This page may be slow to load due to the number of pictures and multimedia.

Also, some films may not load if you are using an "ad block" on your computer, which may need to be temporarily disengaged.  No ads are generated from this website.
"The Old South"
in the days of the
Read and Wauchope

Geographically, "The Old South" is a sub-region of the American South, differentiated from the Deep South by being limited to those Southern states represented among the original thirteen British colonies, which became the first thirteen U.S. states.


Culturally, "The Old South" is used to describe the rural, agriculturally-based, pre-Civil War or antebellum economy and society in the Southern United States.

This page represents a Sub-section of the "The Old South" webpage and has been expanded to present the truth concerning "the fury over the monuments," as Dr. Robertson called it, with a view, that we hope, will educate and inform.  Several of his lectures are presented that deal with the monument problems of 2017 and 2020.  I sincerely hope that you, the reader, will take time to examine all the facts and data that are presented here.  You may be uncomfortable with several viewpoints which are examined in detail, but it is hoped you will come to an informed conclusion.  Some information concerning the Civil War is duplicated on this page, but most deals with the '2017' and '2020' issues.

And after the war ended, careful documentation indicates that none of those in the Read, Wauchope, or Hughes families, who served in the Confederacy, ever joined the KKK.  They supported our American heritage of freedom, not the Marxism and anarchy which is being espoused by many uneducated individuals in the year 2020; movements they have not researched and fully understood.  The special sections on this webpage '2017' and '2020,' will explore that further. 

You will also be introduced to the false revisionist history of the "1619 Project" which is pure nonsense.  It is an attempt to take rewritten history and insert it into our Junior and Senior High Schools.  Indeed, some schools in our country have started using these materials without any critical examination of them. 

As a former high school history teacher, I firmly stand against this ideology based on one woman's interpretation of history, which many subject-matter historians in this country have roundly dismissed as fake.

One other Marxist-laden history of our country, which has been around for some time supported by Howard Zinn, a member of the Communist Party, will be examined in depth.  I also do not recommend his books.

My brother and I attended schools with teachers who emphasized our American Christian values and the freedom we enjoy in our country.  Kids today, unfortunately, are not being taught the founding principles of our nation.  Some of our schools are now teaching rubbish like the "1619 Project" which perpetuates lies about how and why our nation was founded.

I grew up in a Christian home. We prayed and read the Bible together as a family.  My father and mother came from not well-off circumstances.  My father lived on a farm and had to rise early to milk the family cow and then after the chores were over, walk some distance to school.  My mother grew up during the depression of the 1930s. Her own mother had to pawn her wedding ring to get money to get the children's teeth fixed at the dentist office. Money was extremely tight.  Both her parents and grandparents had worked as Missionaries in Indian Territory before Oklahoma was a state (the details of which can be found on "The Read Family Story" webpage). 

This family heritage carried over to my brother and I, growing up in a small town.  I can remember people, who had even less than we, would sometimes come to the back door of our house in South Norfolk, and mother would invite them in to supper with us.  That was just who she was; and the color of one's skin meant no difference.  Our family always treated everyone with dignity and respect.  In my early college years during the turbulent 1960s, I did volunteer work with other students in the inner city area of Berkley, Norfolk, which was a very poor section of the city at that time.

During one Christmas Eve, my brother invited a graduate student from the college we were attending, home for dinner.  He was from India and was studying engineering.  My mother gave him a Bible; the first time he had ever seen one during the years he had been in our country.  So I hope you understand that from my own background, I have a hard time understanding why folks in our country are not trying to have a rational conversation about the circumstances surrounding the 2017 and 2020 events that are detailed further down on this page.

Also, please keep in mind, that as you read this page, you will be presented with opposing views from 18th, 19th, 20th and 21st Century sources.  They do not, repeat, do not necessarily represent my personal viewpoint.  However, keep in mind that no one in my immediate family would ever support a "Democratic Socialist" or Socialist or Communist backed organization.  Nor would anyone in our immediate family support or vote for any politician who supports that. 

Yet, people can be gullible to any passing political philosophical persuasion, when they do not investigate the background of a situation thoroughly; when they 'take as gospel' everything said in a high school or college classroom, as did a great grandchild of one of my deceased Aunts, who is ignorant of American history; who has associated with other like-minded individuals, in joining a radical online movement founded by Marxists, and which, his mother has unfortunately praised on her Facebook, showing her own ignorance. 

When I taught History in public and private schools some years ago, I did not teach that subject from a personally slanted modern day political viewpoint.  The students on some occasions would state that, by my teaching any period of history as historical fact, from the primary source materials and documents, they could not figure out which political party I espoused.  That is the intent here.  I will not tell the reader of this page which party ideology I espouse, except as pertaining to the current 2020 election.  I will simply present the facts of the Antebellum period and the Civil War and the accompanying 2017/2020 sections as they are.

You will find good information on this page from unbiased news sources in England and Australia.  Much of what we now call the 'mainstream media' have censored what a viewer on TV may see.  Late in the 2020 election, it has been accurately revealed that the 'tech giants' have censored news on Google, Twitter, and Facebook.  You will find that I have had to come to the conclusion, during this 2020 election year, that only one candidate truly supports the Christian values our family cherished.  We live in unusual times, but we must remain true to what the Bible teaches as truth.

A good introduction to the Old South is an overview of Colonial America and the colonies where the earliest Read family members were born and raised.  Such may be found in a study of Jamestown, Williamsburg, and Yorktown.  Recently the film "Williamsburg the Story of a Patriot" has been put into public domain, on the internet archive and through the public library system of Pennsylvania.  It is offered here now, in 3 parts, due to it's length.  It is well worth your time to view.  May I also recommend a visit to the Colonial Virginia area to learn more about the colonial heritage of our country.
Three older, but still relevant films, that introduce Colonial Williamsburg:
An old film "The Colonial Naturalist," now in public domain, concerns the true story about an early effort by Mark Catesby, in colonial Virginia, to catalog the various animals and their habitat. Our famiy visited Williamsburg when on vacation and my father especially enjoyed this particular film.
Jamestown: where James Read arrived in 1607.  He was a blacksmith and soldier.  You can find information about him on the "Read Family Story" webpage.
Students and Teachers should take advantage of the extensive resources available at Historic Jamestowne in Jamestown, Virginia.
Here are some sample lesson plans now available from their website:
"The 1619 Project"
which was released in 2019,
is filled with
historical heresy and
false claims.
It attempts to re-write our history.

All major historians in the United States have condemned this outlandish attempt at re-educating our children.

The American Mind: the dangerous falsehoods of the NYT’s ‘1619 Project’

Washington, June 24, 2020

The following op-ed appeared at the American Mind, a publication of the Claremont Institute, on June 24, 2020.

-Congressman Jim Banks, Indiana

Have you turned on the news, seen organized groups pulling down statues—not of Confederate soldiers, but of our Founding Fathers or other presidents—and found yourself wondering what’s going on? My wife Amanda and I have watched with disgust as memorials to our country’s great heritage are attacked and vandalized. Our three girls are watching too. They ask: Why is this happening? I’ve been wrestling on how to give them an answer.


We could try to give these groups the benefit of the doubt. Was it too dark and they didn’t see that they were pulling down a statue of George Washington? Perhaps our education system has failed and some don’t realize Thomas Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence and was a critical figure in our fight for Independence? Or that Ulysses S. Grant actually fought to save the Union, the Confederacy surrendered to him at the Appomattox Court House and was a great leader in the Reconstruction efforts? Surely, they forgot that Abraham Lincoln was the signer of the Emancipation Proclamation that ultimately led to the abolition of slavery in America?

But that’s not what’s going on. I don’t know how to tell my daughters the truth, because the truth makes Amanda and I feel sad and angry.

You see, pulling down these statues isn’t a mistake. The groups pulling down statues are taking their cues from prominent figures in our nation’s elite. You can find their ideas in op-ed pages of the New York Times, on the news and even our children’s textbooks.

What’s going on, then? Some call it a revolution, but it’s a fundamental shift in the narrative about who we are, what we are, and why we are a nation.

On one of the statues of George Washington pulled down in Portland, the numbers 1619 were graffitied on his side.

What is 1619? It’s a reference to the year African slaves were brought to North America for the first time. It’s also the name of a new school curriculum published by the New York Times that’s being presented to our children in school.

The 1619 project teaches that America, at its core, is an irredeemably racist nation. According to Nikole Hannah Jones, the brainchild of the 1619 project, the Founding Fathers fought for independence from Britain not to protect the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness like they said they were, but to uphold the institution of slavery.


This is an absurd recasting of the birth of our nation, and it’s completely false. They don’t want you to dwell on the fact that George Washington freed his slaves toward the end of his life and expressed to see a plan for abolition in his will. Or that Civil Rights icon Martin Luther King fought for equitable treatment under the law using Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence.

But members of the Pulitzer Prize Board ignored those pesky details and historical inaccuracies. Earlier this year, they announced they’re giving Nikole Hannah Jones, the founder of the 1619 project, our country’s most coveted recognition and highest honor—the Pulitzer Prize. Not only did they accept these lies as truth, the Pulitzer Prize Board celebrated them and signaled we should celebrate them too. If they can get you to accept this rewriting of history, they can get you to say anything.

And so, taking their cues from our nation’s most prominent voices and cultural elites, lawless “protesters” are ripping down statues of some of our country’s revered figures. They say, and I’m paraphrasing, “Anyone who helped build America is a racist because America is a racist nation”—that’s what they think. “You can’t have pride in a country that is irredeemably racist. You shouldn’t honor the flag that represents it. And when that flag is presented, you should kneel.”

This is bigger than a simple call for police reform. This is a dramatic retelling of the American story. If we don’t push back on it, we may find ourselves living in a nation we don’t recognize when this is all done.


"On August 19 of last year (2019) I listened in stunned silence as Nikole Hannah-Jones, a reporter for the New York Times, repeated an idea that I had vigorously argued against with her fact-checker: that the patriots fought the American Revolution in large part to preserve slavery in North America.

"Far from being fought to preserve slavery, the Revolutionary War became a primary disrupter of slavery in the North American Colonies. Lord Dunmore's Proclamation, a British military strategy designed to unsettle the Southern Colonies by inviting enslaved people to flee to British lines, propelled hundreds of enslaved people off plantations and turned some Southerners to the patriot side. It also led most of the 13 Colonies to arm and employ free and enslaved black people, with the promise of freedom to those who served in their armies. While neither side fully kept its promises, thousands of enslaved people were freed as a result of these policies….


"Despite my advice, the Times published the incorrect statement about the American Revolution anyway, in Hannah-Jones' introductory essay. In addition, the paper's characterizations of slavery in early America reflected laws and practices more common in the antebellum era than in Colonial times, and did not accurately illustrate the varied experiences of the first generation of enslaved people that arrived in Virginia in 1619.


"Hannah-Jones has tended to be extremely dismissive of the project's critics, who include The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf and the American Institute for Economic Research's Phil Magness. Perhaps she will have a more difficult time discounting criticism from a historian whose expertise her project drew on.


"In any case, these ongoing issues with the project's accuracy are a good argument against school districts' swift mandates that it be taught in seventh-grade history classrooms."

-Leslie M. Harris is professor of history at Northwestern University, and author of In the Shadow of Slavery: African Americans in New York City, 1626-1863 and Slavery and the University: Histories and Legacies


A Divisive, Historically Dubious Curriculum

'1619 Project' Winning the Pulitzer Shows Deep Corruption of Our Institutions

 By Jarrett Stepman | May 18, 2020



The New York Times’ “1619 Project”—despite being riddled with historical inaccuracies—is now the winner of a Pulitzer Prize, an outcome that is unfortunate but utterly unsurprising.


The award was given specifically to journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones, the architect of the 1619 Project.


But her lead essay in the project has been lambasted by historians as inaccurate, in large part because of her assertion that the American colonists fought the Revolution to protect slavery.

That contention flowed from the project’s stated goal of showing that the country’s true founding was in 1619, when the first slaves from Africa were brought to the United States, rather than 1776, when the colonies declared their independence from England.


After months of pressure, The New York Times finally issued a correction—which it called a “clarification”—to the claim that slavery was the “one primary reason the colonists fought the American Revolution.”


As my colleague, Jonathan Butcher, a senior policy analyst in The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Education Policy, wrote, The Times hedged on this assertion to say that “some of” the colonists fought in the American Revolution to preserve slavery.


The idea that the American Revolution was motivated primarily by the desire to uphold slavery has been rightly assailed by numerous respected historians of all stripes, from conservative to liberal to even socialist.


The World Socialist Website, of all things, called the project “a politically motivated falsification of history.”


I’ve seldom, if ever, agreed with a socialist on anything, but that is spot on.

As I detailed in my book “The War on History: The Conspiracy to Rewrite America’s Past,” there has been a long-term and accelerating trend of distorting our history, to bury our accomplishments, and embellish our country’s sins.


The 1619 Project is even upfront with its stated intention to “reframe” America’s past. It does this not simply by making a different argument or interpretation, but by distorting the record, as so many historians have noted.


It’s important that when we discuss the past, we do so with a commitment to truth and accuracy. That shouldn’t be a left or right thing. Fake news is problematic, whether it has to do with reporting on the president or what happened in 1776.


So why would the Pulitzer Prize board, which supposedly gives awards for excellence in writing and journalism, give an esteemed award to what is at the very least a deeply flawed piece of work?

The truth, as those with common sense already know, is that the Pulitzer Prize recipients are chosen through a lens of politics. The 1619 Project might not be correct in fact, but it’s “correct” in feeling. It’s correct by the measure of the identity politics ideology that has become the de facto ideological lens of our country’s elite, liberal institutions.


This is hardly the first or only wild miss by Pulitzer. After all, Walter Duranty, The New York Times’ onetime Moscow bureau chief who lied about the Soviet Union’s starvation of Ukraine in the 1930s, never had his award rescinded, and the Times still occasionally touts Duranty as a past winner of the prize.


It seems that if you want accolades without regard to truth or accuracy, your best bet is to be on the political left and write for The New York Times.


The 1619 Project didn’t have to be excellent. It just had to be politically correct and written by the right people at America’s liberal publication of record. None of the criticism or flaws even mattered.


The Nobel Prize is hardly any different. Remember when then-President Barack Obama, after just nine months in office, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009? Can anyone actually recall what he did to deserve it, other than being a liberal president and not George W. Bush?

If one wants to look for an indication of why trust in America’s leading institutions—from Congress to the media—is in a state of collapse, this is a prime example.


Our meritocracy, to many Americans, is not very meritocratic. Our cultural elites are not so elite, but rather, committed to self-aggrandizement. Being “woke” is more important than being right. And the cultural elites are not content to simply hold those views and leave the rest of us alone. Instead, they work relentlessly to ensure that entire generations are all taught to think this same way, hence their war on school choice and homeschooling.


Despite the 1619 Project’s being so clearly flawed, and how obviously political the Pulitzer Prize board was, the award nevertheless provides an “official” stamp of approval that makes it a more effective tool to use in schools around the country. My wife, Inez Stepman, explained why in The Federalist:


"Unfortunately, endorsement of the 1619 Project goes beyond the establishment media and attendant self-congratulatory organizations. In large part due to the Pulitzer Center’s blessing, Common Core-compliant curricular materials based on the inaccurate history in the project are used in more than 3,500 schools across all 50 states. Thousands of American students are learning false historical information that gives them an unduly negative view of this country."

That’s bad enough, but now frustrated parents will be told that it’s all good, because after all, it won a Pulitzer Prize.


The left wields enormous power over our most powerful cultural institutions, a power wholly unjustified by its record. If there’s a characteristic that Americans from the time of the founding to today have maintained through the centuries, it’s our utter intolerance of a false aristocracy.

That’s why it’s essential that Americans now have a choice and the tools to work around those institutions and commit to giving themselves and their children those tools and the education necessary, such as those provided by the Woodson Center’s excellent “1776” project, to withstand the tide of mis-education.


Jarrett Stepman is a contributor for The Daily Signal.

The 1619 Project isn’t just a series of articles placing slavery fraudulently at the center of the American story. It is also a curriculum that is sweeping the land.

It teaches socialism—which forces man to work for others without remuneration, and expropriates private property—that is akin to slavery.

Teachers and Administrators will have to unite and act, now that the Pulitzer Board has allowed its coveted prize to be used in selling this project.

An Interview with James McPherson about the "1619 Project" and is author of dozens of books and articles, including the Pulitzer Prize-winning Battle Cry of Freedom, widely regarded as the authoritative account of the Civil War.

An interview with historian

Gordon Wood on the New York Times’

1619 Project

“When the Declaration says that all men are created equal, that is no myth”

By Tom Mackaman
28 November 2019

Gordon Wood is professor emeritus at Brown University and author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning book The Radicalism of the American Revolution, as well as Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789–1815, and dozens of other books and articles on the colonial period, the American Revolution and the early republic.

Historian Gordan Wood speaks with WSWS about American Revolution and the NYT 1619 Project

Q. Let me begin by asking you your initial reaction to the 1619 Project. When did you learn about it?

A. Well, I was surprised when I opened my Sunday New York Times in August and found the magazine containing the project. I had no warning about this. I read the first essay by Nikole Hannah-Jones, which alleges that the Revolution occurred primarily because of the Americans’ desire to save their slaves. She claims the British were on the warpath against the slave trade and slavery and that rebellion was the only hope for American slavery. This made the American Revolution out to be like the Civil War, where the South seceded to save and protect slavery, and that the Americans 70 years earlier revolted to protect their institution of slavery. I just couldn’t believe this.

I was surprised, as many other people were, by the scope of this thing, especially since it’s going to become the basis for high school education and has the authority of the New York Times behind it, and yet it is so wrong in so many ways.

Q. I want to return to the question of slavery and the American Revolution, but first I wanted to follow up, because you said you were not approached. Yet you are certainly one of the foremost authorities on the American Revolution, which the 1619 Project trains much of its fire on.

A. Yes, no one ever approached me. None of the leading scholars of the whole period from the Revolution to the Civil War, as far I know, have been consulted. I read the Jim McPherson interview and he was just as surprised as I was.

Q. Can you discuss the relationship between the American Revolution and the institution of slavery?

A. One of the things that I have emphasized in my writing is how many southerners and northerners in 1776 thought slavery was on its last legs and that it would naturally die away. You can find quotation after quotation from people seriously thinking that slavery was going to wither away in several decades. Now we know they couldn’t have been more wrong. But they lived with illusions and were so wrong about so many things. We may be living with illusions too. One of the big lessons of history is to realize how the past doesn’t know its future. We know how the story turned out, and we somehow assume they should know what we know, but they don’t, of course. They don’t know their future any more than we know our future, and so many of them thought that slavery would die away, and at first there was considerable evidence that that was indeed the case.

Map of Free and Slave states:

At the time of the Revolution, the Virginians had more slaves than they knew what to do with, so they were eager to end the international slave trade. But the Georgians and the South Carolinians weren’t ready to do that yet. That was one of the compromises that came out of the Constitutional Convention. The Deep South was given 20 years to import more slaves, but most Americans were confident that the despicable transatlantic slave trade was definitely going to end in 1808.

