Hut Tax War consisted of a Northern front, led by Bai Bureh, and Southern front that were sparked at different times and for different reasons. Bureh's fighters had the advantage over the vastly more powerful British for several months of the war. Hundreds of British troops and hundreds of Bureh's fighters were killed. Bai Bureh was finally captured on 11 November 1898 and sent into exile in the Gold Coast (now Ghana), while 96 of his comrades were hanged by the British. The defeat in the Hut Tax war ended large scale organised resistance to colonialism; however resistance continued throughout the colonial period in the form of intermittent rioting and chaotic labour disturbances.
In 1924, Sierra Leone was divided into a Colony and a Protectorate, with separate and different political systems constitutionally defined for each. Antagonism between the two entities escalated to a heated debate in 1947, when proposals were introduced to provide for a single political system for both the Colony and the Protectorate. Most of the proposals came from the Protectorate. The Krio, led by Isaac Wallace-Johnson, opposed the proposals, the main effect of which would have been to diminish their political power. It was due to the astute politics of Sir Milton Margai that the educated Protectorate elite was won over to join forces with the paramount chiefs in the face of Krio intransigence.
Later, Sir Milton used the same skills to win over opposition leaders and moderate Krio elements for the achievement of independence. One notable event in 1935 was the granting of a monopoly on mineral mining to the Sierra Leone Selection Trust run by De Beers, which was scheduled to last 98 years. Riots in 1955 and 1956 involved "many tens of thousands" of natives in the protectorate. Civil war between the “Nova Scotians” and the indigenous people was inevitable, and it came in 1991. Between 1991 and 2002 the Sierra Leone Civil War devastated the country leaving more than 50,000 people dead, much of the country's infrastructure destroyed, and over two million people displaced in neighboring countries; mainly to Guinea, which was home to around one million Sierra Leonean refugees.
|Mr. Cromwell of Birchtown, formally of Weymouth Falls, Nova Scotia is a Founding Member of the Black Loyalist Heritage Society. He has remained involved in developing the heritage site at Birchtown and helping to document the path of the Black Loyalist Settlers. Mr. Cromwell is a retired member of the Canadian Army. He spent time overseas during World War II. Mr. Cromwell was one of four brothers who served in the European theatre. Everett left New Glasgow on December 23, 1941 and became part of the Normandy Invasion, one of the remarkable historical events of the war. As the only Black member of the 2nd Division, his journey would quickly take him through France, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany. Mr. Cromwell stayed on in Europe as part of the victorious occupation force and was the last of the four brothers to return to Canada.
Maroons were runaway slaves in the West Indies, Central America, South America, and North America, who formed independent settlements together. The same designation has also become a derivation for the verb marooning. Maroon communities emerged in many places in the Caribbean (St Vincent and Dominica for example), but none were seen as such a great threat to the British as the Jamaican Maroons. A British governor signed a treaty promising the Maroons 2500 acres (10 km²) in two locations, because they presented a threat to the British. Also, some Maroons kept their freedom by agreeing to capture runaway slaves. They were paid two dollars for each slave returned. Beginning in the late 17th and early 18th centuries, Jamaican Maroons fought British colonists to a draw and eventually signed treaties in the 18th century that effectively freed them over 50 years before the abolition of the slave trade in 1807. To this day, the Jamaican Maroons are to a significant extent autonomous and separate from Jamaican society. The physical isolation used to their advantage by their ancestors has today led to their communities remaining amongst the most inaccessible on the island. In their largest town, Accompong, in the parish of St. Elizabeth, the Leeward Maroons still possess a vibrant community of about 600. Tours of the village are offered to foreigners and a large festival is put on every January 6 to commemorate the signing of the peace treaty with the British after the First Maroon War.
Paul Cuffee, a wealthy Black or mulatto Quaker and New England shipowner and activist, was an early advocate of settling freed blacks in Africa. He gained support from black leaders and members of the US Congress for an emigration plan. In 1811 and 1815-16, he financed and captained successful voyages to British-ruled Sierra Leone, where he helped African-American immigrants get established. Although Cuffee died in 1817, his efforts may have "set the tone" for the American Colonization Society (ACS) to initiate further settlements. The ACS was a coalition made up mostly of Quakers who supported abolition, and slaveholders who wanted to remove the perceived threat of free blacks to their society. They found common ground in support of so-called "repatriation". They believed blacks would face better chances for full lives in Africa than in the U.S. The slaveholders opposed abolition, but saw repatriation as a way to remove free blacks and avoid slave rebellions. From 1821, thousands of free black Americans moved to Liberia from the United States. Over 20 years, the colony continued to grow and establish economic stability. In 1847, the legislature of Liberia declared the nation an independent state. By 1867, the ACS had assisted in the movement of more than 13,000 Americans to Liberia.
The Pepper Coast has been inhabited by Mende-speaking people expanded westward from Sudan, thus forcing many smaller ethnic groups southward towards the Atlantic ocean. The Dei, Bassa, Kru, Gola and Kissi were some of the earliest recorded arrivals. This influx was compounded by the decline of the Western Sudanic Mali Empire in 1375 and later in 1591 with the Songhai Empire. Additionally, inland regions underwent desertification, and inhabitants were pressured to move to the wetter coast. These new inhabitants brought skills such as cotton spinning, cloth weaving, iron smelting, rice and sorghum cultivation, and social and political institutions from the Mali and Songhai Empires. Shortly after the Manes conquered the region, the Vai people of the former Mali Empire immigrated to into the Grand Cape Mount region. The ethnic Kru opposed the influx of Vai, forming an alliance with the Manes to stop further influx of Vai.
People along the coast built canoes and traded with other West Africans from Cap-Vert to the Gold Coast. Between 1461 and late 17th century, Portuguese, Dutch and British traders had contacts and trading posts in the region. The Portuguese named the area Costa da Pimenta, meaning Pepper Coast but later translated as Grain Coast, because of the abundance of grains of melegueta pepper. European traders would barter various commodities and goods with local people. When the Kru began trading with Europeans, they initially traded in commodities, but later they actively participated in the African slave trade.
The new nation of Liberia largely excluded the indigenous population from the country's affairs. The 1865 Ports of Entry Act prohibited foreign commerce with the inland tribes. In 1877, the Americo-Liberian True Whig Party monopolized political power in the country. Competition for office was usually contained within the party, whose nomination virtually ensured election. Pressure from the United Kingdom and France led to a loss of Liberia's claims to extensive territories, which were annexed by the colonial powers. Economic development was hindered by the decline of markets for Liberian goods in the late 19th century and by indebtedness on a series of international loans. In Liberia's early years, the Americo-Liberian settlers periodically encountered stiff and sometimes violent opposition from indigenous Africans, who were excluded from citizen's rights in the new Republic until 1904. Civil war between the Americans and the indigenous people was inevitable, and it came in 1989.
The First Liberian Civil War was an internal conflict in Liberia running from 1989 until 1996. The conflict killed over 200,000 people and eventually led to the involvement of the Economic Community of West African States and of the United Nations. The peace did not last long, and in 1999 the Second Liberian Civil War broke out.
Samuel Doe had led a coup d'état that overthrew the elected government in 1980, and in 1985 held elections that were widely considered fraudulent. After an unsuccessful coup by a former military leader, former government minister Charles Taylor invaded the country in December 1989 from neighboring Ivory Coast to start an uprising meant to topple the Doe regime. During the civil war, factions formed around Taylor and those who supported his former soldier with the National Patriotic Front of Liberia, Prince Johnson. Johnson took the capital Monrovia in 1990 and executed Doe, while Taylor's forces, the Armed Forces of Liberia, and Johnson's forces battled for control of Monrovia. Peace negotiations and foreign involvement lead to a ceasefire in 1995 that was broken the next year before a final peace agreement and new national elections were held in 1997. Taylor was then elected President of Liberia in July 1997.
It is little known that many Whites were also caught-up in the Indentured Servant fraud, and found themselves "Slaves-for-Life". In 1850 the United States government finally took an accounting of them with the 1850 census.
Some sources falsely claim that White indentured Servants were counted as ordinary Whites. But as the census form clearly states "FREE INHABITANTS" and certainly indentured Servants were NOT Free! Unfortunately we have no way of knowing just how many White Slaves there was. The United States government has sanitized all available material by falsely breaking it down using Negro and Colored.
Some have speculated that the reason the the American government won't acknowledge it's White Slaves, is because they fear that it would cause the White people to lose faith in their government. Sorry, the evidence is there, and we will show it - besides, what's one more lie in a society built on lies?
United States Census
|Population||Increase||% Increase||Population||Increase||% Increase||Population||Increase||% Increase|
Please note, concerning the census:
A simple breakdown of those categories: Free Blacks and Slaves, is not available after the 1840 census because the U.S. census seems to be hiding something in a deluge of data on the most specific and mundane categories, while the actual total number of Free Blacks and Slaves is nowhere to be found. overwhelming researchers with useless data to hide important data is not new or unusual.
As to the accuracy of the numbers:
Understanding the reality of a situation and the motivations of the participants, a modern census analysis would know two things:
1) The Slave count is more or less "exact" because they are in a closed environment. Those with authority over them, know where they are at all times and exactly how many of them there is.
2 ) The Free Black count will in reality be much greater, because the free Blacks are all over the country, including places where a census cannot be taken. But most importantly, they understand that they are in a "Hostile" environment, they do NOT want the Government to know where they are, or how many of them there is. Thus the true number of Free Blacks will be at a bare minimum 5% greater - but perhaps much more.
But now, the passage from Europe has become more dangerous and deadly than the African passage.
The term "Coffin ship" has been used to refer to the ships that carried Irish immigrants as well as displaced Scots due to the Low/Highland Clearances.
Coffin ship is the name given to any boat that has been overinsured and is therefore worth more to its owners sunk than afloat. These ships, crowded and disease ridden, with poor access to food and water, resulted in the deaths of many people as they crossed the Atlantic. Owners of coffin ships provided as little food, water, and living space as was legally possible – if they obeyed the law at all. While coffin ships were the cheapest way to cross the Atlantic, mortality rates of 30% aboard the coffin ships were common. It was said that sharks could be seen following the ships, because so many bodies were thrown overboard.
You will note that in modern media, though the travails of Irish immigrants fleeing the "Great Famine" later in history - between 1845 and 1852: is often talked about, and depicted sympathetically: the coffin ships are NEVER mentioned. Even though the human losses on Coffin Ships (30%) was GREATER THAN THAT ON A SLAVE SHIP FROM AFRICA! That is because the Coffin Ships related mainly to Blacks.
We developed this new material, while in the process of creating our new "Belize" page: whose people are modern Maya.
We copied this part over from the Belize page, which makes some of the original material below redundant, we will soon cull the old redundant material.
The Slave Voyages Consortium at Emory University has been updated for 2021.
The latest version is Slave Voyages v2.2.13. A facsimile of the Table of number of
Slaves landed, and where they were disembarked, and the associated Map, is located here: Click>>>
Slave Voyages - the Emory Database
This new revamped Voyages database is the product of three years of redevelopment by a multi-disciplinary team of historians, librarians, curriculum specialists, cartographers, computer programmers, and web designers, in consultation with scholars of the slave trade from Universities in Europe, Africa, South America, and North America. The Unites States National Endowment for the Humanities was the principal sponsor of this work, which was carried out at Emory University Center for Digital Scholarship. The University of California at Irvine, the University of California at Santa Cruz, and the Hutchins Center for African & African American Research at Harvard University has also provided support.
Replacement rate is the number of children that a couple would have to have over the course of their reproductive years, in order to replace themselves. The UN states that this replacement rate worldwide is 2.1 children per couple. In contrast, if the total fertility rate is lower than the replacement rate there will eventually be a negative population growth - the people will die out. A population decline is a reduction in a human population caused by events such as; long-term sub-replacement fertility (infant mortality), food resource decline or high death rates due to violence, disease, or other catastrophes. Sounds like a Slaves life, doesn't it?
Quote: Slaves suffered extremely high mortality. Half of all slave infants died during their first year of life, twice the rate of white babies. And while the death rate declined for those who survived their first year, it remained twice the white rate through age 14. As a result of this high infant and childhood death rate, the average life expectancy of a slave at birth was just 21 or 22 years, compared to 40 to 43 years for antebellum whites. Compared to whites, relatively few slaves lived into old age. A major contributor to the high infant and child death rate was chronic undernourishment. Slaveowners showed surprisingly little concern for slave mothers' health or diet during pregnancy, providing pregnant women with no extra rations and employing them in intensive field work even in the last week before they gave birth. Not surprisingly, slave mothers suffered high rates of spontaneous abortions, stillbirths, and deaths shortly after birth. Half of all slave infants weighed less than 5.5 pounds at birth, or what we would today consider to be severely underweight. Infants and children were badly malnourished. Most infants were weaned early, within three or four months of birth, and then fed gruel or porridge made of cornmeal. Around the age of three, they began to eat vegetables, soups, potatoes, molasses, grits, hominy, and cornbread. This diet lacked protein, thiamine, niacin, calcium, magnesium, and vitamin D, and as a result, slave children often suffered from night blindness, abdominal swellings, swollen muscles, bowed legs, skin lesions, and convulsions.