Q. Under the Jefferson administration?

A. Yes, it was set in the Constitution at 20 years, but everyone knew this would be ended because nearly everyone knew that this was a barbaric thing, importing people and so on. Many thought that ending the slave trade would set slavery itself on the road to extinction. Of course, they were wrong.

I think the important point to make about slavery is that it had existed for thousands of years without substantial criticism, and it existed all over the New World. It also existed elsewhere in the world. Western Europe had already more or less done away with slavery. Perhaps there was nothing elsewhere comparable to the plantation slavery that existed in the New World, but slavery was widely prevalent in Africa and Asia. There is still slavery today in the world.

And it existed in all of these places without substantial criticism. Then suddenly in the middle of the 18th century you begin to get some isolated Quakers coming out against it. But it’s the American Revolution that makes it a problem for the world. And the first real anti-slave movement takes place in North America. So this is what’s missed by these essays in the 1619 Project.

Q. The claim made by Nikole Hannah-Jones in the 1619 Project that the Revolution was really about founding a slavocracy seems to be coming from arguments made elsewhere that it was really Great Britain that was the progressive contestant in the conflict, and that the American Revolution was, in fact, a counterrevolution, basically a conspiracy to defend slavery.

A. It’s been argued by some historians, people other than Hannah-Jones, that some planters in colonial Virginia were worried about what the British might do about slavery. Certainly, Dunmore’s proclamation in 1775, which promised the slaves freedom if they joined the Crown’s cause, provoked many hesitant Virginia planters to become patriots. There may have been individuals who were worried about their slaves in 1776, but to see the whole revolution in those terms is to miss the complexity.

Granville Sharp

In 1776, Britain, despite the Somerset decision, was certainly not the great champion of antislavery that the Project 1619 suggests. Indeed, it is the northern states in 1776 that are the world’s leaders in the antislavery cause. The first anti-slavery meeting in the history of the world takes place in Philadelphia in 1775. That coincidence I think is important. I would have liked to have asked Hannah-Jones, how would she explain the fact that in 1791 in Virginia at the College of William and Mary, the Board of Visitors, the board of trustees, who were big slaveholding planters, awarded an honorary degree to Granville Sharp, who was the leading British abolitionist of the day. That’s the kind of question that should provoke historical curiosity. You ask yourself what were these slaveholding planters thinking? It’s the kind of question, the kind of seeming anomaly, that should provoke a historian into research.

The idea that the Revolution occurred as a means of protecting slavery—I just don’t think there is much evidence for it, and in fact the contrary is more true to what happened. The Revolution unleashed antislavery sentiments that led to the first abolition movements in the history of the world.

John Murray, 4th Earl of Dunmore, painted by Sir Joshua Reynolds

Q. In fact, those who claim that the American Revolution was a counterrevolution to protect slavery focus on the timing of the Somerset ruling of 1772, which held that slavery wasn’t supported by English common law, and Dunmore’s promise to free slaves who escape their masters.

A. To go from these few facts to create such an enormous argument is a problem. The Somerset decision was limited to England, where there were very few slaves, and it didn’t apply to the Caribbean. The British don’t get around to freeing the slaves in the West Indies until 1833, and if the Revolution hadn’t occurred, might never have done so then, because all of the southern colonies would have been opposed. So supposing the Americans hadn’t broken away, there would have been a larger number of slaveholders in the greater British world who might have been able to prolong slavery longer than 1833. The West Indies planters were too weak in the end to resist abolition. They did try to, but if they had had all those planters in the South still being part of the British Empire with them, that would have made it more difficult for the British Parliament to move toward abolition.

Q. Hannah-Jones refers to America’s founding documents as its founding myths…

Thomas Jefferson
painted by Mather Brown

A. Of course, there are great ironies in our history, but the men and the documents transcend their time. That Jefferson, a slaveholding aristocrat, has been—until recently—our spokesman for democracy, declaring that all men are created equal, is probably the greatest irony in American history. But the document he wrote and his confidence in the capacities of ordinary people are real, and not myths.

Jefferson was a very complicated figure. He took a stand against slavery as a young man in Virginia. He spoke out against it. He couldn’t get his colleagues to go along, but he was certainly courageous in voicing his opposition to slavery. Despite his outspokenness on slavery and other enlightened matters, his colleagues respected him enough to keep elevating him to positions in the state. His colleagues could have, as we say today, “cancelled” him if they didn’t have some sympathy for what he was saying.

Q. And after the Revolution?

A. American leaders think slavery is dying, but they couldn’t have been more wrong. Slavery grows stronger after the Revolution, but it’s concentrated in the South. North of the Mason-Dixon line, in every northern state by 1804, slavery is legally put on the road to extinction. Now, there’s certain “grandfathering in,” and so you do have slaves in New Jersey as late as the eve of the Civil War. But in the northern states, the massive movement against slavery was unprecedented in the history of the world. So to somehow turn this around and make the Revolution a means of preserving slavery is strange and contrary to the evidence.

As a result of the Revolution, slavery is confined to the South, and that puts the southern planters on the defensive. For the first time they have to defend the institution. If you go into the colonial records and look at the writings and diary of someone like William Byrd, who’s a very distinguished and learned person—he’s a member of the Royal Society—you’ll find no expressions of guilt whatsoever about slavery. He took his slaveholding for granted. But after the Revolution that’s no longer true. Southerners began to feel this anti-slave pressure now. They react to it by trying to give a positive defense of slavery. They had no need to defend slavery earlier because it was taken for granted as a natural part of a hierarchical society.

We should understand that slavery in the colonial period seemed to be simply the most base status in a whole hierarchy of dependencies and degrees of unfreedom. Indentured servitude was prevalent everywhere. Half the population that came to the colonies in the 18th century came as bonded servants. Servitude, of course, was not slavery, but it was a form of dependency and unfreedom that tended to obscure the uniqueness of racial slavery. Servants were bound over to masters for five or seven years. They couldn’t marry. They couldn’t own property. They belonged to their masters, who could sell them. Servitude was not life-time and was not racially-based, but it was a form of dependency and unfreedom. The Revolution attacked bonded servitude and by 1800 it scarcely existed anywhere in the US.

Indentured Servants deported from England:

The elimination of servitude suddenly made slavery more conspicuous than it had been in a world of degrees of unfreedom. The antislavery movements arose out of these circumstances. As far as most northerners were concerned, this most base and despicable form of unfreedom must be eliminated along with all the other forms of unfreedom. These dependencies were simply incompatible with the meaning of the Revolution.

After the Revolution, Virginia had no vested interest in the international slave trade. Quite the contrary. Virginians began to grow wheat in place of tobacco. Washington does this, and he comes to see himself as more a farmer than a planter. He and other farmers begin renting out their slaves to people in Norfolk and Richmond, where they are paid wages. And many people thought that this might be the first step toward the eventual elimination of slavery. These anti-slave sentiments don’t last long in Virginia, but for a moment it seemed that Virginia, which dominated the country as no other state ever has, might abolish slavery as the northern states were doing. In fact, there were lots of manumissions and other anti-slave moves in Virginia in the 1780s.

But the black rebellion in Saint-Domingue—the Haitian Revolution—scares the bejesus out of the southerners. Many of the white Frenchmen fled to North America—to Louisiana, to Charleston, and they brought their fears of slave uprisings with them. Then, with Gabriel’s Rebellion in Virginia in 1800, most of the optimism that Virginians had in 1776—1790 is gone.

Of course, I think the ultimate turning point for both sections is the Missouri crisis of 1819–1820. Up to that point, both sections lived with illusions. The Missouri crisis causes the scales to fall away from the eyes of both northerners and southerners. Northerners come to realize that the South really intended to perpetuate slavery and extend it into the West. And southerners come to realize that the North is so opposed to slavery that it will attempt to block them from extending it into the West. From that moment on I think the Civil War became inevitable.

Q. There’s the famous quote from Jefferson that the Missouri crisis awakened him like a fire bell in the night and that in it he perceived the death of the union...

A. Right. He’s absolutely panicked by what’s happening, and these last years of his life leading up to 1826 are really quite sad because he’s saying these things. Reading his writings between 1819 and his death in 1826 makes you wince because he so often sounds like a southern fire-eater of the 1850s. Whereas his friend Madison has a much more balanced view of things, Jefferson becomes a furious and frightened defender of the South. He sees a catastrophe in the works, and he can’t do anything about it.

John Adams, painted by Gilbert Stuart:

His friend Adams was, of course, opposed to slavery from the beginning, and this is something that Hannah-Jones should have been aware of. John Adams is the leading advocate in the Continental Congress for independence. He’s never been a slaveowner. He hates slavery and he has no vested interest in it. By 1819–1820, however, he more or less takes the view that the Virginians have a serious problem with slavery and they are going to have to work it out for themselves. He’s not going to preach to them. That’s essentially what he says to Jefferson.

By the early nineteenth century, Jefferson had what Annette Gordon-Reed calls “New England envy.” His granddaughter marries a New Englander and moves there, and she tells him how everything’s flourishing in Connecticut. The farms are all neat, clean and green, and there are no slaves. He envies the town meetings of New England, those little ward republics. And he just yearns for something like that for Virginia.

Q. How it is that the American Revolution raises the dignity of labor? Because it seems to me that this concept certainly becomes a burning issue by the time of the Civil War.

A. It’s a good question. Central to the middle class revolution was an unprecedented celebration of work, especially manual labor, including the working for money. For centuries going back to the ancient Greeks, work with one’s hands had been held in contempt. Aristotle had said that those who worked with their hands and especially those who worked for money lacked the capacity for virtue. This remained the common view until the American Revolution changed everything.

The northern celebration of work made the slaveholding South seem even more anomalous than it was. Assuming that work was despicable and mean was what justified slavery. Scorn for work and slavery were two sides of the same coin. Now the middle-class northerners—clerks, petty merchants, farmers, etc.—began attacking the leisured gentry as parasites living off the work of others. That was the gist of the writings of William Manning, the obscure Massachusetts farmer, writing in the 1790s. This celebration of work, of course, forced the slaveholding planters to be even more defensive and they began celebrating leisure as the source of high culture in contrast with the money-grubbing North.

Slavery required a culture that held labor in contempt. The North, with its celebration of labor, especially working for money, became even more different from the lazy, slaveholding South. By the 1850s, the two sections, though both American, possessed two different cultures.

Q. In my discussion with Professor James Oakes, he made the point about the emergence of the Democratic Party in the 1820s, that in the North it can’t do what the southern slave owners really want it to do, which is to say slaves are property, but what they do instead is to begin to promote racism.

A. That’s right. When you have a republican society, it’s based on equality of all citizens; and now many whites found that difficult to accept. And they had to justify the segregation and the inferior status of the freed blacks by saying blacks were an inferior race. As I said earlier, in the Colonial period whites didn’t have to mount any racist arguments to justify the lowly status of blacks. In a hierarchical society with many degrees of unfreedom, you don’t bother with trying to explain or justify slavery or the unequal treatment of anyone. Someone like William Byrd never tries to justify slavery. He never argues that blacks are inferior. He doesn’t need to do that because he takes his whole world of inequality and hierarchy for granted. Racism develops in the decades following the Revolution because in a free republican society, whites needed a new justification for keeping blacks in an inferior and segregated place. And it became even more complicated when freed blacks with the suffrage tended to vote for the doomed parties of the Federalists and the Whigs.

Purchase of Christian captives from the Barbary States:

Q. The 1619 Project claims basically that nothing has ever gotten any better. That it’s as bad now as it was during slavery, and instead what you’re describing is a very changed world...

A. Imagine the inequalities that existed before the Revolution. Not just in wealth—I mean, we have that now—but in the way in which people were treated. Consider the huge number of people who were servants of some kind. I just think that people need to know just how bad the Ancién Regime was. In France, we always had this Charles Dickens Tale of Two Cities view of the society, with a nobleman riding through the village and running over children and so on. But similar kinds of brutalities and cruelties existed in the English-speaking world in the way common people were treated. In England, there must have been 200 capital crimes on the books. Consequently, juries became somewhat reluctant to convict to hanging a person for stealing a handkerchief. So the convict was sent as a bonded servant to the colonies, 50,000 of them. And then when the American Revolution occurs, Australia becomes the replacement.

I don’t think people realize just what a cruel and brutal world existed in the Ancién Regime, in the premodern societies of the West, not just for slaves, but for lots of people who were considered the mean or lowly sort. And they don’t appreciate what a radical message is involved in declaring that all men are created equal and what that message means for our obsession with education, and the implications of that for our society.

Q. You spoke of the “consensus school” on American history before, from the 1950s, that saw the Revolution, I think, as essentially a conservative event. And one of the things that they stressed was that there was no aristocracy, no native aristocracy, in America, but you find, if I recall your argument in The Radicalism of the American Revolution, that though aristocracy was not strong, it was something that was still a powerful factor.

A. There’s no European-type aristocracy, the kind of rich, hereditary aristocracy of the sort that existed in England—great landholders living off the rents of their tenants. But we had an aristocracy of sorts. The southern slaveholding planters certainly came closest to the English model, but even in the more egalitarian North there was an aristocracy of sorts. Men of wealth and distinction that we would label elites sought to make the title of gentlemen equal some kind of aristocracy. “Gentleman” was a legal distinction, and such gentlemen were treated differently in the society because of that distinction. With the Revolution, all this came under assault.

It’s interesting to look at the debates that occur in the New York ratifying convention in 1788. The leading Anti-Federalist, Melancton Smith, a very smart guy but a middling sort and with no college graduate degree, gives the highly educated Alexander Hamilton and Robert Livingston a run for their money. He calls Hamilton and Livingston aristocrats and charges that the proposed Constitution was designed to give more power to the likes of them. Hamilton, who certainly felt superior to Smith, denied he was an aristocrat. There were no aristocrats in America, he said; they existed only in Europe. That kind of concession was multiplied ten thousand-fold in the following decades in the North, and this denial of obvious social superiority in the face of middling criticism is denied even today. You see politicians wanting to play down their distinctiveness, their elite status. “I can have a beer with Joe Six-pack,” they say, denying their social superiority. That was already present in the late 1780s. That’s what I mean by radicalism. It’s a middle-class revolution, and it is essentially confined to the North.

President Martin Van Buren, photo by Matthew Brady:

Q. You were speaking earlier of the despair of Madison, Adams and Jefferson late in life. And it just occurred to me that they lived to see Martin Van Buren.

A. That’s right. Van Buren is probably the first real politician in America elected to the presidency. Unlike his predecessors, he never did anything great; he never made a great speech, he never wrote a great document, he never won a great battle. He simply was the most politically astute operator that the United States had ever seen. He organized a party in New York that was the basis of his success.

Van Buren regarded the founding fathers as passé. He told his fellow Americans, look, we don’t need to pay too much attention to those guys. They were aristocrats, he said. We’re Democrats—meaning both small “d” and also capital “D.” Those aristocrats don’t have much to say to us.

Did you know that the “founding fathers” in the antebellum period are not Jefferson and Madison and Washington and Hamilton? In the antebellum period when most Americans referred to the “founders,” they meant John Smith, William Penn, William Bradford, John Winthrop and so on, the founders of the seventeenth century. There’s a good book on this subject by Wesley Frank Craven [ The Legend of the Founding Fathers (1956)].

It’s Lincoln who rescues the eighteenth-century founders for us. From the Civil War on, the “founders” become the ones we celebrate today, the revolutionary leaders. Lincoln makes Jefferson the great hero of America. “All honor to Jefferson,” he says. Only because of the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson didn’t have anything to do with the Constitution, and so Lincoln makes the Declaration the most important document in American history, which I think is true.

Q. For our readership, perhaps you could discuss something of the world-historical significance of the Revolution. Of course, we are under no illusion that it represented a socialist transformation. Yet it was a powerful revolution in its time.

A. It was very important that the American colonial crisis, the imperial crisis, occurred right at the height of what we call the Enlightenment, where Western Europe was full of new ideas and was confident that culture—what people believed and thought—was man-made and thus could be changed. The Old World, the Ancién Regime, could be transformed and made anew. It was an age of revolution, and it’s not surprising that the French Revolution and other revolutions occur in in the wake of the American Revolution.

The notion of equality was really crucial. When the Declaration says that all men are created equal, that is no myth. It is the most powerful statement ever made in our history, and it lies behind almost everything we Americans believe in and attempt to do. What that statement meant is that we are all born equal and the all the differences that we see among us as adults are due solely to our differing educations, differing upbringings and differing environments. The Declaration is an Enlightenment document because it repudiated the Ancién Regime assumption that all men are created unequal and that nothing much could be done about it. That’s what it meant to be a subject in the old society. You were born a patrician or a plebeian and that was your fate.

Q. One of the ironies of this Project 1619 is that they are saying the same things about the Declaration of Independence as the fire-eating proponents of slavery said—that it’s a fraud. Meanwhile, abolitionists like Frederick Douglass upheld it and said we’re going to make this “all men are created equal” real.

A. That points up the problem with the whole project. It’s too bad that it’s going out into the schools with the authority of the New York Times behind it. That’s sad because it will color the views of all these youngsters who will receive the message of the 1619 Project. the beginning...............

Stereotyping the Old South

As we approach the 150th anniversary of the American Civil War, the war over that conflict's meaning is less civil today than ever.  Jack Hunter explains:

Where did African Slavery originate in North America?
The Colony of Virginia founded in 1607

 Native American Indian ownership of Black slaves is discussed in the documentary

"Black Slaves, Red Masters."

Indians owned Black Slaves

From the late eighteenth century through the end of the War Between the States, Choctaw and Chickasaw Indians bought, sold, and owned Africans and African Americans as slaves, a fact that persisted after the tribes' removal from the Deep South to Indian Territory.

The tribes formulated racial and gender ideologies that justified this practice and marginalized free black people in the Indian nations well after the War Between the States and slavery had ended. Through the end of the nineteenth century, ongoing conflicts among Choctaw, Chickasaw, and U.S. lawmakers left untold numbers of former slaves and their descendants in the two Indian nations without citizenship in either the Indian nations or the United States. In this groundbreaking study, Barbara Krauthamer rewrites the history of southern slavery, emancipation, race, and citizenship to reveal the centrality of Native American slaveholders and the black people they enslaved.

Krauthamer's examination of slavery and emancipation highlights the ways Indian women's gender roles changed with the arrival of slavery and changed again after emancipation and reveals complex dynamics of race that shaped the lives of black people and Indians both before and after removal.

"The role of black Indians, largely omitted from or distorted in conventional history books, is traced by William Katz with careful and committed research. . . . he integrates their general history with brief individual biographies, including leaders, army scouts and soldiers, frontiersmen and explorers, (and) dangerous outlaws".--Booklist.

Slavery existed in North America long before the first Africans arrived at Jamestown in 1619. For centuries, from the pre-Columbian era through the 1840s, Native Americans took prisoners of war and killed, adopted, or enslaved them. Christina Snyder's path-breaking book takes a familiar setting for bondage, the American South, and places Native Americans at the center of her engrossing story.

Indian warriors captured a wide range of enemies, including Africans, Europeans, and other Indians. Yet until the late eighteenth century, age and gender more than race affected the fate of captives. As economic and political crises mounted, however, Indians began to racialize slavery and target African Americans. Native people struggling to secure a separate space for themselves in America developed a shared language of race with white settlers. Although the Indians' captivity practices remained fluid long after their neighbors hardened racial lines, the Second Seminole War ultimately tore apart the inclusive communities that Native people had created through centuries of captivity.

Snyder's rich and sweeping history of Indian slavery connects figures like Andrew Jackson and Cherokee chief Dragging Canoe with little-known captives like Antonia Bonnelli, a white teenager from Spanish Florida, and David George, a black runaway from Virginia. Placing the experiences of these individuals within a complex system of captivity and Indians' relations with other peoples, Snyder demonstrates the profound role of Native American history in the American past.

In The Native Ground, Kathleen DuVal argues that it was Indians rather than European would-be colonizers who were more often able to determine the form and content of the relations between the two groups. Along the banks of the Arkansas and Mississippi rivers, far from Paris, Madrid, and London, European colonialism met neither accommodation nor resistance but incorporation. Rather than being colonized, Indians drew European empires into local patterns of land and resource allocation, sustenance, goods exchange, gender relations, diplomacy, and warfare. Placing Indians at the center of the story, DuVal shows both their diversity and our contemporary tendency to exaggerate the influence of Europeans in places far from their centers of power. Europeans were often more dependent on Indians than Indians were on them.

Now the states of Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Colorado, this native ground was originally populated by indigenous peoples, became part of the French and Spanish empires, and in 1803 was bought by the United States in the Louisiana Purchase. Drawing on archaeology and oral history, as well as documents in English, French, and Spanish, DuVal chronicles the successive migrations of Indians and Europeans to the area from precolonial times through the 1820s. These myriad native groups—Mississippians, Quapaws, Osages, Chickasaws, Caddos, and Cherokees—and the waves of Europeans all competed with one another for control of the region.

Only in the nineteenth century did outsiders initiate a future in which one people would claim exclusive ownership of the mid-continent. After the War of 1812, these settlers came in numbers large enough to overwhelm the region's inhabitants and reject the early patterns of cross-cultural interdependence. As citizens of the United States, they persuaded the federal government to muster its resources on behalf of their dreams of landholding and citizenship.

With keen insight and broad vision, Kathleen DuVal retells the story of Indian and European contact in a more complex and, ultimately, more satisfactory way.

Late in April 1861, President Lincoln ordered Federal troops to evacuate forts in Indian Territory. That left the Five Civilized Tribes—Cherokees, Chickasaws, Choctaws, Creeks, and Seminoles—essentially under Confederate jurisdiction and control. The American Indian and the End of the Confederacy, 1863–1866, spans the closing years of the War Between the States, when Southern fortunes were waning, and the immediate postwar period.


Annie Heloise Abel shows the extreme vulnerability of the Indians caught between two warring sides. "The failure of the United States government to afford to the southern Indians the protection solemnly guaranteed by treaty stipulations had been the great cause of their entering into an alliance with The Confederacy, "she writes. Her classic book, originally published in 1925 as the third volume of The Slaveholding Indians, makes clear how the Indians became the victims of uprootedness and privation, pillaging, government mismanagement, and, finally, a deceptive treaty for reconstruction.

5 Native American Communities who Owned Enslaved Africans
Slavery in Oklahoma

Indian Slavery/Slaveries in early

Eastern North America

Kristofer Ray, Dartmouth College, “Constructing a Discourse of Indian Slavery, Freedom, and Sovereignty in Anglo-Virginia, 1600–1830”

Margaret Newell, Ohio State University, “‘As good if not better then Moorish Slaves’: Region and Ethnicity in slavery—the case of New England”

Hayley Negrin, New York University, “Interconnected Regimes: The Indian Slave Trade in Carolina and Plantation Slavery in Virginia after the Westo War of 1679”

The Confederate Cherokee
In America’s Long History of Slavery, New England Shares the Guilt

Here is a picture of Puritan New England far different from the “city upon a hill” that John Winthrop hoped he and the other first settlers would leave for posterity. It opens with the kidnapping of a Patuxet Indian. It closes with one of the wealthiest men in Massachusetts justifying the enslavement and sale of Africans. In between, Wendy Warren, an assistant professor of history at Prince­ton, scatters massacres, a rape, beheadings, brandings, whippings and numerous instances of forced exile. The behavior of New England settlers differed less from that of their contemporaries who established plantation colonies in the Chesapeake and the Caribbean than might be assumed.

Warren’s theme in “New England Bound” — the place of slavery in the making of colonial New England — echoes preoccupations of the moment in the writing of American history, as the pervasive influence of slavery on the nation, its institutions and its cultures attains wider recognition. In time, perhaps, this perspective will no longer surprise, and even now, few familiar with colonial American history will be astonished by Warren’s account. She builds on and generously acknowledges more than two generations of research into the social history of New England and the economic history of the Atlantic world. But not only has she mastered that scholarship, she has also brought it together in an original way, and deepened the story with fresh research.

The economic ties between early New England and the Caribbean deserve to be better known. Prominent merchant families like the Winthrops and the Hutchinsons made their fortunes by linking New England farmers and fishermen to West Indian markets, by sending food to the sugar colonies, where, in the 17th century, the real wealth lay. Enslaved Africans came to New England through these same merchant networks, as one of several imports from the English Caribbean. These forced migrants never became more than 10 percent of the population. Still, many New England households soon kept a captive African or two.

Slave ownership reached down the social scale and into New England’s hinterland. African captives helped replace the ­Native-American communities displaced by English colonists. As enslaved Africans came in, New England merchants sent Indian captives out, banishing them to Barbados or somewhere else beyond the seas.

This economic dependence on West Indian slavery and the routine exploitation of Indian and African captives drew little comment from English colonists at the time. Warren finds some “wincing in the face of .?.?. cruelty,” but acknowledges that doubts about slavery ran no more deeply in New England at the turn of the 18th century than in any of the other European colonies in the Americas. The emergence of the antislavery North lay more than a century off.

What is most fascinating here is the detailed rendering of what individual enslaved men and women experienced in New England households. “New England Bound” conveys the disorientation, the deprivation, the vulnerability, the occasional hunger and the profound isolation that defined the life of most African exiles in Puritan New England, where there was no plantation community. Though the surviving record allows limited access to their thoughts, Warren effectively evokes their feelings. Ripped from kin on the far side of the Atlantic, “dreaming of other people and other places,” but unable to go home, the lost tried and sometimes succeeded in making meaningful connections with others suffering a similar fate. For this was the ordinary pain and sorrow of slave life in New England: Belonging to someone often meant having no one to belong to.

(Review written by Christopher L. Brown is a professor of history, director of the Society of Fellows and vice provost for faculty affairs at Columbia University.)

Colonial America Depended on the Enslavement of Indigenous People

Slavery in New England....a PowerPoint program:
Forging New Communities: Indian Slavery and Servitude in Colonial New England, 1676-1776
Colonists shipped Native Americans abroad as Slaves
Indian Slavery in New England

Dr. Margaret Newell:

New England Indians, Colonists, & the Origins of American Slavery

(A discussion on Ben Franklin's World podcast)


Did you know that one of the earliest practices of slavery by English colonists originated in New England?


In fact, Massachusetts issued the very first slave code in English America in 1641. Why did New Englanders turn to slavery and become the first in English America to codify its practice?


Margaret Ellen Newell, a professor of history at The Ohio State University and the author of Brethren By Nature: New England Indians, Colonists, and the Origins of American Slavery, joins us to investigate these questions and issues.

Dr. Margaret Ellen Newell

presents a lecture on "Brethren by Nature:

New England Indians, Colonists,

and the Origins of American Slavery."

Dr. Margaret Ellen Newell presents another lecture: The Influence of the Colonists’ Relations with American Indians

Native Americans shaped the colonial project in many ways. Indians made European colonization possible by supplying food, trade, technology, labor, and other resources –sometimes voluntarily, and sometimes involuntarily– that powered the North American economy. Indians incorporated Europeans into trade and military alliance networks that became essential to imperial power in North America. Indian affairs and wars dominated the affairs of colonial states and, later, of the U.S. government, for centuries. Indigenous actions influenced milestone events like the American Revolution, the Mexican-American War and the U.S. Civil War. Intercultural exchange was part of this story, and we will discuss mutual influences and cultural clashes.

Dr. Gary Gallagher, University of Virginia, in an excerpt from a lecture, "The Real Lost Cause," discusses why too many read history from the end instead of at the beginning; why the majority of people in the North were racist; why the Civil War could have ended with a victorious Union Army, and............ with slavery intact:

Problematic 'Political Correctness'

Political correctness and historical objectivity cannot coexist in the same textbook on the War Between the States.  Unfortunately, as Sam Mitcham recently stated in a new book on the battle at Vicksburg, political correctness and intellectual dishonesty are all too often synonymous.

I have found, all to often, that the 'politically correct' party line is: the war was all about slavery; that selfless, valiant, morally pristine Northern army (which was supposedly full of holy and righteous indignation) launched a holy crusade against the evil Southern slaveholders, and defeated them because of their superior military skills, selfless valor, and overwhelmingly great mental prowess.  That would be funny if so many people didn't believe it.

Many today have no idea that ONLY 6-7% of the Confederate Army was made up of slaveholders.

Even those who do not read, but watch television and have seen the movie "Gettysburg" should ask themselves, "Why would anybody go through that hell so somebody else could keep their slaves?"  The inescapable conclusion is they would not.  So, why did the Southerner fight?

There were several major causes of the war, with slavery as one; but it was not the only one.  Money was a big one; perhaps the most significant, as will be detailed later on this page, reference the tariff issue.

There was no income tax in the Antebellum South or North; the major source of income for the government was the tariff.

.......that the Southern plantation owner and yeoman farmer produced more than 75% of the world's cotton 
.......the South, which contained 30% of the nation's population, was paying more than 85% of its taxes the same time, approximately 3/4 of that money was being spent on internal improvements in the North.

That is why, when asked why he didn't just let the South go, Lincoln cried, "Let the South go?  Let the South go?  From where then would we get our revenues?"
Then, many self-ordained 'politically correct' individuals never mention the fact that the American slaves were originally enslaved by black Africans, not by white men on horseback who scooped up African warriors, as depicted in one movie.

They sold them to Northern or Arab (Muslim) flesh peddlers.  The slave fleets headquartered in Boston, Mass, and Providence, R.I., not in Charleston, New Orleans, and Savannah.

Yankee flesh peddlers then transported them across the ocean and sold them to Southerners and various other Americans...or at least what was left of them.

Of the 24 to 25 million slaves transported to the Western Hemisphere, only 20 million arrived alive.

4-5 million died in what was called the "Middle Passage."  (So much for Northern compassion).

6% of the survivors ended up in the colonies of the United States.

Slave fleets continued to operate throughout the Civil War.  They did not stop until 1885, when Brazil became the last country to outlaw the slave trade.

It is unfortunate that history is so vulnerable to those who want to dictate the present and control the future by changing the past.  And many 'politically correct' historians swell up in righteous indignation if you even bring up these inconvenient facts.
What was "Triangle Trade?"

What countries were involved in the triangle trade?

How do scholars get information about slave trading voyages?

The Cuban Slave Trade Connection:
Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade:
Rhode Island.....Slave Trading Hub:
Slavery in Rhode Island:
Slavery in Massachusetts:
February 26, 1638: First Slaves Arrive in Massachusetts

Forgotten History: How The New England Colonists Embraced The Slave Trade

American slavery predates the founding of the United States. Wendy Warren, author of New England Bound, says the early colonists imported African slaves and enslaved and exported Native Americans.

Interview with Wendy Warren on NPRs "Fresh Air" June 21, 2016:
SLAVERY:  Dirty Secrets Exposed
More information not found in the fradulent "1619 Project":
Anthony Johnson:  First Slave Owner in America (in Northampton County, Virginia).....and he was Black.
John Casor:

In 1640, five years after being freed from slavery himself, Anthony Johnson (born in Angola, Africa), acquired a black slave named John Casar (sometimes spelled Casor or Gesorroro). In 1648, Johnson, who had come to the Eastern Shore in the 1620s, purchased four head of livestock from four different planters. Two years later he was given a patent for an isolated 250-acre tract of land on the north side of Nandua, where he settled with his wife Mary (who had arrived from Africa in 1622) and proceeded to build a livestock business. A patent was a legal claim to land given by the government in exchange for bringing dependents (called "headrights") into the colony. In 1654, he acquired a second slave, Mary Gersheene. Over the next few years, the Johnson's sons, John and Richard, accumulated 650 acres adjacent to their parents' land.

The accumulation of several hundred acres of land, a herd of cattle, and a few slaves constituted a singular economic achievement for a free black family in mid-seventeenth-century Virginia. Historians have pointed to Anthony Johnson as proof that in the early and mid-1600's at least, Virginia's free blacks sometimes operated on an equal footing with whites. It is true that during the 17th-century free black men occasionally purchased not only black slaves, but indentured white servants, and they sometimes married white women. They established profitable farms and livestock businesses, and successfully sued whites in court.

But more recent investigations into the lives of free blacks on the Eastern Shore suggest that while colonial blacks had relatively more opportunity and freedom than their descendants in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, they too suffered at the hands of the white majority.

The Johnsons, for example, were harassed by two of their white neighbors, George and Robert Parker, who connived to lure John Casar away from the Johnson household in early 1655. Johnson successfully petitioned the court for Casar's return, ironically setting an early legal precedent for slavery in Virginia. A white planter attempted to defraud the Johnsons out of their land in 1653, and in 1658 another planter, Matthew Pippen, succeeded in taking land away from Richard Johnson.

Perhaps seeking an atmosphere more congenial for free blacks, the Johnson family moved north to Somerset County, Maryland in 1665, where Anthony Johnson leased 300 acres and founded a tobacco farm that he called Tories Vineyards. But their Virginia troubles were not over. In 1667, Edmund Scarburgh, the Shore's most prominent planter and politician, cheated Johnson out of more than 1,300 pounds of tobacco. And in the greatest injustice of all, in 1670 a jury of white men decided that "because he was a Negroe and by consequence an alien," the Virginia land originally held by Johnson should revert to the Crown.

Anthony Johnson died on his estate in Somerset before the 1670 decision was handed down. Mary Johnson died there 10 years later. Only one son, Richard Johnson, born about 1632, remained on the Eastern Shore, on 50 acres given to him by his father. In the next generation this property was inherited by Anthony's grandson, John Johnson Jr., who named the farm “Angola” as a tribute to his grandfather's birth country. John Johnson was unable to pay the taxes on the property and subsequently lost ownership. He died in 1721.

The Johnson family's economic success is a tribute to their hard work and resourcefulness, but the attempts by their white neighbors to ruin them are indicative of the severe obstacles to success placed in the path of blacks even during colonial times.

(Source: Virginia Foundation for the Humanities, “Site of 17th Century Estate of Anthony and Mary Johnson,” African American Historic Sites Database.)

The First Official Slave and Slave Owner in (North) America...from "Stolen History, Part 2":

William Ellison: Largest African American Slave Owner and Breeder

in South Carolina.....

and he was Black

William Ellison's plantation:
The Borough Plantation

By 1860, William “April” Ellison was South Carolina's largest Negro slave owner; and in the entire state, only five percent of the people owned as much real estate as did William Ellison. His wealth was 15 times greater than that of the state's average for whites. Ellison also owned more slaves than did 99% of the South's slaveholders.

"Black Masters: A Free Family of Color in the Old South" is the complete documented history of William Ellison, Jr., a black man who was among the top 10% of all slaveholders and landowners in Sumpter county, S.C.  In the entire state of South Carolina, only 5% of the population owned as much real estate as Ellison.  Only 3% of the state's slaveholders owned as many slaves.  Thus, compared to the mean wealth of white men in the entire South, Ellison's was 15 times greater.  99% of the South's slaveholders owned fewer slaves than he did.

William Holmes Ellison, Jr. "April"

a Black (mulatto) Slave Owner in South Carolina


In 1800, the South Carolina legislature had set out in detail the procedures for manumission. To end the practice of freeing unruly slaves of "bad or depraved" character and those who "from age or infirmity" were incapacitated, the state required that an owner testify under oath to the good character of the slave he sought to free. Also required was evidence of the slave's "ability to gain a livelihood in an honest way." On June 8, 1816, William Ellison of Fairfield County appeared before a magistrate (with five local freeholders as supporting witnesses) to gain permission to free his slave, April, who was at the time 26 years of age. April was William Ellison, Jr. of Sumter County.

At birth, William Ellison, Jr. was given the name of "April." It was a popular practice among slaves of the period to name a child after the day or month of his or her birth. It is known that between the years 1800 and 1802 April was owned by a white slave-owner named William Ellison, son of Robert Ellison of Fairfield County in South Carolina. It is not documented as to who his owner was before that time. It can only be assumed that William Ellison, a planter of Fairfield district was either the father or the brother of William Ellison, Jr., freedman of Sumter County. April had his name changed to William Ellison by the courts, obviously in honor of William Ellison of Fairfield.

At the age of 10, William "April" Ellison was apprenticed and he was trained as a cotton gin builder and repairer. He spent six years training as a blacksmith and carpenter and he also learned how to read, write, cipher and to do basic bookkeeping. Since there are no records showing the purchase of April (later William Ellison of Sumter) by William Ellison of Fairfield, it is unknown as to how long April was owned by William Ellison. It is known that William Ellison of Fairfield inherited a large estate from his father Robert, and that the slaves of the estate, named in the will were left to his siblings. It is possible that Robert Ellison gave several slaves to his son before his death, so they would not have needed to have been mentioned in his will. William owned several slaves according to the census records. Both Robert and William were of an age to have been able to be the father of April.

April was trained as a machinist and he became a well known cotton gin maker. Upon receiving his freedom he decided to pursue his expertise in Sumter County, South Carolina where found an eager market for his trade. He is well known for perfecting the cotton gin invented by Eli Whitney.

William Holmes "April" Ellison was born in 1790, in Fairfield, SC, which was 40 miles NW of the High Hills, to William Holmes Ellison and Mary Harrison. He married a woman named Matilda and together they had the following children: Aliza Ann, Marie, Henry, William Holmes III, and Reuben Ellison. He had an illegitimate child named Maria Ellison that he sold. "April" was a slave owner and one time slave himself. It was told that he was hard on his slaves and interestingly none of his slaves were Mulattoes, they were all black. When he was 26 he became a free man and 3 years later at the Sumter District courthouse he had his name changed to William. William was the name of his former master (William Holmes Ellison I). He changed his name from April because it was tied to slavery.

He was known for being a Cotton Gin Maker. In 1822, he built his Cotton gin shop on an acre of land that he purchased for $375 from General Thomas Sumter. This shop would be operated by William and even his grandsons for many decades. The shop was located at the NW corner of a busy intersection of the roads of Charleston-Camden and Sumterville-Columbia, SC. Now at the Holy Cross Episcopal Church were he attend services, William rose in respectability. His family became so respected that they were the only colored family allowed to worship on the main floor. William Ellison was permitted to place a Bench under the Organ Loft for the use of himself and family. William Ellison died on December 5, 1861 in Statesburg, SC, and was buried with his wife, Matilda. His tombstone was placed in the first row of the family's graveyard.