We can find no trustworthy figures for how many children of a typical U.S. Slave Woman, survived to adulthood and produced children. But perhaps the experience of the people of Angola, under the degenerate Portuguese colonizers is instructive. The Portuguese arrived in 1407, later the Dutch and Spanish showed up. Only part of the Angolan population was enslaved, and some native Rulers retained power.
Figuring projected population figures requires knowing population mathematics
“Replacement level fertility” is the total fertility rate—the average number of children born per woman—at which a population exactly replaces itself from one generation to the next, without migration. This rate is roughly 2.1 children per woman for most countries, although it may modestly vary with mortality rates.
Population Growth Rate - Basic Information: if births exceed deaths, the population grows, if deaths exceed births, the population shrinks, only when births equal deaths does the population stay the same. Expressing Population Changes as a Percentage: Suppose we had a population of 100,000 individuals. Suppose in one year there were 1000 births, and 500 deaths. What percentage of the population were births? 1000/100,000 = 0.01, or in percentage terms, this is 1% of the population. What percentage of the population were deaths? 500/100,000 = 0.005, or in percentage terms, this is 0.5% of the population.
Exponential Growth: If a population grows by a constant percentage per year, this eventually adds up to what we call exponential growth. In other words, the larger the population grows, the faster it grows!!
Doubling time - is the amount of time it takes for a given quantity to double in size or value at a constant growth rate. We can find the doubling time for a population undergoing exponential growth by using the Rule of 70. To do this, we divide 70 by the growth rate (r). Note: growth rate (r) must be entered as a whole number and not a decimal. For example 5% must be entered as 5 instead of 0.05. dt = 70/r | For example, a population with a 2% annual growth would have a doubling time of 35 years. 70/2 = 35.
Europe. The average total fertility rate in the European Union is calculated at 1.59 children per woman in 2017. France had the highest in 2017 among EU countries at 1.90, followed by Sweden (1.78), Ireland (1.77), Denmark (1.77), the UK (1.74) and Romania (1.71).
Notice that All European countries have a birth rate BELOW the replacement value of 2.1. That's why they are accepting all of those African and Asian Immigrants. BACK TO THE U.S. So where did those 251,103,235 White people come from?? It's all "PURE ALBINO LIE"!
The is the actual 1790 Census
This is an easier to read Wikipedia transcription of the 1790 census
Repeat: "How did today's Albino population numbers get so high? (Not that we really know the actual number, but you can bet that it's nowhere near the 76.5% claimed for Anglo and Hispanic Albinos combined: 251,103,235 of the total 328,239,523). Now you know why we don't just call them liars, we call them "Degenerate Liars". Since the first census taking, approximately 75 million Europeans migrated to the United States: an unknown number of WHITE (Spanish, Portuguese, German, Italian), Latin Americans also migrated to the United States. So maybe we could give them 100 million or so, but 251,103,235? What friggin liars!"
|Note: Hispanics may be Black, White, but Mostly Mulatto/Mestizo: we have seen "Jet Black" Hispanics declare themselves "White". Accordingly we will NOT use the White WITH Hispanics number, but instead use the "White alone, not hispanic number (186,482,304): which we assume to be purely European.|
In all the years doing reserch, we always knew that the Albinos were lying about the Black population of the United States. It just made sense to lie, after all the atrocities commited against Blacks in the United States, how could they then admit to Blacks who had just won their "Democratic Rights", that by virtue of their numbers, they had the "Political Power" to challenge, and possibly usurp Albino power.
The Worlds Population - Explained
Anyone familiar with American "Race-Speak" knows that their favorite words of condescension are "Minority" and "Diversity" both of which the Mongols are mimicking . Both imply that Blacks are out of the mainstream, outliers, or the "Others". Of course that only proves what we always say: the less Melanin they have, the more delusional they become. Clearly what they need is the "Cold Water" in the face of "Facts and Figures" aka reality.
Do this: Google – “White World Population” Being very care with the syntax, remember you are asking an Albino source for truth. Naturally they will find any number of ways to lie to you if you use the wrong search words.
Answer from Wikipedia section titled “White People”:
850,000,000+ (which is about) 11.5% of the total world population (world population of 7.5 - 7.7 billion).
The current population of Japan is 126,766,566 as of 2019, based on Worldometers elaboration of the latest United Nations data.
The current world population is 7.7 billion as of September 2019 according to the most recent United Nations estimates elaborated by Worldometers.
Assuming about 540,000,000 (0.54 billion) Mulattoes world-wide, that means the "Pure-Black" population of the world is about 4.65 Billion.
Addendum – the Southeast Asia countries of Cambodia, Burma, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Indonesia are a 645 million person part of the World population. These are all formerly Black countries (like Hawaii) which were invaded by Mongols (sometimes by war, sometimes by migration). They are all ruled now by “Light-skinned” Mongols (who are of course Mulattoes themselves). But “Unlike Hawaii”: populations of native Blacks still survive, and then there are the descendants of the “Light-skinned” Mongol invaders, plus the Mulattoes produced by the two. In Vietnam and the Philippine’s, French and Spanish colonizers also added to the gene pool, making it impossible to categorize these countries as Black, Mongol, Albino, or Mulatto.
Knowing the above; when we read the Wiki article, we realized the Albinos at Wiki were in "FULL FANTASY MODE". Meaning that there was no choice but to dig into the morass of the Census bureau. Our strategy was to find an early period in American history, where the White population was small and unambiguous, and then add on the number of European Immigrants for each subsequent Census Period. We decided to start with the 1830 Census.
Initially we tried using this Census (below), but for some strange reason, the Census Bureau does not seem to provide the Immigration numbers for 1980-1990: we didn't learn that until we had finished calculating the totals - Bummer!
In 1830 the White population of the United States was 10,530,044: between 1830 and 1909: 24,334,996 (assumed White) Europeans entered the United States. Between 1910 and 1999: 13,846,335 (assumed White) Europeans entered the United States. Between 2000 and 2009: 1,349,609 (assumed White) Europeans entered the United States.
The TOTAL for the years 1830 to 2010, is 39,530,940. ADD the 10,530,044 from the 1830 Census, and the TOTAL NUMBER OF EUROPEAN ALBINOS TO ENTER THE UNITED STATES SINCE IT'S FOUNDING IS 50,060,984!!! Remember, they say that there are 186,482,304 European Albinos in the United States today. Btw - please remember that the Albino BIRTH RATE IN THE U.S. IS 1.77 births per woman (2017), which is BELOW the replacement rate! If it wasn't for IMMIGRANTS, the U.S. population would be going DOWN! Clearly, the chances are that Blacks OUTNUMBER Albinos in the U.S.