Additional Bio Info provided by Art Wells:

In 1800 the South Carolina legislature had set out in detail the procedures for manumission. To end the practice of freeing unruly slaves of "bad or depraved" character and those who "from age or infirmity" were incapacitated, the state required that an owner testify under oath to the good character of the slave he sought to free. Also required was evidence of the slave's "ability to gain a livelihood in an honest way." On June 8, 1816, William Ellison of Fairfield County appeared before a magistrate (with five local freeholders as supporting witnesses) to gain permission to free his slave, April, who was at the time 26 years of age. April was William Ellison, Jr. of Sumter County.

At birth, William Ellison, Jr. was given the name of "April." It was a popular practice among slaves of the period to name a child after the day or month of his or her birth. It is known that between the years 1800 and 1802 April was owned by a white slave-owner named William Ellison, son of Robert Ellison of Fairfield County in South Carolina. It is not documented as to who his owner was before that time. It can only be assumed that William Ellison, a planter of Fairfield district was either the father or the brother of William Ellison, Jr., freedman of Sumter County. April had his name changed to William Ellison by the courts, obviously in honor of William Ellison of Fairfield.

At the age of 10, William "April" Ellison was apprenticed and he was trained as a cotton gin builder and repairer. He spent six years training as a blacksmith and carpenter and he also learned how to read, write, cipher and to do basic bookkeeping. Since there are no records showing the purchase of April (later William Ellison of Sumter) by William Ellison of Fairfield, it is unknown as to how long April was owned by William Ellison. It is known that William Ellison of Fairfield inherited a large estate from his father Robert, and that the slaves of the estate, named in the will were left to his siblings. It is possible that Robert Ellison gave several slaves to his son before his death, so they would not have needed to have been mentioned in his will. William owned several slaves according to the census records. Both Robert and William were of an age to have been able to be the father of April.

April was trained as a machinist and he became a well known cotton gin maker. Upon receiving his freedom he decided to pursue his expertise in Sumter County, South Carolina where found an eager market for his trade. He is well known for perfecting the cotton gin invented by Eli Whitney.

In 1816, April, now known as William Ellison, Jr. arrived in Stateburg where he initially hired slave workers from their local owners. By 1820 he had purchased two adult males to work in his shop. On June 20, 1820, April appeared in the Sumter District courthouse in Sumterville. Described in court papers submitted by his attorney as a “freed yellow man of about 29 years of age,” he requested a name change because it “would yet greatly advance his interest as a tradesman.” A new name would also “save him and his children from degradation and contempt which the minds of some do and will attach to the name April.” Because “of the kindness” of his former master and as a “Mark of gratitude and respect for him” April asked that his name be changed to William Ellison. His request was granted.

The Ellison family joined the Episcopalian Church of the Holy Cross in Stateburg and on August 6, 1824, William Ellis was the first black to install a family bench on the first floor of the church, among those of the other wealthy families of Stateburg. The poor whites and the other black church members, free and slave, sat in the balcony of the church.

Gradually, Ellison built up a small empire, purchasing slaves in increasing numbers as the years passed. He became one of South Carolina's major cotton gin manufacturers and sold his machines as far away as Mississippi. He regularly advertised his cotton gins in newspapers across the state. His ads may be found in historic copies of the Black River Watchman, the Sumter Southern Whig, and the Camden Gazzette.

By 1830, he owned four slaves who assisted him in his business. He then began to acquire land and even more slaves. In 1838 Ellison purchased 54.5 acres adjoining his original acreage from former South Carolina Governor Stephen Decater Miller. Ellison and his family moved into a large home on the property. (The house had been known as Miller House but became known as Ellison House.) As his business grew, so did his wealth and by 1840, Ellison owned 12 slaves. His sons, who lived in homes on the property, owned an additional nine slaves. By the early 1840s, he was one of the most prosperous men in the area. By the year 1850, he was the owner of 386 acres of land and 37 slaves. The workers on Ellison's plantation produced 35 bales of cotton that year.

In 1852, Ellison purchased Keith Hill and Hickory Hill Plantations which increased his land holdings to over 1,000 acres. By 1860 William Ellison was South Carolina's largest Negro slave owner and in the entire state, only five percent of the people owned as much real estate as did William Ellison. His wealth was 15 times greater than that of the state's average for whites. Ellison also owned more slaves than did 99% of the South's slaveholders.

When War Between the States broke out in 1861, William Ellison, Jr. was one of the staunchest supporters of the Confederacy. His grandson joined a Confederate Artillery Unit, and William turned his plantation over from cotton cash crop production to farming foodstuff for the Confederacy.

William Ellison, Jr. died on 5 December 1861, at the age of 71 and per his wishes, his family continued to actively support the Confederacy throughout the war. Aside from producing corn, fodder, bacon, corn shucks, and cotton for the Confederate Army, they contributed vast amounts of money, paid $5000 in taxes, and invested a good portion of their fortune into Confederate Bonds which were worthless at the end of the war.

William Ellison, Jr. had died with an estate appraised at $43,500, consisting of 70 slaves. His will stated that his estate should pass into the joint hands of his daughter and his two surviving sons. He bequeathed $500 to a slave daughter he had sold. At his death he was one in the top 10% of the wealthiest people in all of South Carolina, was in the top 5% of land ownership, and he was the third largest slave owner in the entire state.

In 1816, April, now known as William Ellison, Jr. (not to be confused with one of his own sons, whom he would name William Ellison, Jr.) arrived in Stateburg where he initially hired slave workers from their local owners. By 1820, he had purchased two adult males to work in his shop. On June 20, 1820, "April" appeared in the Sumter District courthouse in Sumterville. Described in court papers submitted by his attorney as a “freed yellow man of about 29 years of age,” he requested a name change because it “would yet greatly advance his interest as a tradesman.” A new name would also “save him and his children from degradation and contempt which the minds of some do and will attach to the name April.” Because “of the kindness” of his former master and as a “Mark of gratitude and respect for him” April asked that his name be changed to William Ellison. His request was granted.

The Ellison family joined the Episcopalian Church of the Holy Cross in Stateburg and on  August 6, 1824, William Ellis was the first black allowed to install a family bench on the first floor of the church, albeit in the back of the church, among those of the other wealthy  families of Stateburg. The poor whites and the other black church members, free and slave, sat in the balcony of the church.

Gradually, Ellison built up a small empire, purchasing slaves in increasing numbers as the years passed. He became one of South Carolina's major cotton gin manufacturers and sold his machines as far away as Mississippi. He regularly advertised his cotton gins in newspapers across the state. His ads may be found in historic copies of the Black River Watchman, the Sumter Southern Whig, and the Camden Gazette.

By 1830, he owned four slaves who assisted him in his business.   He then began to acquire land and even more slaves. In 1838, Ellison purchased 54.5 acres adjoining his original acreage from former South Carolina Governor Stephen Decater Miller. Ellison and his family moved into a large home on the property. (The house had been known as Miller House but became known as Ellison House.) As his business grew, so did his wealth and  by 1840, Ellison owned 12 slaves.

His sons, who lived in homes on the property, owned an additional nine slaves. By the early 1840s, he was one of the most prosperous men in the area. By the year 1850, he was the owner of 386 acres of land and 37 slaves. The workers on Ellison's plantation produced 35 bales of cotton that year. 

In 1852, Ellison purchased Keith Hill and Hickory Hill Plantations which increased his land holdings to over 1,000 acres. By 1860 William Ellison was South Carolina's largest Negro slaveowner and in the entire state, only five percent of the people owned as much real estate as did William Ellison. His wealth was 15 times greater than that of the state's average for whites. Ellison also owned more slaves than did 99% of the South's slaveholders.

And how did he treat his slaves?  The records found in "Black Masters," tell us "He had a reputation as a harsh master.  His slaves were said to be the district's worst fed and worst clothed.  Hungry for more land and slaves, Ellison and his family lived frugally, and he probably was even more tightfisted in providing food, clothing, and housing for his slaves.   Harsh treatment could have stemmed from Ellison's need to prove to whites that, despite his history and color, he was not soft on slaves.  A reputation for harshness was less dangerous than a reputation for indulgence."

Did he pay for "slave catchers" to find his runaway slaves?  Yes, the record is clear on that point. 

He was also a slave "breeder" who sold off black slave girls to help raise the large sums he needed to buy more adult slaves and more land.  To him, slaves were a source of labor, and the laborers he needed most were adult men who could work in his gin shop and cotton fields.  Rather than accumulate slaves he could not exploit, it is seen that he sold twenty or more girls, retaining only a few who could eventually have more children, and in some cases, work in his home as domestics.  If Ellison sold twenty slave girls for an average price of $400, he obtained an additional $8,000 cash, a sum large enough to have made a major contribution to the land and slave purchases that made him a planter.  Thus, Ellison's economic empire was in large part constructed by slave labor and paid for by the sale of slave girls.  And from the local records available, local tradition is silent about Ellison's slave sales, but outspoken about his reputation as a harsh master.  In summary, his slaves were said to be the district's worst fed and worst clothed. 

When War Between the States broke out in 1861, William Ellison, Jr. was one of the staunchest supporters of the Confederacy. His grandson joined a Confederate Artillery Unit, and William turned his plantation over from cotton cash crop production to farming foodstuff for the Confederacy.

William Ellison  died on 5 December 1861, at the age of 71 and per his wishes, his family continued to actively support the Confederacy throughout the war. Aside from producing corn, fodder, bacon, corn shucks, and cotton for the Confederate Army, they contributed vast amounts of money, paid $5000 in taxes, and invested a good portion of their fortune into Confederate Bonds which were worthless at the end of the war.

 William Ellison, Jr. had died with an estate under-appraised at $43,500, consisting of 70 slaves. His will stated that his estate should pass into the joint hands of his daughter and his two surviving sons. He bequeathed $500 to a slave daughter he had sold. At his death he was one in the top 10% of the  wealthiest people in all of South Carolina, was in the top 5% of land ownership, and he was the third largest slave owner in the entire state. 

Slave records show that Ellison owned by year and number:

1820: 2, 1830: 4, 1840: 30, 1850: 36, and 1860: 63.

Skilled artisans who made and repaired cotton gins and other agricultural equipment were a common feature in many communities of antebellum South Carolina.  While some enslaved craftsmen and mechanics did this type of work, this was also a business for white laborers and even free persons of color.  The 1860 census, however, listed only 21 fulltime gin makers in the state.  The above newspaper advertisements shed light on the business of making and repairing cotton gins during the mid-nineteenth century.  The ad, “Improved Cotton Gins,” comes from William Ellison of Stateburg, a successful cotton gin maker, as well as planter, slaveholder, and free person of color. 

Ellison’s remarkable story began in 1790, as a child born into slavery in Fairfield District.  At the time of his birth, the South Carolina backcountry was still very much a frontier society.  His father was likely a white man (either Robert or William Ellison), who was among those early cotton farmers that helped transform the backcountry into a plantation society.  Around 1802, he became an apprentice to a nearby gin maker in Winnsboro, helping construct cotton gins for planters in the region.  In 1816, at the age of 26, he purchased his freedom, and he legally changed his name from April to William in 1820.  Changing his name was an important step, since “April” was considered a slave name.  William Ellison, as a free person of color and entrepreneur, set up his own successful gin shop in Stateburg.

1856 Newspaper Article on
William Ellison, Black Slave Owner:

William Ellison to Henry Ellison, 26 March 1857.  Document Description:

Freedman William Ellison’s cotton gin shop in Stateburg proved to be a lucrative enterprise for him and his family.  In this letter dated March 26, 1857, Ellison wrote to his son Henry, who was clearly involved in handling the accounts of the ginning business.  By the time of this letter, William Ellison and his family were a part of an elite group of free African Americans based largely in Charleston.  Ellison maintained his wealth and financial security by purchasing land and slaves.  By 1860, Ellison owned over 900 acres of land, as well as 63 slaves.  According to the census of 1860, Ellison was one of 171 black slaveholders in South Carolina.  His home in Stateburg, which had previously belonged to former governor, Stephen Miller, still stands today.

The above letter comes from the Ellison Family Papers, which consist of letters, notices, receipts, and accounts for William Ellison.  These papers are unique, since they are perhaps the only sustained collection of papers between members of a family of free African Americans during the mid-nineteenth century (ranging in time from 1848 to 1864).  Selected Ellison Family Papers have been published in Michael P. Johnson and James L. Roark, ed., No Chariot Let Down: Charleston’s Free People of Color on the Eve of the Civil War.  (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984).


William Ellison to Henry Ellison, 26 March 1857.  Ellison Family Papers, 1845-1870. Manuscripts Division, South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina.


Stateburg, March 26th 1857

Dear Henry,

Your letter of 23rd instant was duly received and I perceived by it that you had not received mine of the 22d.  John went over the river yesterday.  He saw Mr. Ledinham.  He said that he had not sold but half of his crop of cotton and had not the money but when he got the money and was working on this side of the river that he would send his son with it and rake up his account.  He also saw Mr. Van Buren and he was ready to pay but before he did so he wished his overseer to certify to it but John could not find him and as it became late he had to leave for home but left the account with Mrs. Mitchel, his wife.  You will find enclosed Mrs. Mathew Singleton’s account.  She will be found at No. 4 Akins range.  Mr. Turner said that it was his fault that the account was not paid before.  He thinks that she will get another gin.  There is one of the saws in the new gin that is worn half in two.  He says that he will send the gin over to be repair[ed] and also another old gin providing Mrs. Singleton don’t get a new gin.  As you did not get my letter in due time and for fear that you may not [have] as yet received it, I will mention a few items of importance that  I

[Page 2]

wish attended to at one if you have not done so.  Leave three hundred dollars in Messrs. Adams and Frost hands subject to my order.  And also the money that I have borrowed from William.  Mr. Benbow wrote to me and I sent you a copy in the letter that I wrote you.  Mr. E. Murray’s account and order was presented to him last Friday and he was to send his note when he sent to the post office but he failed to do so.  I want you to get me a half doz. weeding hoes.  No. 2 get two hand saws from Mr. Adger for the shop.  I want you to get me 8 bags of guano.  The above articles and instruction was states in the other letter.  I mention the same incase you should not have received my other letter.  We are all well as usual.  Give my respect to all my friends.

Your father,

William Ellison

The slave-holding, black, Ellison family, fully supported the Confederacy.
In addition to buying Confederate War Bonds and growing crops to help feed the Confederate Army, at least one of the Ellison sons (William Holmes Ellison, III) joined the Confederate army, seen in the next photo.
William Holmes Ellison, III
in Confederate uniform

Birth:            Jul. 19, 1819

Death:          Jul. 24, 1904



  William Holmes Ellison (1790 - 1861)

  Matilda Ellison (1764 - 1850)



  Mary Thomson Mishaw Ellison (1829 - 1853)

  Gabriella Miller Ellison (1832 - 1920)*



  William John Ellison (1845 - 1894)*

  Robert Mishaw Ellison (1851 - 1854)*

  Henry McKinzie Ellison (1852 - 1853)*



  Aliza Ann Ellison Buckner Johnson (1811 - 1820)*

  William Holmes Ellison (1819 - 1904)

  Reuben Ellison (1821 - ____)*



At Rest

His two wives:

Mary Thomson Mishaw Ellison

Birth:            Sep. 4, 1829

Death:           Jun. 2, 1853


Consort of William Ellison Jr. Daughter of John Mishaw.


Family links:


  William Holmes Ellison (1819 - 1904)*



  William John Ellison (1845 - 1894)*

  Robert Mishaw Ellison (1851 - 1854)*

  Henry McKinzie Ellison (1852 - 1853)*



Mary Thomson Ellison, Consort of William Ellison Jr. and Daughter of the late John Mishaw, formerly of Charleston who departed this life in 2nf of June 1853 age 24 years, 9 months, & 28 days in the prime of life and vigor of youth she was visited with a painful & lingering disease & as a Christian she bore with patience thru faith in her redeemer until her spirit was called away unto him that gave it.



Ellison Cemetery


Sumter County

South Carolina, USA

Gabriella Miller Ellison


Birth:            Nov. 18, 1832

Death:           Dec. 24, 1920


Gabriella Miller is the daughter of Ruben Miller and Louise Barrett. She 1st married Charley Johnson with whom she had one daughter, Charlotte Johnson. After Charley's death, she married William Ellison III.


Family links:


  William Holmes Ellison (1819 - 1904)



Ellison Cemetery


Sumter County

South Carolina, USA

Gabriella Miller Ellison's death certificate:

William Holmes Ellison, III
tombstone in the "segregated"
Ellison cemetery
This and other primary document evidence, refutes those historians like Gary Gallagher, who fervently believe that no Black man ever served in the Confederate Army. Other historians have examined the original documentation and have agreed with my assessment.
More information about Black Confederates is found further down on this web page.


John Wilson Buckner, of the Ellison family line,  also served with the CSA, in the company of Captains P.P. Galliard and A.H. Boykin, local white men who knew that Buckner was a Man of Color. Although it was illegal at the time for a Man of Color to formally join the Confederate forces, the Ellison family's prestige nullified the law in the minds of Buckner's comrades. Buckner was wounded in action on July 12, 1863. He did not die then. He applied for and received a pension from the Federal Government, as did all Confederate soldiers who applied. At his funeral it was held in Stateburg in August, of 1895 he was praised by his former Confederate officers as being a "faithful soldier."


1st Artillery

1. Man of Color --- appears on a report of operations and casualties Fort Sumter, August 23, 1863.

Report date: Ft. Sumter, Aug. 24, 1863.

Remarks: Severely wounded head (Unfiled Papers and Slips Belonging in Confederate Compiled Service Records)


2. John Wilson Buckner -- Co. I. Enlisted March 27, 1863 at Franklin S. C. for 3 years. Roll of May and June 1863-- present, July and August 1863--present wounded in action at Battery Wagner, July 14, 1863. Roll of Sept and Oct 1863 --present, Nov. and Dec. 1863 --present. Jan. to Oct 19, 1864 -- present Deserted Oct. 19, 1864.


It is believed that John Wilson Buckner served with other South Carolina Confederate units, Capt. P.O. Gaillard's company and later became a scout in Capt. Boykin's company, both South Carolina regiments; however we have not been able to prove service in these units at this time.

This information was put on his findagrave site:

John Wilson Buckner was born in Sumter County. Buckner joined the 1st South Carolina Artillery on March 27. 1863. He served in the company of Captains P.P. Galliard and Alexander Hamilton Boykin, local men who knew that Buckner was a Negro. Although it was illegal at the time for a Negro to formally join the Confederate forces, the Ellison family's prestige nullified the law in the minds of Buckner's comrades. Buckner was wounded at Fort Wagner on July 12, 1863, in the battle against the 54th Massachusetts Regiment. After recovering, he was a regular in Capt. P.O. Gaillard’s company and later became a scout in Capt. Boykin’s company, both South Carolina regiments. When John Wilson Bucker died in August, 1895, at his funeral, he was praised by his officers as being a faithful soldier.