Knowing that the Albino hold on the Negro mind is indeed strong - very strong. After all, in a time when Black Men are being shot down in the streets, and Black Voters are being purged from voting roles, and Black voter participation is being "Suppressed" at every turn: we have a Negro (Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas), channeling Stephen from "Django Unchained" instead of standing up for Black People.
June 25, 2013 - WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday gutted a core part of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act and challenged Congress to come up with a replacement plan to protect blacks and other minorities in places where discrimination still persists rather than target former slaveholding states in the South. The ruling upended legal protections for minority voters that were a key achievement of the U.S. civil rights movement of the 1960s led by Martin Luther King Jr. President Barack Obama expressed disappointment with the ruling and asked Congress to pass legislation “to ensure every American has equal access to the polls.”
The vote to strike down the law = Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito | The vote to save the law = Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan. As we all know, the true Negro is NOT happy just matching his Albino master in cruelty, he feels it necessary to "EXCEED" his Albino master in cruelty: so Stephen, we mean Clarence, did this: Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion expressing his view that Section 5 is also unconstitutional for the same reasons the Court held Section 4(b) unconstitutional. Now how is that for good Negrohood?
They even look alike...
Hmm, wonder if Clarence "Inspired" the Stephen character?
With all of that in mind, we know that we must really "Pile-up" the evidences if we want certain people to go against Albino teachings, and believe that few Blacks in the Americas came as African Slaves. So we offer the raw data on U.S. fertility in the table below. Above we provided the mathematical equations to use to make those calculations. Notice that even in periods when the Birthrate was high, so was the infant mortality. So that for both Blacks and Whites, there was barely enough Births to maintain their separate populations. Which gives lie to the idiots who declared the modern Black population to be the result of Black fertility. Though it's good, it ain't that good.
(As usual, the first casualty is a Black man)
The real reason for the Civil War
Two of the most enduring lies the Albinos tell, is that they stopped their slave trade, international and domestic, simply because they felt that slavery was wrong. The other is that the U.S. Civil War was fought to free their Slaves. In both cases, there was indeed a certain amount of altruism, but that was not even close to being the determinate factor. In both cases the truth is quite complicated, and can only be dealt with here in a rudimentary manner. Reasons for ending the slave trade are covered in the "History of Slavery" section, here in this section, we deal with the U.S. Civil War.
(The Antebellum South)
In eighteenth-century America, planters expected to have a large number of skilled slaves as well as common laborers. “I have my Flocks and my Herds, my Bond-men and Bond-women, and every sort of Trade amongst my own Servants,” wrote William Byrd II in 1727, who expressed an ideal of being able to “live in a kind of Independence”. James Grant described a similar attitude as existing in the lower South, including South Carolina and Georgia: “the Planter has Tradesmen of all kinds in his Gang of Slaves, and ‘tis a Rule with them, never to pay Money for what can be made upon their Estates, not a Lock, a Hinge or a Nail if they can avoid it.” In other words, planters expected enslaved people to perform a wide range of jobs that included carpenter, cooper, boatman, cook, seamstress, and blacksmith, to mention only a few of the skilled functions required around plantations.
Talented slaves also ensured the planters’ personal comfort, as in the case of expert and sensitive body servants. Both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had accomplished cooks, and Jefferson’s was French-trained. One could not readily dispense with such people. Whether they were making boats or barrels, building barns or houses, making furniture (either fine or just functional), being able to make or repair harnesses or do other leatherwork, or various kinds of ironwork, people with artisanal capability were in short supply in the eighteenth century and not everywhere in the nineteenth: further, Whites ones were expensive where found. Of course, the possession of these skills gave slaves leverage because planters desired to keep them at home, and at work, rather than run away. Thus a slave's skill level and value to the master often determined how he/she was treated.
Skilled Blacks, both free and hired-out slave, were instrumental in building the U.S. Capital and White House, as well as perhaps the majority of buildings and Bridges in the antebellum South, including:
So in truth, skilled Blacks, both free and slave, were an integral part of Southern life. The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation collected this list of advertisements for Black workers and Tradesmen found in the Virginia Gazette by year in which it appeared.
Still today, many false myths of the antebellum South are cultivated and celebrated. Chief among these is the notion of an admired southern aristocracy: this was a figment of the wealthy southerners mind, and nothing more. Northerners generally scorned them for the degenerate way, in which they earned their riches, while common southerners often sneered at the lordly pretensions of the cotton “snobocracy”.
Today Southerners loudly proclaim their love of democracy, but in fact they are new to it. Governmentally, the antebellum South was little more than an oligarchy-a-government, run by a few. Oligarchy government is Despotism Rule by a single entity with absolute power. That entity may be an individual, as in an autocracy, or it may be a group, such as the Planter Class. Generally speaking, Despotism needs slaves, while Autocrats needs servants.
The Planters dominated government and passed laws favorable to their interests. Naturally, the dominance of the Planters in government widened the gap between the rich and poor, because the supposed aristocrats made all decisions in their favor. The middle class slave owners were below the wealthy slaves owners. These smaller slave owners didn't own a majority of the slaves, but they made up a majority of the slave owners. Next came the large number of whites (95% of the white population) who didn't own slaves at all. These non-slave-holding whites were known as "poor white trash" and "hillbillies". But these whites were in support of slavery because they wanted to eventually own a slave or two of their own, and thus achieve the "American dream" of moving up socially. To them, the riches of the Cotton Kingdom were a distant dream and they often sneered at the lordly pretensions of the cotton “snobocracy” all the while, hoping to emulate them . These red-necked farmers participated in the market economy scarcely at all, they were subsistence farmers who raised corn and hogs, not cotton, and often lived isolated lives (only occasionally meeting).
Thus the antebellum South was really a place of delusion and delusionary dreams. The wealthy Planter thought of himself as a noble aristocrat: yet he was the most degenerate of men, one who made his living off of the deaths and misery of fellow human beings.
The Albino Rabble had no Slaves, as a matter of fact; many of them were worse off than Slaves. 95% of the total Albino population did NOT own Slaves! So especially Galling to these Rabble Albinos, was the fact that many Blacks however, DID own Slaves! Often in greater proportion to their population than Albino Slaveholder's.
In truth, The Albino man's inability to work in the Sun of the southern United States, and the Cotton Gin as patented by Eli Whitney, were the main cause's of the U.S. Civil War.
Albino Europeans struggled from the outset to live in the burning Sun and high temperatures of the southern United States in Summer. As an example: The majority of Charleston's summer residents were planters' families. Planting families generally stayed in town from May until fall, avoiding the heat and what they called the "sickly season." Albino armies had the same limitations: In the book "The Delaware Regiment in the Revolution", it is recorded that at Charleston, the troops, both British and American, for the remainder of the campaign were inactive; because of the summer weather, the sickly season had arrived.
This was true in the Civil War as well: The new Confederate nation set up its temporary capital in Montgomery and selected Jefferson Davis as president. But in May the Confederate government abandoned Montgomery before the sickly season began and relocated to Richmond once Virginia seceded.
So of course, when it came to farming in the South, the Albino man was in a hopeless situation. The two staple crops of Europe are currently Wheat and Corn, both of which are "moderate" weather crops. So the Albino man did quite well farming these crops in the Americas, because they could be grown in environments that he was comfortable in.
But Cotton is another matter - Cotton is a "HOT" weather crop. An average temperature of 90 degrees, with plenty of Sun is good for cotton growth.
It is said that slavery would have probably died out if not for the Cotton Gin: Prior to the introduction of the mechanical cotton gin, cotton had required considerable labor to clean and separate the fibers from the seeds. With Eli Whitney’s introduction of “teeth” in his cotton gin to comb out the cotton and separate the seeds, cotton became many times over easier to produce. While it was true that the cotton gin reduced the labor of removing seeds, it did not reduce the need for workers to grow and pick the cotton. In fact, the opposite occurred. Cotton growing became so profitable for the planters that it greatly increased their demand for both land and Black slave labor, as it was impossible for the average Albino derived White person to work the Sun drenched Cotton fields of the south, and maintain good health for very long. In 1790 there were six slave states; in 1860 there were 15. As a result, the South became even more dependent on plantations and slavery, with plantation agriculture becoming the largest sector of the Southern economy. By 1860, the Southern states were providing two-thirds of the world’s supply of cotton, and up to 80% of the crucial British market. The cotton gin thus “transformed cotton as a crop, and the American South, into the globe's first agricultural powerhouse. Cotton was indeed king, and it created a wealthy “Aristocrat-like” class in the Cotton producing Southern states that held sway over the mostly poor and gullible White inhabitants of those states. Almost 84% of whom were engaged in some form of agriculture, the vast majority falling into the yeoman farmer category. People farmed to survive and the family unit depended on all of its members contributing.
Quote: "The slaveholder's buy up all the fertile lands," recalled a disgruntled Mississippian who witnessed the process firsthand. "Hence the poor are crowded out, and if they remain in the vicinity of the place of their nativity, they must occupy the poor tracts whose sterility does not excite the cupidity of their rich neighbors." That gap between rich and poor continued to widen through the 1850s. Planters bought up more and more land, forcing a rise in land prices and making it nearly impossible for smaller farmers to increase their holdings or for tenant farmers to buy any land at all. Wealth in terms of slaveholding was also becoming concentrated in fewer hands. During the last decade of the antebellum period, the proportion of slaveholder's in the free population dropped by 20 percent. Economic circumstances beyond their control forced many yeomen into landless tenancy - so many that some commentators predicted the complete disappearance of small independent farmers from the South. By 1860 at least 25 percent of southern farmers were tenants, and more were joining their landless ranks every day. - Source: David Williams, A People's History of the Civil War, pp. 16-17
Contrast the southern states in the U.S. with the northern states whose economy was very different from that of the South. Factories developed in the North, while large cotton plantations developed in the South. The Southern plantation owners relied on slave labor for economic success while the northerners relied on paid workers. The Southerners crops were sold to cotton mills in England, and other parts, and the ships returned with cheap manufactured goods produced in Europe. But by the early 1800s, Northern factories were producing many of those same manufactured goods. The northern workers view on slavery was quite different from the wealthy southerners.
In 1849, a public convention of white mechanics and workingmen in Lexington, Kentucky adopted the following resolution: "Resolved, That the institution of slavery is prejudicial to every interest of the State, and is alike injurious to the slaveholder and non-slaveholder; that it degrades labor, enervates industry, interferes with the occupations of free laboring citizens, separates too widely the poor and the rich, shuts out the laboring classes from the blessings of education, and tends to drive from the State all who depend upon personal labor for support." (from History of the labor movement in the United States, Volume 1 By Philip Sheldon Foner, pp. 263-264).
To encourage Southerners to sell their cotton to northern factories and buy their “finished” goods from northern sources: Northern politicians (who were in the majority) were able to pass laws setting heavy taxes on imported goods from Europe, so that Southerners would be forced to buy goods from the North. These taxes angered Southerners, but in a democratic system of government, they lacked power owing to their few numbers. The population of the Free states was 20 million, while the population of the Slave states was only 8 million. Thus Democracy was not useful to the southerners, so they came up with a new concept to get around true Democracy: States' Rights!
Southerners felt that the Congress was passing laws, such as the import taxes, that treated them unfairly. Thus they asserted that under the concept of “States Rights” individual states had the right to "nullify", or overturn, any law the Federal government passed. They also believed that individual states had the right to leave the union of the United States, and form their own independent country if they so choose.
For wealthy southerners, the election of Abraham Lincoln as President of the United States in 1860, sealed the deal. His victory, without a single Southern electoral vote, was a clear signal to the Southern states, or more correctly, to the Wealthy Elite who ruled: that they had lost all influence. Feeling powerless in a democratic system, the Southerners turned to the only alternative they believed was left open to them - Secession!
In late 1860 and early 1861, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Louisiana appointed commissioners to travel to the other slave states and persuade them to secede. The commissioners addressed state legislatures, conventions, made public addresses, and wrote letters. Their speeches were printed in newspapers and pamphlets.
William Harris, Mississippi’s commissioner to Georgia, explained that Lincoln’s election had made the North more defiant than ever. “They have demanded, and now demand equality between the white and negro races, under our constitution; equality in representation, equality in right of suffrage, equality in the honors and emoluments of office, equality in the social circle, equality in the rights of matrimony,” he cautioned, adding that the new administration wanted “freedom to the slave, but eternal degradation for you and me.” As Harris saw things, “Our fathers made this a government for the white man, rejecting the negro as an ignorant, inferior, barbarian race, incapable of self-government, and not, therefore, entitled to be associated with the white man upon terms of civil, political, or social equality.” Lincoln and his followers, he stated, aimed to “overturn and strike down this great feature of our union and to substitute in its stead their new theory of the universal equality of the black and white races.”