1953 case of Hood v Sumter SC School District...Woodrow Hood (a descendant of Scotts and Oxendines who migrated down to Sumter from Robeson around 1805) sued to allow children of the Dalzell 'Turk' school to attend Sumter white schools. Two included as plaintiffs in this case were Henry Lowery and Ruth Lowery. While the Indian descent of their Scott and Oxendine ancestors were conceeded, it was the postion of the Sumter School Board that the plaintiffs were also descendants of the BUCKNER'S and Benehaleys who were believed to be part black. Woodrow Hood, the filier of the complaint, responded by testifying regarding the geneaology of the 'Turk' community, however his visceral response to the 'black descent' line of questioning was to adamantly claim that every single line of his ancestry was white, excepting one small line of Benenhaley's who were claiming to be part-Arab.No Proff. (John Buckner, the first Buckner to intermarry among the Scott/Oxendine/Benehaley's was described by an elderly Sumter resident in the late 1880's as "nearly full-blooded Indian") Regarding the Lowery family he states "I am informed that Lum Lowery, whose first name was possibly Columbus, and who was a white man who was not a member of our group, and whose geographical origin is unknown to me, came to our community many years ago, and married one Alice Benenhaley, and they settled in our community."


Family links:


  Willis Wilson Buckner (1809 - 1831)

  Aliza Ann Ellison Buckner Johnson (1811 - 1820)



  Jane Johnson Buckner (1830 - 1860)

  Sarah Oxendine Buckner (1835 - 1919)



  Henrietta Ann Buckner (1858 - 1918)*

  Infant Boy Buckner (1860 - 1860)*

  John William Buckner (1863 - 1881)*

  Henry Ellison Buckner (1865 - 1963)*

  Sam Buckner (1870 - 1925)*

  Charles Wilson Buckner (1873 - 1920)*

  Daniel Buckner (1875 - 1949)*


Information on his two wives:

Jane "Janie" Johnson Buckner



Janie Johnson was daughter of James Drayton Johnson and Delia and a sister to Charley and James Marsh Johnson. She married her Step nephew John Wilson Buckner  and had two children. Henrietta Ann "Harriett" and unamed infant son. Janie died suddenly and unexpectedly,  James Johnson was sure that she would receive God's condescending Love & Mercy and that her soul would be saved. He said her death was God's will. And we dare not to murmur. The family were members of the Holy Cross Church. Buckner's lived at Drayton Hall With the Johnson's.


Family links:


  John Wilson Buckner (1831 - 1895)*



  Henrietta Ann Buckner (1858 - 1918)*

  Infant Boy Buckner (1860 - 1860)*


Sarah Oxendine Buckner


Birth: Feb., 1835


Sumter County

South Carolina, USA

Death:             Jun. 16, 1919


Sumter County

South Carolina, USA


Sarah Oxendine is the daughter of Aaron Oxendine and Jane Scott.Wife of John Wilson Buckner. According to the book Black Slave Masters and Fire in the Charott Below. Also On one of the kids death record they had her name as being Sarah Benenhaley.


Family links:


  John Wilson Buckner (1831 - 1895)*



  John William Buckner (1863 - 1881)*

  Henry Ellison Buckner (1865 - 1963)*

  Sam Buckner (1870 - 1925)*

  Charles Wilson Buckner (1873 - 1920)*

  Daniel Buckner (1875 - 1949)*

"William Holmes Ellison " April" sons invested heavily in Confederate war bonds, and his grandson John Wilson Buckner was allowed to enlist in the South Carolina Artillery because of "personal associations and a sterling family reputation...." [pp. 305-307]

Source: Michael P. Johnson and James L. Roark, Black Masters: A Free Family of Color in the Old South (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1984)


The elder Ellison insisted that his children "toe the line" when it came to obeying and following his example.  One son, Reuben (brother of William Holmes Ellison, III) broke with that when he fathered black slave children born to Hannah Godwine, his young black domestic slave woman.  Hannah's eldest child, Dianna, was born in 1853, the year Reuben's mulatto wife, Harriett Ann died.  At two-year intervals thereafter, Hannah gave birth to Susan, Marcus, John, and Virginia....all black like their mother according to the 1860 Census.  When these slave children were baptized, Hannah was listed as the mother, but no father was indicated.  Reuben's illegitimate children continued to live the local black community in later years.

But the elder William Ellison continued to smolder with resentment at his son's behavior.  When Reuben died in the spring of 1861, he received a funeral at the church, but no headstone or marker of any kind in the family cemetery.  The old man had never scrimped on gravestones before, but the absence of a stone in this case reflects William Ellison's final judgment on Reuben's paternity of black slave children.  He also took no steps whatever to acknowledge kinship or even regard for Hannah's children. When he buried Reuben he hoped quietly to put to rest the distressing truth about slave Ellisons.
One of Reuben's slave children turned up in Oregon in later years, as evidenced by the death certificate seen below.  Notice that Hannah is listed as the mother (with no last name) and Reuben is listed as the father with his last name "Ellison" listed!


Another of Ruben's children by his slave mistress, John, later took the last name of Harrison, which was his father Ruben's middle name; and styled himself as John McKinsey Harrison.  His story follows, taken from "History of the American Negro" by A.B. Caldwell, 1919.

John M. Harrison's death certificate. Notice that his father's name, Ruben Ellison, is missing, while Ruben's mistress/wife Hannah, is on the certificate:
Father's name is missing:
After the elder Ellison died in December 1861, the remaining children continued to carry on their plantation and gin business.  They had considered becoming exiles and moving to another country like Haiti, but decided to stay put.  They made money from converting from cotton to growing food like sweet potatoes, corn, and peas; and selling it to the Confederate government.  Thus, they stayed in the "good graces" with their Rebel white slave owner neighbors.

As the war progressed, Sherman, after marching from Atlanta, pushed into South Carolina.  He sent General Edward F. Potter to march north from Charleston and destroy railroads, military stores, and homes of Confederate sympathizers, in the Sumpter district.  They passed through Stateburg where the Ellisons lived, and it was only by luck, that they were not also burned out.  Had Potter's troops known about the wartime activities of Ellison's, they might have paused long enough to light a fire.

After the war and during Reconstruction, the Ellisons were simply Southern Negroes.  The Republican party offered the Ellisons little but trouble.  As large landowners, they had no desire to share with anyone, white or black.  These mulatto Ellisons were not about to hasten the destruction of their status by joining hands with ex-slaves in Republican politics.  Thus they joined the local Democratic Club, surrounded by old white friends.  Indeed, from 1890 to 1910, Ellison family members are found on their rolls.

As the family continued to farm their land, they had become masters without slaves and had to hire freemen.  Their plantation system broke down.  They preserved peaceful relations with local white people but in 1870, the family itself began to disintegrate with Ellison's daughter's death.  Surviving family members sued each other in court for what they thought was their share of the old man's inheritance.  Finally, on July 24, 1904, the last of William Ellison's children, 85 year-old William Ellison, Jr., died.  The will directed that after all surviving spouses died, the estate would be sold and divided among any surviving grandchildren.  Provision was made to maintain the family cemetery.
The segregated Ellison Family Cemetery
(William Ellison, a mulatto, decreed that no whites could be buried there.)
Information about William Ellison's children, grandchildren, spouses.
Some Primary Sources:

Improved Cotton Gins, Sumter Banner, 13 December 1848. Newspapers on Microfilm, Published Materials Division. South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina.


William Ellison to Henry Ellison, 26 March 1857. Ellison Family Papers, 1845-1870. Manuscripts Division, South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina.


Bill from Ellison to Waites, Thomas Waites Papers, 1733- 1838. Manuscripts Division, South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina


1850 U.S. Census- Slave Schedule. Available from the South Carolina Department of Archives and History, Microfilm collection. Columbia, South Carolina. Accessed 17 February 2009.

Secondary Sources


Ellison Family Graveyard.  Available from the Internet, Palmetto State Roots Web Sites, Accessed 20 January 2009.


“Student Activity Packet, Activity #2: Fixing a Gin: Math and History at Your Desk”. The Lemelson Center for the Study of Invention and Innovation. Available from the Internet,  National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution. Accessed 24 July 2008.


Johnson, Michael P.  and James L. Roark. Black masters: a free family of color in the old South. New York: Norton, 1984.


Koger, Larry. Black Slaveowners : Free Black Slave Masters in South Carolina, 1790- 1860. Jefferson: McFarland, 1985.

"Dixie's Censored Subject: Black Slave Owners" by Robert M. Groom
Harvard University History Professor
Henry Louis Gates, Jr., discusses
what he calls the "dirty secret"
of black slave owners
Slavery in the Northern States prior to and during the War Between the States

It is unfortunate that many are ignorant of our American history.  A careful examination of the historical facts of our nation prior to and during the War Between the States might have tempered this year's dust up in Charlottesville and New Orleans, which was filled with racist rhetoric.


The 1850 Census clearly reveals that 98.8% of people living in the North before the War Between the States were White.  And if you add in the border/slave-holding states that stayed with the Union during that war, the percentage is still 96.5% White.


Many will find to their dismay and shatter their sensibilities, is that these Northerners were "racist."  Any desire for Northern whites in the 1850s to end slavery did not equate with a belief in racial equality.  The Blacks might be freed, eventually, but they would not be welcome to remain.


From my college courses in Colonial and Revolutionary America, which covered Indentured Servants and early forms of slavery in what was called the "Upper South," I discovered the North's profit from, indeed, dependence on, slavery, has mostly been a shameful and well-kept secret.  The "devil is definitely in the details" of this story about the lucrative Triangle Trade of molasses, rum, and slaves that linked the North to the West Indies, and Africa.  The reality is that Northern empires were built on tainted profits, run in some cases, by abolitionists, and thousand-acre plantations (yes, plantations in the North) that existed in towns such as Salem, Connecticut.

And what happened in the North after federal law banned the importation of African slaves took effect on January 1, 1808?  By 1860, the importation of slaves was alive and well.  New York was the hub of an international illegal slave trade that, like the latter-day traffic in drugs, was too lucrative and too corrupt to stop.  Ships were still being built and sold in New York to carry slaves, while customs agents, uncaring or bribed, looked the other way, as these slave ships sailed from New York harbor under thin disguises.  Fake owners, fake and forged documents, use of the American flag with it's guarantee of immunity from seizure by foreign nations, completed the modus operandi.

It was a virtual shell game: from voyage  to voyage, ship might switch from legitimate merchant vessel to slave ship and back again.  While crossing the Atlantic, slavers would carry duplicate sets of ownership papers, duplicate captains and crews, one American and one foreign.


So often Northerners liked to believe slavery in America was strictly a Southern sin, to which Yankees rarely yielded.

"The Northern slaveholder traded in men and women whom he never saw, and of whose separations, tears, and miseries he determined never to hear."


-Harriet Beecher Stowe

("The Education of Freedmen," The North American Review, June 1879.)  And author of "Uncle Tom's Cabin."

What school children are taught is the South's story is set on a plantation in Mississippi, South Carolina, or some other Southern state, where, with stories embellished and magnified 10-fold, of overseers brandishing whips over slaves picking cotton. 


By contrast, the North's story is thought to be heroic, filled with abolitionists running that Underground Railroad Train.  The few slaves who may have lived in the North, it has been believed, were treated like members of the family.  And, of course, the Northerners were the good guys in the War Between the States.  They freed the slaves.  That's not all mythology, but it is a convenient and whitewashed shorthand.


That's where most readers of history go wrong: trying to read the story backward; explaining to our current generation how their country grew to be the way it is.   In such a story, slavery is a single chapter in a history book; a background event limited to one region of the country and overwhelmed by the more recent events of Western Expansion, etc.


People who read the military history of the War Between the States, often have what we historians call the "Appomattox Syndrome."  They start at the end, thinking, "OK, now we know the South surrendered in April 1865, so those folks simply had to live with the outcome they knew was coming."  No.  The South had a very good chance to have won their independence on two occasions: one in 1862 and late 1864; and Gettysburg, contrary to what you may have been taught, was NOT the turning point of the war.


A history told forward; you always read in the evidence forward, not backward; which pushes slavery into the foreground, inserting it into nearly every chapter.  The truth is that slavery was a national phenomenon.

Slavery has long been identified in the national consciousness as a Southern institution.  The time to bury that myth is overdue.


Slavery is a story about all of America:  the nation’s wealth, from the very beginning, depended upon the exploitation of black people on three continents.  Together, over the lives of enslaved men and women, Northerners and Southerners shook hands and made a country.  Keep in mind: the Constitution protected slavery.


Before the War Between the States, the North grew rich with slavery:

1.    In the 18th Century after the Revolutionary War, thousands of black people were enslaved in the North.  In fact, they made up nearly 1/5 of the population of New York City.

2.    Two major slave revolts occurred in New York City.

3.    The North sold food and other supplies to sugar plantations in the Caribbean.  Thousands of acres of Connecticut, New York, and Rhode Island had plantations that used slave labor.

4.    Rhode Island was America’s leader in the transatlantic trade: almost 1,000 voyages to Africa, carrying at least 100,000 captives back across the Atlantic.

5.    New York City was the seaport hub of a lucrative illegal slave trade.  Manhattan shipyards built ships to carry to carry captive Africans with these ships outfitted with crates of shackles and huge water tanks needed for their human cargo.  During the peak years between 1859 and 1860, at least 2 slave ships, each built to hold between 600-1,000 slaves, left lower Manhattan every month!

How the Slave Trade took Root in
New England
Fernando Wood,
Mayor of New York City

With the Southern secession movement underway, Mayor Wood proposed that New York City should also secede from the United States.
Why would New York City even consider leaving the Union?  The financial underpinning of the city was the Cotton trade.  Cotton was the root of the entire State of New York's wealth.  It wasn't just a crop, it was the national currency and responsible for America's growth in the decades before the War Between the States.  And, slave labor was what raised it.

Hundreds of merchants  made their fortunes off the cotton industry before the War Between the States, including:  Lehman Brothers, Junius Morgan, father of J.Pierpont Morgan, John Jacob Astor, Charles L. Tiffany, Archibald Gracie, to name a few.

The cultural context in the North is key to understanding, especially the economic climate....the wealth that the cotton trade created; New York was interlocked with the South.

Secession was not an original thought with Fernando Wood: all manner of politicians, watching the Union unravel over the slavery issue, wanted to partner with their Southern planter friends.  Much of the cotton in 1860, was brought to the 472 cotton mills in New England.

For 50 years before the War Between the States, cotton was the backbone of the American economy. It was king, and the North ruled the kingdom.  From seed to cloth, it was the Northern merchants, shippers, and financial institutions, many based in New York, who controlled nearly every aspect of cotton production and trade.  It was the large banks, most located in Manhattan, or in London, who extended credit to the plantation owners, between planting and selling their crop.  Slaves were usually bought on credit. 

The Middleman was important to king cotton economy.  The cotton "factor," were Northerners who linked the plantation owner with the Northern manufacturer.   These mostly New Englanders, were brokers or agents and bought a planter's supplies, advised him, and took charge of his finances.  He had to present himself to the planter as indispensable in return for his commission on the sale of cotton.

Northern influence was felt in every part of the cotton trade/industry.  Most of the ships that carried the cotton from plantation to market were built and operated by men of the North.  The provided the insurance to protect the cotton crop; and even produced coarse clothing for slaves called "negro cloth."

Consider the cotton season that ended on August 31, 1860:  America had produced 5 million bales of cotton, which translates to 2.3 billion pounds.  Of that amount, 1/2 or more than 1 billion pounds was exported to Great Britain's 2,650 cotton factories.

It has been estimated that the North took 40 cents of every dollar a planter earned from cotton.  No wonder that many were worried about the pending storm of session talk.

By 1860, mills in Massachusetts and Rhode Island manufactured almost 50% of all the textiles produced in America.  In that year, New England mills produced 75% of the nation's total: 850 million yards of cloth.

And the number of slaves involved in cotton production had growth to meet demand:  the first US Census in 1790, (3 years before Eli Whitney's invention of the Cotton Gin) recorded just under 700,000 slaves.  But 1861, there were almost 4 million slaves, with 2 1/4 million involved directly or indirectly, in growing cotton.  The 10 major cotton states were producing 66% of the world's cotton; and raw cotton accounted for more than 1/2 of all US exports.
The Cause of the
War Between the States:
a discussion with Judge Napolitano

Recent and Recommended:

 The book "Complicity" may be an eye-opener
for finger-pointing Northerners who like to believe slavery was strictly a Southern sin, to which Yankees rarely yielded.

It details the North's profit from....indeed, dependence on....slavery has mostly been a shameful and well-kept secret.  This book reveals the cruel truth about the lucrative Triangle Trade of molasses, rum, and slaves that linked the North to the West Indies and Africa. 

It discloses the reality of Northern empires built on tainted, in some cases, by Abolitionists...and exposes the thousand-acre plantations that existed in towns such as Salem, Connecticut. 

This book includes eye-opening accounts of the individuals who profited directly from slavery far from the Mason-Dixon line.  It is a fascinating and sobering work that actually does what so many books pretend to do: shed light on America's past.

The PDF file below is a Teachers' Guide and has a synopsis of the "Complicity" book which gives excellent insight into the research written by the three reporters.
You can find the authors' complete presentation on C-SPAN from their web-link You can copy and paste it into your search bar.
But be forewarned: one thing I noticed during the Q&A at the end: all the questions from the New Yorker's in the audience (it was filmed at the New York Historical Society, NYC) expressed skepticism about the validity of their evidence. One audience member tried to blame the problem on the British; another wanted to know how their body of research could be connected to the victims of Hurricane Katrina, and suggested that all Blacks in New Orleans should receive some type of compensation, say, free college tuition.  Suffice to say, the authors seemed unprepared for the vitriolic response from the audience, as if they should be ashamed to be letting the proverbial skeleton out of the family closet.
Complicity: How the North Profited
from Slavery in America

On National Public Radio:

Slavery in the North during the War Between the States? Yes, and in the following program, you will see many who still live in the Northern states,
who are in denial:

from The Medford Historical Society:

Slaves in New England

The First African Immigrants

A central fact obscured by post-Civil War mythologies is that the northern U.S. states were deeply implicated in slavery and the slave trade right up to the war.

Contrary to popular belief:

  • Slavery was a northern institution
    • The North held slaves for over two centuries
    • The North abolished slavery only just before the Civil War
    • The North dominated the slave trade
    • The North built its economy around slavery
    • The North industrialized with slave-picked cotton and the profits from slavery
  • Slavery was a national institution
    • Slavery was practiced by all thirteen colonies
    • Slavery was enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and practiced by all thirteen original states
    • The slave trade was permitted by the federal government until 1808
    • Federal laws protected slavery and assisted slave owners in retrieving runaway slaves
    • The Union was deeply divided over slavery until the end of the Civil War
  • Slavery benefited middle-class families
    • Slavery dominated the northern and southern economies during the colonial era and up to the Civil War
    • Ordinary people built ships, produced trade goods, and invested in shares of slave voyages
    • Workers in all regions benefited economically from slavery and slavery-related businesses
    • Consumers bought and benefited from lower prices on goods like coffee, sugar, tobacco, and cotton
  • Slavery benefited immigrant families
    • Immigrants who arrived after the Civil War still benefited from slavery and its aftermath
    • Immigrants flocked to the “land of opportunity” made possible by the unpaid labor of enslaved people
    • Immigrants found routes to prosperity which were closed to the families of former slaves
    • Federal programs in the 20th century provided white families with aid for education, home ownership, and small businesses

Following the abolition of slavery in New England, white citizens seemed to forget that it had ever existed there. Drawing on a wide array of primary sources—from slaveowners' diaries to children's daybooks to racist broadsides—Joanne Pope Melish reveals not only how northern society changed but how its perceptions changed as well. Melish explores the origins of racial thinking and practices to show how ill-prepared the region was to accept a population of free people of color in its midst. Because emancipation was gradual, whites transferred prejudices shaped by slavery to their relations with free people of color, and their attitudes were buttressed by abolitionist rhetoric which seemed to promise riddance of slaves as much as slavery.

Melish tells how whites came to blame the impoverished condition of people of color on their innate inferiority, how racialization became an important component of New England ante-bellum nationalism, and how former slaves actively participated in this discourse by emphasizing their African identity. Placing race at the center of New England history, she contends that slavery was important not only as a labor system but also as an institutionalized set of relations. The collective amnesia about local slavery's existence became a significant component of New England regional identity.

In the long and rich historiography of North American slavery, relatively few scholars have explored the subject of slavery in New England or the impact of slavery and emancipation in the region on the racial attitudes of New Englanders. Joanne Pope Melish's book Disowning Slavery: Gradual Emancipation and "Race" in New England, 1780-1860 seeks, in her words, to put "slavery and the painful process of gradual emancipation back into the history of New England (p. 200)." Melish views as a blind spot the assumption by previous scholars that slavery in New England was peripheral to the economic, social, or political development of the region. She argues that New England slavery had a far more powerful impact on the thinking of New Englanders than they wanted to believe, and their longstanding view of the region as "free and white" has been a kind of historical amnesia, an effort to erase slavery and black people from the history of the region. That erasure of black people, she argues, resulted directly from white anxiety and confusion about how to view free blacks

in their midst and what to do with or about them.

Melish maintains that white New Englanders' views of black people emerged directly from their experiences with blacks living in bondage and from their association of blackness with slavery. She writes that the unsettling process of gradual emancipation in the region after the American Revolution stirred white fears that disorderly blacks would threaten the new republic. Whereas blacks assumed that they would become free and independent citizens, whites assumed that blacks still needed to be controlled. She also argues that white people experienced anxiety about racial identity, freedom, and servitude, wondering if freedom would turn black people white and if white people could become slaves.

Beginning in the late eighteenth century, Melish writes, New England whites gradually resolved these questions by coming to regard blacks as inherently inferior and in need of control. She argues that a clear ideology of race thus first emerged in late eighteenth and early nineteenth-century New England, in response to gradual emancipation. New Englanders, she argues, gradually came to view "racial" characteristics as immutable, inherited, and located in the body, and to view the black and white "races" as hierarchical and largely opposite in nature. Such a view permitted white New Englanders to seek to expell or erase black people, both literally and figuratively, from their region.

Melish's book makes an important contribution to the literature on slavery and abolition and fills a significant gap in our understanding of how slavery in New England affected both that region and the nation. Through her use of various local sources including town records, court records, slaveholders' diaries, and the letters, narratives, and freedom petitions of slaves, Melish brings the reader into the world of Revolutionary-era New England masters and slaves. She illuminates their daily interactions and offers insightful interpretations of how masters and slaves each understood the meaning of slavery and emancipation. She makes a compelling case that slavery was indeed significant in the New England economy and society. Using, among other evidence, racist broadsides from the region, she also illustrates clearly the willingness of many white New Englanders to denigrate, harass, and seek to erase black people in the decades after

the Revolution.

While Melish is right that most white New Englanders probably did wish black people would go away in the years of the early republic, she may overstate the extent to which New England whites were in agreement on this. She correctly observes that many white New Englanders supported the movement to colonize blacks outside the United States, particularly in Africa. But New England also produced a movement for immediate abolition that was explicitly opposed to colonization and demanded the right of free blacks to live as free and equal citizens of the United States. William Lloyd Garrison of Boston was probably the best-known white abolitionist in the country after 1830, and he was also a passionate opponent of colonization and a strong champion of the rights of free blacks in North America. Free blacks loved Garrison. A host of other New England activists stood with him, demanding the inclusion of free blacks as equal citizens. If most New Englanders sought to expell or eliminate blacks from their midst, these radical abolitionists often embraced the freed slaves, sought to educate them, published their narratives, and even, as in the case of Frederick Douglass, hired them as abolitionist speakers. One goal of the abolitionist efforts was to show the public that black people were fully human, able to be educated, and deserving of all the rights that whites had. Thus, well into the nineteenth century, a segment of white New Englanders actively resisted the view that blacks were inherently inferior and different from whites, and they fought to educate blacks for life as full American citizens. If, as Melish argues, New England whites sought to eradicate blacks, this process was contested by some whites as well as blacks.

Melish's most important contribution may be to the emerging body of literature on how North Americans constructed and made use of an ideology of race. Here she pushes to locate precisely when and how Americans racialized difference and came to define blackness and whiteness as fixed, immutable, biological categories. Her answer, that this process took place in New England during gradual emancipation, is new and surprising.

Melish suggests that New England was first in developing a new ideology of race because of its early experience with slave emancipation. However, the struggle to define the meaning of emancipation and the fundamental nature and place of blacks was also going on in the upper South. There, manumissions increased during and after the American Revolution, and the growing numbers of free blacks increased white anxiety. Indeed, anxiety there was more pronounced than in New England, because of the larger black population. Colonization was also very popular in the upper South, and much of the strongest and most persistent support for colonization came from that region. In contrast to New England, opponents of slavery in the upper South never embraced the idea that freed slaves ought to remain in the United States, and antislavery activists in the upper South always combined efforts at gradual emancipation with plans for colonization. The process that Melish describes of racializing identity and seeking to expell blacks may thus have been taking place simultaneously in New England and the upper South. A comparative study of emancipation efforts in the two regions would be illuminating. Of course, the upper South did not achieve gradual emancipation, and over time, antislavery activism and even voluntary manumission there were largely choked off.

Melish's book takes the reader through the process by which white New Englanders, through their responses to slavery, emancipation, and black people, created the myth of themselves and their region as free and white. Melish's angle of vision and her argument are both fresh, and she offers new insights and raises new questions about how the end of slavery led to a new construction of race in North America. This is a terrific book, one that all scholars of slavery, abolition, and the early republic absolutely must read. Enjoy this one; I certainly did.

-Reviewed by Vivien Sandlund (Hiram College)

Pot, meet kettle

-online amazon reviewer

By now, it should be general knowledge among anyone presuming to comment on American race relations and the Civil/War Between the States that the Northern states did not exactly have clean hands when it came to keeping African (and then African-American) slaves. Works like "Complicity" attest to the element of discovery that recent academic research and journalism have made possible. Nonetheless, it is taken as common knowledge that the Northern states achieved emancipation reasonably quickly after the Revolution, even if motivated chiefly by economics. It is still widely presumed that people in the Northern states, the New England states in particular, were particularly enlightened about slavery/emancipation and race, and therefore morally superior to Southerners.

For this reason, this book is shocking: while it delineates the gradual, compensated emancipation that was a feature of England's vaunted anti-slavery laws, and thus outlines an alternative method that could have been used to end slavery in all states, it demonstrates that this process coexisted with the kind of racism people routinely associate with the South and the South only. Dialect humor, "darkie" cartoons, and the lingering assumption that Black people owed labor to whites go against the cultivated image of enlightened New England. Even those already skeptical of such claims to Northern moral superiority cannot but find themselves taken aback by Melish's illustrations of Northern prejudice and dismissiveness. For one thing, she hauls a carefully cultivated image up short. For another, the attitudes she demonstrates among Northerners are those that give modern readers pause and cause them to react with distaste.

I sense that, down the road, there will or should be a national dialog about the received narrative of Northern clean hands/Southern dirty hands, based on the new expositions and explorations of the history of racial relations in America. This book should help facilitate that dialog.


As the reality of slavery in the North faded, and a strident anti-Southern abolitionism arose there, the memory of Northern slaves, when it surfaced at all, tended to focus on how happy and well-treated they had been, in terms much reminiscent of the so-called "Lost Cause" literature that followed the fall of the Confederacy in 1865.

"The slaves in Massachusetts were treated with almost parental kindness. They were incorporated into the family, and each puritan household being a sort of religious structure, the relative duties of master and servant were clearly defined. No doubt the severest and longest task fell to the slave, but in the household of the farmer or artisan, the master and the mistress shared it, and when it was finished, the white and the black, like the feudal chief and his household servant, sat down to the same table, and shared the same viands." [Reminiscence by Catharine Sedgwick (1789-1867) of Stockbridge, Mass.]

Yet the petitions for freedom from New England and Mid-Atlantic blacks, and the numbers in which they ran off from their masters to the British during the Revolution, suggest rather a different picture.

Early 19th century New Englanders had real motives for forgetting their slave history, or, if they recalled it at all, for characterizing it as a brief period of mild servitude. This was partly a Puritan effort to absolve New England's ancestors of their guilt. The cleansing of history had a racist motive as well, denying blacks -- slave or free -- a legitimate place in New England history. But most importantly, the deliberate creation of a "mythology of a free New England" was a crucial event in the history of sectional conflict in America. The North, and New England in particular, sought to demonize the South through its institution of slavery; they did this in part by burying their own histories as slave-owners and slave-importers. At the same time, behind the potent rhetoric of Daniel Webster and others, they enshrined New England values as the essential ones of the Revolution, and the new nation. In so doing, they characterized Southern interests as purely sectional and selfish. In the rhetorical battle, New England backed the South right out of the American mainstream.

The attempt to force blame for all America's ills onto the South led the Northern leadership to extreme twists of logic. Abolitionist leaders in New England noted the "degraded" condition of the local black communities. Yet the common abolitionist explanation of this had nothing to do with northerners, black or white. Instead, they blamed it on the continuance of slavery in the South. "The toleration of slavery in the South," Garrison editorialized, "is the chief cause of the unfortunate situation of free colored persons in the North."[1]

"This argument, embraced almost universally by New England abolitionists, made good sense as part of a strategy to heap blame for everything wrong with American society on southern slavery, but it also had the advantage, to northern ears, of conveniently shifting accountability for a locally specific situation away from the indigenous institution from which it had evolved."[2]

Melish's perceptive book, "Disowning Slavery," argues that the North didn't simply forget that it ever had slaves. She makes a forceful case for a deliberate re-writing of the region's past, in the early 1800s. By the 1850s, Melish writes, "New England had become a region whose history had been re-visioned by whites as a triumphant narrative of free, white labor." And she adds that this "narrative of a historically free, white New England also advanced antebellum New England nationalism by supporting the region's claims to a superior moral identity that could be contrasted effectively with the 'Jacobinism' of a slave-holding, 'negroized' South." The demonizing adjective is one she borrows from Daniel Webster, who used it in the Webster-Hayne debate of 1830.

The word is well-chosen. Webster's "Second Reply," given in January 1830 during his debate with Robert Young Hayne of South Carolina -- the most famous speech in a famous clash of North and South -- shows the master orator of his time at the peak of his powers. In these speeches Webster compellingly turned New England sectional values into the supreme national values, while at the same time playing on the racist fears of the average Northerner, who loathed slavery less for its inherent injustice and more because it flooded the country with blacks.

Webster "articulated a clear and compelling vision of an American nation made up of the union of northern and western states, bonded by an interpretation of the origin and meaning of the union and the U.S. Constitution and reflecting the core values of New England political culture and history. Coded implicitly among those essential values were claims to historical freedom and whiteness, against which Webster could effectively contrast a South isolated by its historical commitment to slavery. Such an interpretation, appealing as it did to the widespread desire among northern states outside New England to eradicate their black populations and achieve a 'whiteness' like that of New England, could rally and solidify northern opposition to Slave Power."[3]

In the speech, Webster, like Pilate, washes his hands of anything to do with American slavery. "The domestic slavery of the Southern States I leave where I find it, -- in the hands of their own governments. It is their affair, not mine."

This allows him to keep within the frame of the Constitution, and at the same time cleverly disavow more than a century and a half of New England slavery and slave-trading, which had financed the first families and institutions of his home district.

After this contemptuous dismissal, he holds forth on the glories of pure Massachusetts, which he apotheosizes, above Philadelphia and Virginia, till it becomes the true genius of independence. "There is Boston, and Concord, and Lexington, and Bunker Hill; ... where American liberty raised its first voice, and where its youth was nurtured and sustained, there it still lives in the strength of its manhood and full of its original spirit."

This was the opening salvo. Within a few months, Webster's speech had been reprinted whole in newspapers across the country and published in pamphlets that ran through 20 editions. A single printing of it churned out 40,000 copies. Other Northern speakers and writers picked up the tone and carried it like a battle-flag down the years to the War Between the States.

"Indeed, by the outset of the actual war in 1861 the New England nationalist trope of virtuous, historical whiteness, clothed as it was in a distinctive set of cultural, moral, and political values associated with New England's Puritan mission and Revolutionary struggle, had come to define the Unionist North as a whole."[4]

Nothing illustrates this process better, perhaps, than the semantic development of the word "Yankee," which, in United States usage, always meant "a New Englander" before the Civil War. But within a decade of Appomattox, it was being used generically by Americans to mean "an American, regardless of place of residence."


1. "Liberation," Jan. 8, 1831.
2. Joanne Pope Melish, Disowning Slavery: Gradual Emancipation and 'Race' in New England 1780-1860, Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1998, pp. 222-223.
3. ibid., p.230.
4. ibid., p.224.

John Avery Emison writes about the Jim Crow laws in the North, as well as other myths that have hidden from public consciousness and the sheer moral enormity of Lincoln's invasion of the South.

In addition, Emison discloses new information about Generals Sherman, Pope and others who carried out war crimes in states, other than those usually mentioned in "Sherman's March to the Sea."

The book is also an eye-opener concerning the 4,000 German revolutionaries who immigrated to the U.S. just after 1848, and were employed in the northern military, and used as 'pawns' in Lincoln's 1860 election.

Writing in the "Mississippi Valley Historical Review," in 1942, historian Andreas Dorpalen states: "It is generally recognized today that Lincoln could never have carried the northwest in 1860, and with it the country, without German support." 

Donald V. Smith wrote in 1932, "that without the vote of the foreign-born, Lincoln could not have carried the Northwest, and without the Northwest, or its vote divided in any other way, he would have been defeated."

Historian W.E. Dodd said that "The election of Lincoln and, as it turned out, the fate of the Union were thus determined not by native Americans, but by voters who knew the least of American history and institutions.  The election of 1860 was won only on a narrow margin by the votes of the foreigners whom the railroads poured in great numbers into the contested region."
This table shows the effect of the German vote on Lincoln's election:

The following table lists the progression, by year and location. of the Jim Crow Laws in the North,
which 'kept the Negro in his place.'
When the Northern states began the slow process of the manumission (a word that means a slave owner freeing his slaves) of slaves held in their jurisdiction, a number of disquieting facts are worth noting because they are so frequently untold and unknown to most people:
As already mentioned on this page, Lincoln voted for Jim Crow when he was a member of the Illinois legislature.

According to Lerone Bennett, Jr., Lincoln voted for a resolution that stated, "The elective franchise should be kept pure from contamination by the admission of colored votes." ("Forced into Glory," p.115).
"The Color Barrier" worked well in Illinois where the total percentage of blacks fell with every census from 1820-1860.  By 1861, 249 of every 250 people in Illinois were white.

Jim Crow was working in other states, like Indiana and Ohio, where the percentage of blacks hovered around 1-5% during that period.

Consider the resultant Racial settlement patterns of Indiana and Ohio counties from 2000 Census data:
When Lincoln called for the invasion of the South there were more free blacks in Virginia, than Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio combined...and very little has changed in the 150+ years since.

According to the 2000 Census, there are still almost 500 counties in the states of Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota that remain as they always have been: Lily White!

North of slavery; the Negro in the free States, 1790-1860


By Leon F. Litwack

Now in public domain:

Forgotten History: How The New England Colonists Embraced The Slave Trade

American slavery predates the founding of the United States. Wendy Warren, author of New England Bound, says the early colonists imported African slaves and enslaved and exported Native Americans.

Racism Continued in the North, well after the War Between the States ended

The Secret History of New England’s Sundown Towns

(New England Historical Society)

"It’s not Dixie’s fault"

By Thomas J. Sugrue July 17, 2015

The Washington Post

Many of the racial injustices we associate with the South are actually worse in the North. (AP Photo/Dave Martin, File) (Dave Martin/AP)

The tragic Charleston, S.C., church shooting, in which nine black worshipers were killed, allegedly by a Confederate-flag-supporting white supremacist, has unleashed a new battle over Southern culture. Confederate monuments have been defaced; leaders have demanded that emblems of the Confederacy be erased from license plates and public parks; schools in Texas, Louisiana and Alabama are struggling to defend their “rebel” mascots. Most predictably, pundits have renewed their characterization of Southern states as the ball and chain of America. If all those backward rednecks weren’t pulling us down, the story goes, the United States would be a progressive utopia, a bastion of economic and racial equality. “Much of what sets the United States apart from other countries today is actually Southern exceptionalism,” Politico contributor Michael Lind wrote this month in an essay called “How the South Skews America.” “I don’t mean this in a good way.”

This argument recapitulates an old, tired motif in American journalism that the South is the source of our nation’s social ills. It has been blamed for our obesity problem (“Why Are Southerners So Fat? ” Time asked in 2009), persistent poverty (“The South Is Essentially A Solid, Grim Block Of Poverty,” the Huffington Post asserted in 2014) and general stupidity (“What’s Wrong with the South?” the Atlantic scoffed in 2009). This time, in the wake of the church shooting, the states of the old Confederacy have become a national scapegoat for the racism that underpinned the massacre. If only they would secede again, Lind and others suggest, the nation would largely be free from endemic prejudice, zealotry and racist violence.

Not even close. These crude regional stereotypes ignore the deep roots such social ills have in our shared national history and culture. If, somehow, the South became its own country, the Northeast would still be a hub of racially segregated housing and schooling, the West would still be a bastion of prejudicial laws that put immigrants and black residents behind bars at higher rates than their white neighbors and the Midwest would still be full of urban neighborhoods devastated by unemployment, poverty and crime. How our social problems manifest regionally is a matter of degree, not kind — they infect every region of the country.

In fact, many of the racial injustices we associate with the South are actually worse in the North. Housing segregation between black and white residents, for instance, is most pervasive above the Mason-Dixon line. Of America’s 25 most racially segregated metropolitan areas, just five are in the South; Northern cities — Detroit, Milwaukee and New York — top the list. Segregation in Northern metro areas has declined a bit since 1990, but an analysis of 2010 census data found that Detroit’s level of segregation, for instance, is nearly twice as high as Charleston’s.


The division between black and white neighborhoods in the North is a result of a poisonous mix of racist public policies and real estate practices that reigned unchecked for decades. Until the mid-20th century, federal homeownership programs made it difficult for black Americans to get mortgages and fueled the massive growth of whites-only suburbs. Real estate agents openly discriminated against black aspiring homeowners, refusing to show them houses in predominately white communities.