Also typical of the commissioner letters is that written by Stephen Hale, an Alabama commissioner, to the Governor of Kentucky, in December 1860. What Southerner, Hale asked, “can without indignation and horror contemplate the triumph of negro equality, and see his own sons and daughters in the not distant future associating with free negroes upon terms of political and social equality?” Abolition would surely mean that “the two races would be continually pressing together,” and “amalgamation or the extermination of the one or the other would be inevitable.” Secession, argued Hale, was the only means by which the “heaven ordained superiority of the white over the black race” could be sustained. The abolition of slavery would either plunge the South into a race war or so stain the blood of the white race that it would be contaminated for all time.” Could southern men “submit to such degradation and ruin,” he asked, and responded to his own question, “God forbid that they should.”
The Civil War officially started on April 10, 1861, when Brig. Gen. Beauregard, in command of the provisional Confederate forces at Charleston, South Carolina, demanded the surrender of the Union garrison of Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor.
Contrary to what is taught, Lincoln was NOT the great emancipator; as a matter of fact his position on slavery is quite murky. But there is no doubt that his greatest interest was in saving the union, not slavery. Accordingly, it was not until over two years after the start of the war that Lincoln signed “The Emancipation Proclamation”.
The Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order issued by President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863, as a war measure during the American Civil War, to all segments of the Executive branch (including the Army and Navy) of the United States. It proclaimed the freedom of slaves in the ten states that were still in rebellion, thus applying to 3.1 million of the 4 million slaves in the U.S. at the time. The Proclamation was based on the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief of the armed forces; it was not a law passed by Congress. The Proclamation also ordered that "suitable" persons among those freed could be enrolled into the paid service of United States' forces, and ordered the Union Army (and all segments of the Executive branch) to "recognize and maintain the freedom of" the ex-slaves. The Proclamation did not compensate the owners, did not itself outlaw slavery, and did not make the ex-slaves (called freedmen) citizens. It made the eradication of slavery an explicit war goal, in addition to the goal of reuniting the Union.
Around 20,000 to 50,000 slaves in regions where rebellion had already been subdued were immediately emancipated. It could not be enforced in areas still under rebellion, but as the Union army took control of Confederate regions, the Proclamation provided the legal framework for freeing more than 3 million more slaves in those regions. Prior to the Proclamation, in accordance with the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, escaped slaves were either returned to their masters or held in camps as contraband for later return. The Proclamation only applied to slaves in Confederate held lands; it did not apply to those in the five slave states that were not in rebellion, nor to most regions already controlled by the Union army. Emancipation in those regions would come after separate state actions and/or the December 1865 ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, which made slavery illegal everywhere in the U.S.
Why the war dragged on for so long, and at such great cost in lives, is generally attributed to Union incompetence. The confederate army was only 800,000 to 1,200,000 men, of which a large part (103,000) deserted. Compared to the union army of almost 2 million men.
As in previous wars, Black Americans were of two minds. Thought 359,528 Black Americans fought for the Union, with 36,847 being killed.
The Confederate Army
"Nearly 40% of the Confederacy's population were slaves. The work required to sustain the same society during war naturally fell disproportionately on black shoulders as well. By drawing so many white men into the army, indeed, the war multiplied the importance of the black work force." Even Georgia's Governor Joseph E. Brown noted that "the country and the army are mainly dependent upon slave labor for support."
It has been estimated that over 65,000 Southern blacks were in the Confederate ranks. Over 13,000 of these, "saw the elephant" also known as meeting the enemy in combat. These Black Confederates included both slave and free. The Confederate Congress did not approve blacks to be officially enlisted as soldiers (except as musicians), until late in the war. But in the ranks it was a different story. Many Confederate officers did not obey the mandates of politicians, they frequently enlisted blacks with the simple criteria, "Will you fight?" Historian Ervin Jordan, explains that "biracial units" were frequently organized "by local Confederate and State militia Commanders in response to immediate threats in the form of Union raids". Dr. Leonard Haynes, an African-American professor at Southern University, stated, "When you eliminate the black Confederate soldier, you've eliminated the history of the South."
The impressment of slaves, and conscription of freedmen, into direct military labor, initially came on the impetus of state legislatures, and by 1864 six states had regulated impressment (Florida, Virginia, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina, in order of authorization) as well as the Confederate Congress. Slave labor was used in a wide variety of support roles, from infrastructure and mining, to teamster and medical roles such as hospital attendants and nurses.
The idea of arming slaves for use as soldiers was speculated on from the onset of the war, but not seriously considered by Davis or others in his administration. As the Union saw victories in the fall of 1862 and the spring of 1863, however, the need for more manpower was acknowledged by the Confederacy in the form of conscription of white men, and the national impressment of free and slave blacks into laborer positions.
State militias composed of freedmen were offered, but the War Department spurned the offer. One of the more notable state militias was the all black 1st Louisiana Native Guard, a militia unit composed of free men of color. It was the first of any North American unit to have African American officers. The unit was short lived, and forced to disband in February 1862. The unit was "intended as a response to demands from members of New Orleans' substantial free black population that they be permitted to participate in the defense of their state, the unit was used by Confederate authorities for public display and propaganda purposes but was not allowed to fight." A Union army regiment was later formed under the same name after General Butler took control of the city.
|Population||Increase||% Increase||Population||Increase||% Increase||Population||Increase||% Increase|
Later census figures are not useful, because new immigrants from China, Japan, India, etc. began coming in, and were counted as "Colored".
United States Census
|Population||Increase||% Increase||Population||Increase||% Increase||Population||Increase||% Increase|
In August 1862, President Lincoln met with African-American leaders and urged them to colonize some place in Central America. Lincoln planned to free the Southern slaves in the Emancipation Proclamation and he was concerned that freedmen would not be well treated in the United States by Whites in both the North and South. Although Lincoln gave assurances that the United States government would support and protect any colonies, the leaders declined the offer of colonization. Many free blacks had been opposed to colonization plans in the past and wanted to remain in the United States. President Lincoln persisted in his colonization plan believing that emancipation and colonization were part of the same program. Lincoln was successful by April 1863 at sending black colonists to Haiti and 453 to Chiriqui in Panama, Central America; however, none of the colonies was able to remain self-sufficient. Frederick Douglass, a prominent 19th-century American civil rights activist, criticized that Lincoln was "showing all his inconsistencies, his pride of race and blood, his contempt for Negroes and his canting hypocrisy." African Americans, according to Douglass, wanted citizen rights rather than to colonize.
After the civil war many Southern freed blacks migrated to the industrial North to seek employment. Their progress was often met with hostility as many Whites did not believe that free Africans had a place in America as these whites feared that they would lose jobs to free African Americans, while other whites did not like the idea of blacks integrating with whites. Riots swept the nation in waves, usually in urban areas where there had been recent migration of blacks from the South. During the height of these riots in 1819, there were twenty five recorded riots, with many killed and injured. The back-to-Africa movement was seen as the solution to these problems by some.
The idea of a Back to Africa Movement however, started much earlier. The American Colonization Society, founded in 1816 by Charles Fenton Mercer, was made up of two groups: "philanthropists, clergy and abolitionist who wanted to free African slaves and their descendants and provide them with the opportunity to return to Africa. The other group was the slave owners who feared free people of color and wanted to expel them from America. In 1811, Paul Cuffee, "a black man who was a wealthy man of property, a petitioner for equal rights for blacks" began to explore the idea of black people returning to their native land as he was convinced that "opportunities for the advancement of black people were limited in America, and he became interested in African colonization." With the help of some Quakers in Philadelphia he was able to transport thirty eight blacks to Freetown, Sierra Leone in 1815. It was the American Colonization Society, however, that made the most progress with the Back to Africa Movement.
According to the Encyclopedia of Georgia History and Culture, "as early as 1820, black Americans had begun to return to their ancestral homeland through the auspices of the American Colonization Society" and by 1847, the American Colonization Society founded Liberia and designated it as the land to be colonized by all black people returning from the United States of America. By the decline of the Back to Africa Movement, the American Colonization Society migrated over 13,000 blacks back to Africa.
The Garvey movement was the greatest international movement of Black peoples in modern times. At its peak, from 1922 to 1924, the movement counted more than eight million followers. But how many people were actually transported to Africa? As best that can be ascertained, zero!
It is telling that President Lincoln thought that a "sweetened" offer for American Blacks to leave the U.S. was NOT passage to Africa, which he clearly understood was not the homeland of most American Blacks, but rather starting new colonies in the Americas. Equally telling is that Sierra Leone and Liberia, were the only African destinations contemplated by the "Back to Africa" movements. Logically, if any great numbers of American Blacks were actually Africans, then certainly they would want to return to their own kingdoms or countries, not to new countries that were created for them. No wonder then, that at every turn, when offered an opportunity to go to Africa, American Blacks overwhelmingly rejected that option. Clearly they were not Africans, and had no intimate knowledge of, or feeling for Africa.
Determining exactly how much of the "Original" Black American population is of European extraction would require statistical analysis beyond our abilities. But noting that between 1790 and 1870, a period of 80 years, the population multiplied 6.44 times, when the healthiest, most pristine White population would barely be able to double: Indicates that the greater of the Black American population is of European extraction.
This carefully hidden but statistically obvious fact was accidentally proven when researchers from Stanford University School of Medicine, the Institute for Human Genetics, University of California, and others, did a study "ostensibly" to determine to what extent Blacks in the United States had admixed with Albino Americans. We say "ostensibly" because the sample sizes were obviously too small to give meaningful results, making one question the real purpose of the study. The researchers, though highly educated in their fields, were like most people, they were woefully ignorant of "Real" and truthful history, having been taught the standard Albinos lies that pass for history in all Albino classrooms. Thus the obvious facts that would doom their study were not recognized - they are:
The most common Black American Y-dna is E1b1a
In Africa E1b1a is a common Haplogroup
In Europe E1b1b is a common Y-dna Haplogroup.
There is only the tiniest difference between the two:
Haplogroup "I" is shared by one fifth of all Europeans.
Haplogroup "I" is also found in Sudan, Ethiopia, and the Middle-East.
Haplogroup "R1b" is the most common Y-dna Haplogroup in Europe.
Haplogroup "R" is common throughout Europe, Central Asia, South Asia, and also parts of the Middle-East and Africa.
Thus if these scientists had known "True" history, and had considered that, together with the above data, they would have realized that Admixture between Blacks and Dravidian Albinos goes back to long before there was such a thing as the United States! Therefore there is no way to tell what admixture took place IN EUROPE, and what admixture took place IN the UNITED STATES. But alas, they did not, and their confusion is evident in the wording of their conclusions.
As clearly stated in the "Characterizing the admixed African ancestry of African Americans" study above: Quote - Our results also indicate that the genetic architecture of African Americans is distinct from that of Africans!
So, if we want to show that Black Americans in the United States are in fact "non-African", thus different and distinct from all other Blacks in the Americas. We must compare them to a proto-typical African population in the Americas - Brazil provides just such a population.
Note: when we say "non-African" we are of course speaking relatively. The Papuans and Australians were the first Humans to leave Africa (60-70,000 years ago), Black Europeans were among the last (40-45,000 years ago).
About 550,000 of the 10-12 million African Slaves transported to the Americas went to the United States, which is less than 5% of the total. The majority of African Slaves went to Brazil, about 38.5%: Which translates to about 4 million Slaves.
DEMOGRAPHICS of the two countries:
white 79.96%, black 12.85%, Asian 4.43%, Amerindian and Alaska native 0.97%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.18%, two or more races 1.61% (July 2007 estimate). note: a separate listing for Hispanic is not included because the US Census Bureau considers Hispanic to mean persons of Spanish/Hispanic/Latino origin including those of Mexican, Cuban, Puerto Rican, Dominican Republic, Spanish, and Central or South American origin living in the US who may be of any race or ethnic group (white, black, Asian, etc.); about 15.1% of the total US population is Hispanic.
The minority ethnic groups in Brazil are various non-assimilated indigenous tribes, comprising less than 1% of the population, who live in officially delimited reservations and either avoid contact with other peoples, or constitute separate social and political communities. The rest of the population can be considered a single "Brazilian" ethnic group, with highly varied racial types and backgrounds, but without clear ethnic sub-divisions. By "skin colour", or "race", the 2008 PNAD gives 48.43% White, 43.80% Multirracial, 6.84% Black, 0.58% Asian, 0.28% Amerindian, 0.07% undeclared.
The Africans brought to Brazil belonged to two major groups: the West African and the Bantu people. West African people (previously known as Sudanese, and without connection with Sudan) were sent in large scale to Bahia. They mostly belong to the Akan (Ashanti-Fanti); Yoruba people; Ewe; Ga-Adangbe; Igbo People; Fon people; and Mandinka people. Other West African group’s native to Ghana, Benin, Guinea-Bissau and Nigeria were also subjected to slavery in Brazil. The Bantus were brought from Angola, Congo region and the Shona kingdoms from Zimbabwe and Mozambique and sent in large scale to Rio de Janeiro, Minas Gerais, and the Northeastern Brazil.
According to "The Journey of Man, A Genetic Odyssey by Spencer Wells, Y-dna haplogroup E3a (now called E-V38) is the most common haplogroup among Black males in the United States, with some sources reporting as much as 60%. If the majority of Black Americans did indeed come from Africa, as did the Brazilians, then they should have the same genetic percentages for E-V38 as the Brazilians.