When all else failed, white Northerners attacked blacks who attempted to cross the color line, using tactics we typically associate with the Jim Crow South. They threw bricks through the windows of their black neighbors’ homes, firebombed an integrated apartment building and beat black residents in the streets. In Detroit, to name one example, whites launched more than 200 attacks on black homeowners between 1945 and 1965. In Levittown, Pa., hundreds of angry whites gathered in front of the home of the first black family to move there and threw rocks through the windows. Racists burned crosses in the yards of the few white neighbors who welcomed the new family. That violence occurred in 1957, the same year whites in Little Rock attacked black students integrating Central High School, yet it’s that story — of racial bias in the South — that dominates our narrative of America’s civil rights struggle.

Passage of the Fair Housing Act in 1968 didn’t eliminate racist real estate practices. A recent National Fair Housing Alliance investigation found that in 87 percent of test cases, agents steered customers to neighborhoods where existing homeowners were predominantly of the customers’ own race. And while Southern states are home to a larger portion of the nation’s minority residents, nearly half of all fair-housing complaints during the 2012-2013 fiscal year were filed in the Northeast and the Midwest.

Economic segregation is most severe in America’s Northern metropolitan areas, as well, with Milwaukee; Hartford, Conn.; Philadelphia; and Detroit leading large cities nationwide, according to an analysis of 2010 census data by the Atlantic. White suburbanites across the North — even in Bill and Hillary Clinton’s adopted home town, Chappaqua, N.Y. — have fought the construction of affordable housing in their neighborhoods, trying to keep out “undesirables” who might threaten their children and undermine their property values. The effects of that segregation are devastating. Where you live in modern America determines your access to high-quality jobs (which are mostly in suburban places), healthy food (many urban areas are food deserts) and, perhaps most important, educational opportunities.

Education remains separate and unequal nearly everywhere in the United States, but Confederate-flag-waving Southerners aren’t responsible for the most racially divided schools. That title goes to New York, where 64 percent of black students attend schools with few, if any, white students, according to a recent report by the Civil Rights Project. In fact, the Northeast is the only region where the percentage of black students in extremely segregated schools — those where at least 90 percent of students are minorities — is higher than it was in the 1960s. Schools in the South, on the other hand, saw the segregation of black students drop 56 percent between 1968 and 2011.

White Southerners fought tooth and nail to prevent desegregation, using protests and violence to keep black children out of all-white schools. But federal courts came down hard on districts that had a history of mandated segregation, and federal troops and law enforcement officers escorted Little Rock and New Orleans students through angry white mobs in front of their new schools.

White parents in the North also fought desegregated schools but used weapons that seemed race-neutral. Black and white students above the Mason-Dixon line attended different schools not by law but simply by nature of where they lived. This de facto school segregation appeared untainted by racist intent, but, as noted earlier, housing practices in the North were fraught with conscious racial injustice. Further, metropolitan areas like Philadelphia and Detroit contained dozens of suburban school districts, making it easy for white families to jump across district boundaries when black neighbors moved in. (Often, Southern districts, as in Charlotte, encompassed the inner city, outlying suburbs and even some rural areas, making it more difficult to flee desegregation. As a result, Charlotte became one of the most racially integrated school districts in country.) Unlike in the South, it was nearly impossible for civil rights litigators to prove that all-white schools in the North were a result of intentional discriminatory policies.

None of this denies that the South is, in many ways, shaped by its unique history. It broke from the union over slavery, and its economy was indelibly shaped by that peculiar institution. After emancipation, it took a century of grass-roots activism and public policy to break down the legal barriers that limited Southern blacks’ economic opportunities. But the South is not timeless and unchanging. The region’s per capita income began to converge with the rest of the nation’s during World War II and accelerated in the decades after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, according to Stanford economist Gavin Wright. The South is still at the bottom economically, but the regional gaps have narrowed considerably, especially for African Americans. By the 1990s, Southern black men earned as much as their counterparts in other regions. Now, Northern blacks are migrating South in search of better economic opportunities, reversing historic trends.

The South has become an increasingly heterogeneous place, home to the fastest-growing immigrant populations in the country, led by North Carolina, Georgia, Arkansas and Tennessee. Immigration has remade Southern big cities and small towns alike: North Carolina chicken-processing centers have attracted Guatemalan immigrants. Suburban Atlanta is dotted with panaderias and taco shops catering to the rapidly growing Mexican population. And Vietnamese-born shrimpers are working the Gulf of Mexico’s shores in Texas and Louisiana. In the past decade, immigrants have accounted for half of the growth of country-music capital Nashville, with large numbers of Latinos as well as Kurds, Bosnians and Somalis.

It’s reassuring for Northerners to think that the country’s problems are rooted down South. But pointing our fingers at Dixie — and, by implication, reinforcing the myth of Northern innocence — comes at a cost. As federal troops and Supreme Court decisions forced social change in the states of the old Confederacy during the 20th century, injustices in the North were allowed to fester. That trend continues, as Northerners seek to absolve themselves of responsibility for their own sins by holding aloft an outdated and inaccurate caricature of a socially stunted South. In 1960, Martin Luther King Jr. said: “Another group with a vital role to play in the struggle for racial justice and equality is the white northern liberals. The racial issue that we confront in America is not a sectional but a national problem.” That holds true for most of America’s troubles today. Enough finger-wagging at Dixie. Change begins at home.


Jay Fayza uses facts and statistics to show that whites and western nations are the least racist and bigoted people on earth, contrary to lies told by liberal media and academia:

Why the War Between the States
was not just fought over Slavery, but for a variety of reasons
On the evening of October 11, 1858, a standing-room-only crowd of politicians and businessmen honored a visitor at Faneuil Hall, Boston, Mass.
The wealthy merchants and bankers, the powerful of this premier city in Massachusetts, lauded the intellectual cultivation and eloquence of the senator from Mississippi; and when Jefferson Davis walked onto the stage, the Brahmins of Boston gave him a standing ovation.

The Anti-Secessionist Jefferson Davis

(source: National Park Service, Boston, Mass.)

The senator from Mississippi stood in front of a crowd of Democrats in the "Cradle of Liberty" - Faneuil Hall. He was just starting his second term as a senator after completing a stint as Secretary of War. It was 1858 and the United States was tearing apart at the seams. The question of slavery had been an issue since 1787 when the United States Constitution was signed. In the 1850s, some called for the abolition of slavery while others began calling for secession. In front of a packed room he declared, "My friends, my brethren, my countrymen...I feel an ardent desire for the success of States' Rights Democracy...alone I rely for the preservation of the Constitution, to perpetuate the Union and to fulfill the purpose which it was ordained to establish and secure." Advocating for a States' Rights Democracy while disagreeing with the idea or need for secession in the same speech, Jefferson Davis sat down.


Born in what is now Todd County, Kentucky (and only about 100 miles from the birthplace of his famous contemporary, Abraham Lincoln), Jefferson Davis moved to Mississipi around 1810. He graduated from West Point Military Academy in 1828. By 1836 Davis was a plantation owner, and in the 1840s he owned over 70 slaves. He became involved in local Mississippi politics in the early 1830s, but really made a name for himself fighting in the Mexican-American War.


Using his new found fame, he was appointed a United States Senator from Mississippi in 1848, finishing out someone else's term. He used his new position to propose annexing more territoy from Mexico (which later became the Gadsden Purchase), as well as from Cuba for the expansion of "slaveholding constituencies." He resigned to run for governor of Mississippi on an anti- Compromise of 1850 platform and started to attend states' rights conventions. In 1853 he was appointed Secretary of War by President Franklin Pierce. His time during this appointment gave him a better perspective about the location of railway lines and the military strengths of the country - where the southern states were at a distinct disadvantage. Following his 4 years as Secretary of War, he was elected to a second term as senator for the state of Mississippi.

By this point, the country had nearly broken apart many times, mostly in 1850. The Compromise of 1820 and 1850 had put some Band-Aids on the wound, but like a virus the problems began to aggressively spread. The arguments between abolition vs. slave-holding, state's rights vs. a strong federal government were getting more frequent and more violent. These issues threatened to destroy the great experiment that was America. It is with this backdrop that Jefferson Davis spoke at a convention of Democrats in Faneuil Hall.


In choosing Boston, and more importantly Faneuil Hall, to give his speech, Davis drew comparisons between the founders of America and the struggle of his time. In his speech, he frequently made comparisons between the Founding Fathers and States Rights advocates, comparing the great voices that echo in Faneuil Hall to the disgruntled voices of his day. Simultaneously, while comparing his party to the revolutionaries of the previous generation, he stated the United States, unlike Britain and the colonies, needed to stay together. "...[Y]ou see agitation, tending slowly and steadily to that separation of the states, which, if you have any hope connected with the liberty of mankind... if you have any sacred regard for the obligation which the acts of your fathers entailed upon you,--by each and all of these motives you are prompted to united an earnest effort to promote the success of that great experiment which your fathers left it to you to conclude."


Davis, a Mississippian at heart, reminded Northerners that their economy relied on the South. "Your prosperity is to receive our staple and to manufacture it, and ours to sell it to you and buy the manufactured goods. This is an interweaving of interests, which makes us all the richer and all the happier." This interdependent relationship would be interrupted by the abolition of slavery. Even worse, this would be interrupted if the country split. The economy of both the North and South would suffer if this flow of trade were interrupted.


In the end, Davis made a passionate plea for unity. "[W]e should increase in fraternity; and it would be no longer a wonder to see a man coming from a southern state to address a Democratic audience in Boston." While Boston did have a Democratic Faction, it was also the heart of the abolition movement in America (coincidentally, Faneuil Hall was used by abolitionists as well). After all, everyone belonged to the great experiment that was the United States. Both sides wanted to continue what the Founding Fathers had started.


At the heart of this debate over slavery and state's rights was the idea of property. Can a human being be someone else's property? To Democrats, that's what the slaves were, and as such they had rights as slave owners. "The Constitution recognizes the property in many forms, and imposes obligations in connection with that recognition." It was not the right of any other person, despite political party, to take away someone's personal property. These were the very values that were fought for in Faneuil Hall itself during the Revolutionary era, according to Davis.


Davis may have had practical reasons for arguing against secession and preservation of the union. He would have known as a result of his term as Secretary of War that the South was ill equipped to fight a war against the North. The weapons manufacturing was in the north as were most of the railroad lines and the majority of the male population. While he knew the people he represented were passionate, they were also unprepared. It's possible that his passionate pleas to save the union may have been an effort to peacefully save the South. Either way, in the building where America began he argued for its preservation.


That was Jefferson Davis's last trip to Boston. Following his speech, which was received with great reception by Massachusetts Democrats, Davis returned to the United States Senate where he continued to be a proponent of state's rights. Following the election of Abraham Lincoln, many in the South had had enough. South Carolina seceded from the union on December 20, 1860 and other states soon followed. Mississippi followed suit on January 9, 1861. Davis resigned his senate seat twelve days later, reportedly "the saddest day of [his] life." On February 18, 1861, Jefferson Davis was sworn in as the President of the Confederate States of America.


Rice University. "The Papers of Jefferson Davis." © 2011

As my Biology professor, Dr. Marvin G. Williams once said, "You cannot understand a book without first reading the preface."  I hope you will take time to read the preface to this section before proceeding.
Special 2017 Sub-Section
After this web page was first inaugurated, we noticed an upturn in violence by individuals who are still fighting the Civil War.

This brief section will examine "the why" and "the effects" of this unrest. Material in this section on 2017, (and the sub-section on 2020), does not endorse any political party on my part, in keeping with our family's theology and upbringing, especially when it comes to keeping politics out of the pulpit and in the teaching of History.
Note, that we also do not condone lying on the part of major 'players' and they are appropriately 'called out.'  We also do not support any organization that is founded by Socialism or Marxism. Nor do we support any individual who does.

I do not sequester myself with one or two television channels to learn the news of the day.  My ancestor John Read, in antebellum Mississippi, had several different newspapers with different viewpoints (as pointed out earlier on this webpage) to read.  I have found much that is not "fake news" by looking abroad at other news sources, such as the BBC and SkyNews Australia; as well as other foreign newspapers.  Foreign correspondents for those news outlets are very thorough in their coverage of what is going on, even in our country.  They are able to cut through the 'fluff' and get to the truth of a situation.

Also included, is a brief history about how a previous U.S. President, Calvin Coolidge, handled the issue of Confederate heritage.

One has to wonder what the Read and Wauchope families would have thought of the current turmoil over statues.  They would understand that slavery was legal in the days of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe.  Did it remain legal? No.  It was constitutionally dealt with.  But they were not swayed by the extreme left Marxism that was slowly taking root when John's grandchildren were alive.  They were very circumspect and did not fall for that which did not support their democracy.  I know because my mother kept in touch with many of her cousins and uncles and often discussed them with my brother and me.  We also had the opportunity to visit one of these Uncles personally.

We need to understand that the Black Lives Matter (BLM) devotees screaming 'race' and 'slavery,' were not a part of that by-gone era; they never endured slavery.  In fact, as has been documented time and again, there is not a majority of Americans who, in the year 2020, believe in the 'racism' they are shouting about.  We do not live in a racist country; although the BLM founders, who are trained Marxists, would have you believe that.  The statues they want torn down have a more sinister agenda.  More on that later.

You will discover on this web page how the BLM were organized by Marxists, and are co-opting the slavery issue which was legal in the 1800s, for their own 21st Century agenda, which has everything to do with anarchy, and nothing to do with true racism. 

Further, they have been able to "export" this Marxist anti-democracy nonsense to other countries because of their international Marxist network. 

Australia, which was visited by a Confederate ship in 1865, is, today, pushing back on the BLM Marxist-inspired agenda.  England is pushing back too.  Bravo to them!

Knowing John Read from the documentation we have seen in primary sources at the Mississippi archives, I do not think he nor his family, were they alive today, would sanction or agree with the BLM's Marxist/anarchist agenda.  He was a staunch Unionist and supported our Country. 
Even after the Civil War, we have letters that prove that his grandchildren, including Charles Read, 'came around' to supporting the Union.

I personally feel it is always wise to tell the truth, regardless of people who may think one is not "politically correct."  I always treat everyone with dignity and respect, regardless of their race, class, political persuasion, or age.  I think this is what John Read did, and would do today.  I know my parents and brother did too.
-J. Hughes
These are some of the newspapers I read to get a wider perspective:
A flash point of violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, has resulted in the deaths of two of our fine Virginia State Troopers.
How did the controversy start in Charlottesville?

The admitted anti-White, Wes Bellamy, Vice Mayor of Charlottesville, Virginia,

has been THE long-standing proponent of taking down monuments, not only Confederate, but also any statues of Thomas Jefferson. 

This man was on the Virginia State Board of Education and was fired from that job; he had been a Albemarle High School teacher, but was suspended from that job; and then forced to resign.

He is discussed in this telling interview which reveals what the college students in Charlottesville really think about the situation. 

Documentation is presented that proves that

Wes Bellamy was racially biased and anti-white.

Bellamy was active in counter-protests to the white supremacist rally throughout the weekend that saw violence and the death of two state police officers and a 32-year-old woman after a car plowed into counter-protesters during Saturday's rally, seen in picture below with a megaphone stirring up the crowd.

After the rally, he dissed the President, calling him 'Number 45', and in City Council on the next day, proposed the city park in question be re-named Emancipation Park. Angry rhetoric from an admitted racist helps nothing in restoring peace and harmony in a difficult situation.

Wes Bellamy, the racist and anti-White Vice-Mayor of Charlottesville, wore a Black Panther backpack on the way to closed door meeting on Unite The Right rally:

In September 2017, Wes Bellamy was caught on camera during a Charlottesville City Council meeting, demeaning a white man who spoke in favor of conciliation and compromise.  Bellamy was immediately reprimanded by a white female on the Council.

Should monuments to the U.S. Confederacy be destroyed or removed to museums? It’s a question cities and towns across the South are now faced with. A question perpetrated by liberal and in some cases, racist politicians, who have sub rosa agendas.

Two City Councilors in Charlottesville, Virginia have called for the removal of a statue to Robert E. Lee from a downtown park. Award-winning journalist Coy Barefoot explores the debate with preeminent Civil War Historian Gary Gallagher of the University of Virginia.



Professor Gary Gallagher, Professor of Civil War History at the University of Virginia, correctly assesses the Confederate monument removal controversy in Charlottesville and elsewhere.  He made a presentation to City Council.....but his advice was ignored.

Virginia City Sued for Removing 100-Year-Old Confederate Monument

(Reported by Warner Todd Houston, March 2017)

Early in February, the City of Charlottesville, Virginia voted to remove several statues commemorating Confederate generals Lee and Jackson that stood in the town for nearly 100 years. Now the town is being sued to prevent the removal.

In a three to two vote on February 6, the Charlottesville City Council moved to eliminate the equestrian statue memorializing Confederate General Robert E. Lee that was first erected 93 years ago in the city’s Lee Park. After the vote, city leaders also vowed to erase Lee’s name from the park.

The decision sparked several weeks of protests and meetings of those both in favor of and in opposition to the plan that the city said would cost up to $300,000 to complete.

Now two organizations and 11 local citizens have joined together to file a lawsuit against the city to stop the removal of the statues, according to The Cavalier Daily of the University of Virginia.

The plaintiffs, including the Virginia Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc. and the Monument Fund, Inc., cited a number of reasons for filing the lawsuit. Chief among those reasons is their contention that the city is in violation of a state law preventing alteration of such monuments.

According to state law, it is illegal for local officials to tear down memorials to war veterans.

Virginia code 15.2-1812 reads, “If such [memorials for war veterans] are erected, it shall be unlawful for the authorities of the locality, or any other person or persons, to disturb or interfere with any monuments or memorials so erected, or to prevent its citizens from taking proper measures and exercising proper means for the protection, preservation, and care of same.”

In addition, the lawsuit claims that the city is violating the deed written in 1918 by the McIntire family granting permission to create Lee Park.

Listen to a Black Conservative tell you why removing Confederate statues is "revisionist history":
One editorial recently stated this:

620,000 people (Americans) died in the War Between the States. Roughly 2% of the population. No matter which version of history you have been taught, the bottom line is these soldier's were your average man. On either side of the war these men were still Americans and should have their memories honored. This hysteria of removing monuments, digging up graves, not allowing flags on graves is sad. It was a rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight. Just as most Northerners did not fight to end slavery, most Southerners did not fight to preserve it.


In 1904, the Confederate monument in Gainesville, Georgia was erected. In attendance were UNION and Confederate Veterans who both supported the monument. They showed each other respect as fellow Americans. They honored each other’s dead. Now there is a media fueled history witch-hunt to remove historical monuments. Removing monuments does not end racism; it only dishonors the American soldier’s who died. We can learn a lot from history and learn nothing by erasing it.