(References from above)
Note 4: E-V38 is approximately 7.7-7.9% of total US male population (that means Black AND Albino too).
| Albania = 27.5
Bosnia-Herzegovina = 14.5
Bulgaria = 24
Cyprus = 20
Ile-de-France = 18.5
Central Greece = 29.5
Aegean Islands = 22
Macedonia = 20.5
Serbia = 20.5
Galicia = 22
Jordan = 26
Lebanon = 17.5
Palestine = 19.5
Algeria = 59
Egypt = 46
Morocco = 83
Tunisia = 72
Y-dna haplogroup E is found in all European countries. Those with the lowest percentages were the most sucessful in expelling Blacks.
North Germany = 2.5
England = 2
There are many people who because of the life-long saturation of their minds by Albino propaganda, find it very difficult to envision the realities herein presented. That is understandable, but luckily logic and evidence do not require credence, they remain constant regardless. But as a logical exercise, one might want to look at a seemingly innocuous thing, the census.
There are many reasons for taking a census:
It is next to IMPOSSIBLE to run an advanced country, without knowing what resources you have, how many people you have, and where they are located.
As an example:
The first census in Egypt was carried out in 3340 B.C.
THESE ARE CLAIMED AS THE DATES OF THE FIRST CENSUS'S IN EUROPE!
Common sense tells us that those dates are a lie!
Where are the documents that are the census's of Europe's earlier times?
And what besides the Black population of those times, could the Albinos possibly be hiding?
Those census documents represent evidence of their crimes, and the Albinos will not give them up easily.
Researching the European origins of Black Americans is of course, a new concept and discipline. At this time the only available database that contains this kind of information is the Afro-Louisiana History and Genealogy (1699 - 1820) Database. In 1984, a professor at Rutgers University stumbled upon a trove of historic data in a courthouse in Pointe Coupee Parish, Louisiana. Over the next 15 years, Dr. Gwendolyn Midlo Hall, a noted New Orleans writer and historian, painstakingly uncovered the background of 100,000 slaves who were brought to Louisiana in the 18th and 19th centuries. Poring through documents from all over Louisiana, as well as archives in France, Spain and Texas, Dr. Hall designed and created a database into which she recorded and calculated the information she obtained from these documents about African slave names, genders, ages, occupations, illnesses, family relationships, ethnicity, places of origin, prices paid by slave owners, and slaves' testimony and emancipations. In March 2000, the Louisiana State University Press published Dr. Hall's databases on a CD-ROM.
The Louisiana database is searchable by various criteria: a search by English origin returns 331 records of English origin Black or mulatto slaves. However, the records do not indicate where in the English domains the slave originated.
Click here for a link to the Afro-Louisiana History and Genealogy Database
Searched the database based on:
Results 1-40 out of 331
Buyer's Name: Latapie
Seller's Name: Gourjou jr.
Year Document was created: 1812
Racial Designation: black
Document Location: Orleans (including Chapitoulas).[Jefferson 1825]
Buyer's Name: Kelsey
Seller's Name: Clark
Year Document was created: 1786
Racial Designation: black
Document Location: Orleans (including Chapitoulas).[Jefferson 1825]
It uses excerpt from a 60 minutes Exposé on Dna testing, showing that as the original humans, Blacks were Europeans, and share dna with all people, including European Albinos.
Since our last update, new data and methods have
become available to us. This data is current as of Fall 2018
The current Black population of the United States, as by official census estimate, was about 43.65 million in 2017: or so the Albinos say. About 85 million is what WE say! (Based on earlier analysis of the last three Presidential election results). As we have seen from a new analysis, which has more data - the true numbers may be even more mind boggling!
Regardless - even the most math challenged individual would know that there is no way that 308,005 African Slaves could have turned into 43 million people, much less - 85 million people, in just 169 years. But we need to "Prove" that: so let’s calculate just how many people those African Slaves would have turned into by 2018. In order to do the "Proof" there are some mathematical parameters we need to establish: one of them is the "Population Replacement Level."
Population replacement level or “Replacement level fertility” is the total fertility rate—the average number of children born per woman—at which a population exactly replaces itself from one generation to the next, without migration. World Resources Institute.
Sub-replacement fertility - In developed countries, sub-replacement fertility is any rate below approximately 2.1 children born per woman, but the threshold can be as high as 3.4 in some developing countries because of higher mortality rates. From this we know that the "Population replacement level" is dependant on the HEALTH of the population.
According to Henry Louis Gates and the Gilder Institute of American History: In the U.S. - on average - a slave mother gave birth to between nine and 10 children, “twice as many in the West Indies.” Yet, in 1860, “less than 10 percent of the slave population was over 50 and only 3.5 percent was over 60.”
From: Digital History ID 3040
So in order to calculate the "Population replacement level" the math would go like this: A woman has 10 children born - less than 5 make it to adulthood - let's say 4. About 20% of Women did not produce children, that leaves 3 children who make it to adulthood to produce the next generation.
REMEMBER THIS? Sub-replacement fertility - In developed countries sub-replacement fertility is any rate below approximately 2.1 children born per woman, but the threshold can be as high as 3.4 in some developing countries because of higher mortality rates. Sub-replacement fertility - Wikipedia
Considering the horrid living conditions of Slaves: the 3.4 births to maintain population would have easily been exceeded. Therefore the population of African Slaves would have steadily DECLINED! To prove this, we can use the population calculator software of Ilkka Huotari.
According to the Population calculator of Ilkka Huotari (2013): (Using the official 308,005 Slaves imported by 1851). The population of Blacks in the United States, who are the descendants of African Slaves, in 2018 should be about 288,000 people.
However - after emancipation the situation would of course have changed for the ex-slave family.
Now the ex-slaves were responsible for supporting their own children: but they had no income!
Reprinted from Social Forces
This article undertakes an analysis of non-farm Negro families. In Table 1 there is presented a comparison of the situation regarding children and income in non-white (practically all Negro) families and all the families in the southern region. 2) The first fact of importance is that among Negroes 51 percent of the families as compared with 37 percent of all the families in the South have no children. Although the disparity is not as great, the percentage of Negro families with 1, 2, and 3 or more children is smaller in each instance than in the entire population. As the size of the Negro families increases, the differences between the percentage of Negro families and all familes in each category decreases.
The Howard University study seems to suggest that the number of children produced by ex-slaves actually DECLINED further! But for our analysis we will stay with the previously calculated ex-African Slave population in the United States. For those who believe the Albinos population figures: The part of the Black American population derived from African Slaves is 0.64 percent. For those who believe Realhistoryww population figures: The part of the Black American population derived from African Slaves is 0.34 percent.
Click here for link to the full Study