Leading Civil War Historians weigh-in on the Monument removal controversy, courtesy of "Civil War Times," Oct. 2017:
View from the "North"... Why we should keep the Confederate Statues:
H.K. Egerton, former President of the NAACP, speaks at the Hollywood, Florida
City Commission:

Predominantly Black Dallas Group Forms To Protect Confederate Monuments:

An excerpt from the Mississippi Public Broadcasting report on the Confederate monuments in that state:
Concerning Confederate Monument Desecration.....................
August 2017 saw the rise of violence:

*Defacing the Lincoln Memorial
*Call by Maryland Governor for removal of the statue of former Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney in that state
*Removal by mob violence, of a Confederate statue in Durham, NC, while the police stood by and did nothing.
People who came to Charlottesville with wrong motives, are at fault, as seen in one of many pictures: a Counter-Protester strikes a White Nationalist with a baton during the violence, which went unchecked by local city police.
Notice carefully, the sign carried by one member of the unrestrained mob in Durham, North Carolina, next to the toppled statue:
This shows clear hatred for police authority:
They should have seen this coming.........local city police leadership was interviewed: told to stand down........who ordered that? The Mayor or Vice-Mayor of Charlottesville?
On the night before the riot:
A Nazi-styled torch-light parade on the UVA Campus:
The disgusting image of giving a Nazi salute in front of the Thomas Jefferson statue on campus:

University of Virginia president Teresa A. Sullivan condemned

the protesters in a statement issued late Friday night.

As President of the University of Virginia, I am deeply saddened and disturbed by the hateful behavior displayed by torch-bearing protestors that marched on our Grounds this evening. I strongly condemn the unprovoked assault on members of our community, including University personnel who were attempting to maintain order.

Law enforcement continues to investigate the incident, and it is my hope that any individuals responsible for criminal acts are held accountable. The violence displayed on Grounds is intolerable and is entirely inconsistent with the University's values.​​​​​​

Another key figure in the ongoing UVA racial unrest was a member of their student Honor Committee.  Martese Johnson, seen in the next two photos, shown holding a sign protesting the fact that he is "the only Black member of the Honor Committee."  Then, low and behold, he is arrested for being drunk and disorderly: he was under 21 and in violation of civil law and UVA honor code standards in attempting to enter a bar in the downtown district. 

As a former Judicial Vice-President of the Old Dominion University Honor Council, elected by their student body, and having dealt with other Virginia college and university Honor Councils, I must say that this young man has brought disgrace to the organization he is suppose to be representing.  Thankfully, he is no longer on their Committee.
Which Statues are Next?
(As a trained historian and former History teacher in Virginia, I agree with Tucker Carlson's appraisal)

A statue of Lincoln has been torched; the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. has been defaced:
The Lincoln Memorial vandalized:
Governor Vance statue in North Carolina, vandalized:
In Memory of Lieutenant H. Jay Cullen and Trooper Berke M.M. Bates
I share with you the following excellent statement from the Sons of Confederate Veterans:


Sons of Confederate Veterans support for our nation and the rule of law

(Elm Springs, TN) 14 August 2017 – The Sons of Confederate Veterans opposes the KKK and other racist organizations. The SCV condemns in the strongest possible way the actions, words, and beliefs of any racist group. These groups are filled with hatred and bigotry, and their espoused principles are counter to the American principles of freedom for all citizens. Neither white supremacists nor any other racist group represent true Southern Heritage or the Confederate Soldier, Sailor, or Marine. In like manner, the SCV condemns the actions of the “Antifa” counter-protestors whose role was to meet violence with violence and to answer hate with hate. The SCV also condemns the Alt-Left’s attempts to attack Confederate monuments and other war memorials in an attempt to tarnish the true history of our great nation and to further their modern socialist political agenda.

The clash in Charlottesville, Virginia on 12 August between the “Antifa” and “Alt Right” has nothing to do with the Confederacy, the SCV, nor Southern history. Antifa and the Alt-Right are opposing political perversions which chose a hallowed historical monument as the location for their vile criminal acts. There is no link between these criminal elements and Confederate history, and to try to create one is ridiculous. Leave history to history.

The SCV has a strict policy which forbids SCV members from associating with the Klan or any other racist organizations. The SCV supports and promotes a unity and respect. The U.S. is a nation of laws, and the SCV respects the Constitution our forefathers wrote and the government of our reunited country. There are no classes of citizens and the SCV is no different. We expect and demand that all Americans respect each other’s perspectives with civility, regardless of demographics.

As an organization, the SCV goal is to follow the direction of the Apostle Paul and "speak the truth in love" (Ephesians 4:16). There is no place for violence and hatred. All individuals are created in the image of God and worthy of acceptance and respect. The SCV condemns all acts of hatred and the improper use of our ancestors’ battle flag, which they nobly carried into battle for their own political independence. The Battle Flag was not and never has been a legitimate symbol of racism; it is a soldier’s battle flag given to the SCV by the Confederate veterans themselves. The KKK, nor any other group, has legitimate use of our Confederate symbol.

Thos. V. Strain Jr


Rev. Franklin Graham:

Franklin Graham

August 13 at 3:20pm ·


Shame on the politicians who are trying to push blame on President Trump for what happened in #Charlottesville, VA. That’s absurd. What about the politicians such as the city council who voted to remove a memorial that had been in place since 1924, regardless of the possible repercussions? How about the city politicians who issued the permit for the lawful demonstration to defend the statue? And why didn’t the mayor or the governor see that a powder keg was about to explode and stop it before it got started? Instead they want to blame President Donald J. Trump for everything. Really, this boils down to evil in people’s hearts. Satan is behind it all. He wants division, he wants unrest, he wants violence and hatred. He’s the enemy of peace and unity. I denounce bigotry and racism of every form, be it black, white or any other. My prayer is that our nation will come together. We are stronger together, and our answers lie in turning to God. It was good to hear that several Virginia and Charlottesville leaders attended church today at Mt. Zion. CNN said, “The racial divides that fueled Saturday’s violence were replaced by unity Sunday…” Continue to pray for peace and for all those impacted by Saturday’s tragedies.

Dr. John MacArthur on Charlottesville
Dr. Alveda King, Niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: If you remove our History, people will forget about it.

Former Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice

blasts efforts to ‘sanitize history’

by removing historic monuments

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice criticized efforts to tear down southern monuments to Confederate leaders because she doesn't believe in sanitizing history.

"I am a firm believer in 'keep your history before you' and so I don't actually want to rename things that were named for slave owners," she said Monday on Fox News.

"I want us to have to look at those names and recognize what they did and to be able to tell our kids what they did and for them to have a sense of their own history. When you start wiping out your history, sanitizing your history to make you feel better it's a bad thing," she said.

Rice said instead it should be celebrated that the country has come a long way from the times when the founders agreed to count each slave as three-fifths of a person or when black men in Alabama wouldn't be allowed to register to vote in the 1950s. Rice pointed to her father's troubles registering to vote in 1952 as a marker of how far the country has come.

She said it was about 50 years later that she was sworn in as secretary of state, becoming the first black woman to hold that position.

"The long road to freedom has indeed been long, it's been sometimes violent, it's had many martyrs but ultimately has been Americans claiming those institutions for themselves and expanding the definition of we the people," she said.

She said the founders should be viewed in the context of their time instead of through the prism of modern values.

"They were people of their times. I wish they had been like John Adams, who did not believe in slavery. I wish they had been like Alexander Hamilton, who was an immigrant by the way, a child of questionable parentage from the Caribbean," she said. "I wish all of them had been like that and Jefferson in particular, a lot of contradictions in Jefferson but they were people of their times and what we should celebrate is that from the Jefferson's and the Washington's as slave owners, look at where we are now."

"My fellow blacks, please: Stop wasting time on statues and solve today's problems"

-Herman Cain

This is insane.

Atlanta’s Bishop Jerome Dukes was quoted widely in the media last week explaining why he thinks we should be spending time protesting statues of people from the Confederacy, and ultimately having them taken down.

He explains that some of our nation’s founders may have seemed like visionaries and trailblazers to some, but to African-Americans all that matters is that they owned hundreds of slaves.

Let’s talk about that.

I am an African-American. I hate the institution of slavery as much as Bishop Dukes does. But I have noticed something he seems to have missed. I am not a slave! And neither is he.

Slavery was an awful historical injustice, and it helped set in motion many of the problems the black community faces today. But it is not the problem we need to solve today. Those problems are poverty, illiteracy, drugs, crime and violence.

Tearing down statues doesn’t solve any of those problems, and solving those problems is what we need to be focused on.

It might create a problem, though. Tearing down statues that represent history is like pretending history didn’t happen. It did. And not everything that results from history is something you will like. We need to remember all of it, even (and perhaps especially) the parts that bother us because this is what we learn from.

Now we’re hearing that it’s not enough to tear down statues of Confederate soldiers, because having fought for the slave-owning Confederacy is not the only sin that needs to be erased from history. Now some want to tear down memorials to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson too, because they also owned slaves.

Tell you what: Why don’t you erase from history every reference to a person who had a serious character flaw? Do that and you’ll have very short history books. You’ll be able to get through a semester in a day or two. There’d be almost nothing you would be able to teach.

Or we could just tell the whole story. Yes, these men had an amazing vision and used it to create the greatest nation the world has ever seen. Yes, they gave us a political system that has protected freedom and prosperity like nothing we’ve ever seen.

Also, they were participants in an institution that was evil, if very common for wealthy men of their day. They might have been better men if they had rid the world of that institution, and they did not do that. But they did create the political system through which it would be eliminated less than a century later. That is not nothing.

So how do you regard them? As heroes or as villains? It’s the wrong question. The right question is how to ensure that people know the full story. Maybe one of the things we can learn from this is that history has offered us very few people who had no character flaws at all. I can think of only one, probably the same one you’re thinking of.

But flawed men and women have given us quite a world, and we should know as much about it as we can. Maybe the lessons they teach can even help us solve the problems we face today.

Or we can waste our time tearing down statues, which solves nothing, nor does it make history go away. It just makes us ignorant of it.

Karen Cooper discusses why she supports the Confederate Battle Flag:
The Wrong Side of History......................
Why Confederate Statues Matter..........
Why the South erected Confederate Statues................................................
Ole Miss goes Bananas
By Rod Dreher

I wondered how long it would take our crackpot culture to come up with a Politically Correct outrage more stupid than ESPN from pulling an Asian announcer named Robert Lee from calling a UVA game.
The Banana in question:
Now individuals are vandalizing our U.S. Servicemen's graves and desecrating National Parks.

A national disgrace: Fury as vandals and looters desecrate veterans graveyards and historic battlefields across three states on Memorial Day weekend.


    A Vietnam War memorial in the Venice area of Los Angeles has been extensively defaced by graffiti.

    In Kentucky, a driver deliberately drove across grave sites marked by white wooden crosses.

    Looters ripped up parts of Virginia's Petersburg National Battlefield in an apparent search for relics.

Anger as remains of soldiers from Revolutionary and Civil war are dug up and their bones spilled throughout historic cemetery;

Historical cemetery dating back to 1758 holds graves of veterans from the Revolutionary War, Civil War and World World I.

Among those dug up was the grave of 14-month Emma Jane McElmurray who was buried in 1884.

News from Memphis...............................
Vandals destroy monument at Camp Chase, Ohio, Civil War cemetery, where Rita Hughes' Great-Great Grandfather is buried:

Columbus Mayor Andrew Ginther issued this statement today:

“I understand that markers of the Confederacy bring pain to those fighting persistent racism in our community and across our country, but the destruction of property — and the desecration of any grave site — is unacceptable regardless who was interred. We must remain focused on productive, not destructive, action to bring about the change we seek and to further the fight for equality.”

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs also issued a statement:

“Destruction and defacement of federal property is a serious crime, and VA is working with law enforcement officials to identify those responsible.  VA is committed to maintaining our cemeteries as national shrines, and that includes repairing this statue, which was erected in 1902 as part of a peace and reconciliation effort led by wounded Union soldier William Knauss.”

From the "Dally Times," September 2017:
Former Virginia Governor writes new book concerning the events in Charlottesville:
A Lesson in Christian morality and decency in the North, during the
War Between the States:


A Confederate flag was removed from the grave of a Civil War solider at a cemetery in Gray. WMTW News 8's Kyle Jones has more, including how the Confederate soldier's body ended up buried in Maine more than 150 years ago.

As my Father, Rev. Hughes, once said, when you are pastor of a church, you need to leave politics out of the pulpit.  There is a lot more in the Bible to preach on than politics. When a pastor preaches, as we say, "the whole counsel of God," he will eventually go through a text of scripture that will address the needs and issues of the hour.

Unfortunately, some ministers, as seen in the next article, don't understand their calling to the ministry and bring politics into a Sunday or Wednesday night service;  or on prime-time television.  This does not mean we condone racism, but a pastor needs to be careful when in public not to take sides in politically-charged issues; the pulpit is not the place for politics. Period.
-J. Hughes
Special Sub-section:
June - November 2020
But, who is Robert Wright Lee, IV
Who makes another appearance in 2020?

His bio in one of his 2 books states:
Robert W. Lee, IV is a faculty lecturer at Appalachian State University where he received his Bachelor of Arts in religious studies. Rob is a religion columnist for the Statesville Record and Landmark, and his first book, Stained-Glass Millennials was released in 2017. Lee completed his Master of Theological Studies from Duke University and is currently a doctoral student in public theology.Lee lives in the Piedmont of North Carolina with his wife Stephanie and poodle Frank.


Virginia Governor Northam recently trotted out Robert Wright Lee, IV to support his action in removing the Lee statue from Richmond (June 2020).

Unfortunately, unbeknownst to the Governor, he didn't realize that this "Lee" is NOT related to
General Robert Edward Lee of Virginia.
What do we know about
Robert Wright Lee's family ancestry?

I must tell you frankly, that he has not been able to prove who he says he is. I have, along with the family of John Lee, traced this man's ancestry AND General Lee's ancestry, past 7 generations.  Robert Wright Lee's most distant ancestor, Robert Scothrup Lee, was born 1822, in Alabama, and has no relation whatsoever to General Lee. John Lee's wife, who researched the Lees of both Virginia and Maryland, stated she saw nothing that confirms Robert Wright Lee IV as a "descendant." He has supposedly said he is a nephew of General Lee. (Nobody descends from an uncle.) The generations appear to be wrong (he says four greats for his uncle) as we know rather well from one of Robert E. Lee's true great-great granddaughters.

This man made an appearance after the Charlottesville disturbance a few years ago, when he first trotted himself out as “a descendant.”  He has never proven any lineage in the two books he has written on social issues. Someone in his line may have referred to himself as “Robert E. Lee,” but as anyone familiar with genealogy knows, there are a ton of same names within and without blood families. I have also discovered a problem with the widow of Robert Scothrup Lee’s request for a pension; the Fold3 government website has papers that disputed her claim that this Lee had ever served in the Confederate Army.

Some other Virginia-born residents had this to say about Governor Northam:

Taking down the monument is a move to try to change history. History cannot be changed. We learn from history not to make the same mistakes as our predecessors. African-Americans should especially be against taking down monuments for this reason. Jews do not want to take down monuments to the Holocaust or close museums documenting the horrors of that period of history. We must learn to live with our history and not try to hide it. The Virginia governor is wrong on this action.


Once again Governor Northam, who can't recall his picture being taken during his fraternity years, is now hoping to win back favor by tearing down a monument. It's a desperate move by a simple man to distance himself from the past and feed his constant desire to make Someone or Anyone remember him when he's gone. It sure won't be me, monument or not...

We learn from history. We can improve after understanding past problems, in our history. Taking down statues doesn't change history. It's impossible to change history.


Removing statues of history, changing road & school names. Maybe we should all change our names since they all derive from old name sake's from years passed. From now on we will just be a number with no identity, we could get a tattoo of the number on our arms, oh wait, that’s already been done and we all know how that turned out.

The erstwhile relative of General Lee, Robert W. Lee, IV (who is NOT related to General Lee) continues to appear on TV to promote his version of history, including promotion of the removal of the General Lee statue in Richmond, VA, in September 2021.

Sky News host Gary Hardgrave says the 21st century is "so filled with red tape processes and bureaucratic oversight" after Virginia's governor called for the removal of a historic statue. It comes as the statue of Confederate General Robert E Lee has been removed. "The Virginia Governor, Ralph Northam, has said, 'let's tear down the statues because history must reflect the 21st century'," Mr Hardgrave said. "Now if that's the case then I want every statue around the world, particularly around Australia, redesigned so they're to have a clipboard on it. "Because seriously, the 21st century is so filled with red tape processes and bureaucratic oversight that we possibly can't be celebrating any of our heroes of the past without actually acknowledging the clipboard of the 21st century. "They want to rewrite history, they want to devalue our values, they don't want to know where we've come, from how we've got here, and whether we can do better is only off the back of all the mistakes we've made in the past."

Lucian K. Truscott, IV
A disgraced West Point graduate who claims to be a descendant of Thomas Jefferson, but wants the Jefferson Memorial removed from Washington, D.C.
He recently put this on Twitter; an insult to our Commander-in-Chief:
To understand Truscott, we need to research his checkered past and disgrace to the uniform he once wore, and then discarded, which resulted in an
"Other Than Honorable Discharge."

“N.Y. Times offers platform for scurrilous attacks on Army”

By Col. Robert D. Heinl, Arizona Republic, 26 Feb 1973, Page 5

Lucian K. Truscott IV, cashiered West Pointer and bearer, via his father and grandfather, of one of the Army’s most respected names, has for some time been a *hair shirt not only to the Army but in particular to West Point, from which he was allowed to graduate In 1969.
[*a constant punishment to the Army and West Point]

Truscott has written incessantly against the Army in the Village Voice, Saturday Review and the New York Times. He has concentrated much of his fire against West Point, which he correctly perceives as embodying ethical and professional values central to the American regular officer corps.
For a standard-bearer in a crusade against values whose common factor is 
honor, Truscott has, by public record or his own admission, a somewhat *gamey pedigree.
* malodorous; smelly.]

While at West Point, Truscott was far from a model cadet.

Among others at the Point to brand him as a cadet troublemaker was (by Truscott’s admission) then Col. (later four-star general) Alexander M. Haig, Henry Kissinger’s Man Friday and new deputy to Army Chief of Staff Creighton Abrams. Haig was deputy commandant of cadets (the No, 2 disciplinary officer of the military academy).

Not only did Truscott receive demerit-totals above the ceiling for graduation, but, according to the New York Times of May 22, 1969, he was one of four cadets found guilty (less than a month from graduation) of running up $562 worth of long-distance calls on a fraudulent credit-card number.

Allowed to graduate despite the foregoing and given a probationary Army commission on the personal Intervention of Brig. Gen, Bernard W. Rogers, long a ‘‘progressive’’ and champion of Army permissiveness, Truscott lasted 13 months and 17 days as an officer.

At Ft. Carson, Colo., in mid-1970, ironically under command of Gen. Rogers, who had left West Point when Truscott did, Truscott was allowed to resign from the Army “under other than honorable conditions” for the good of the service, Charge: “Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman.”
…Truscott since has repeatedly *traduced the honor code of the Army and West Point
[*speak badly of or tell lies about (someone) so as to damage their reputation.]

…and …the New York Times, which has afforded this *scapegrace ex-officer the considerable platform of its prestigious op-ed page, declined to enlighten its readers as to Truscott’s unsavory credentials.
*a mischievous or wayward person, especially a young person or child; a rascal.]

Last Aug. 19, the Times ran a bitter and cynical op-ed column by Truscott, “West Point: On Their Honor.” For the Times to have published such a piece by a contributor of Truscott’s background can only be likened to printing a polemic against bank examiners by a known *embezzler.
*one who steals money he has been trusted with, especially from his employer]

To compound what must surely be construed as extreme unfairness if not one-sidedness against West Point and the Army, the Times then refused room in its pages for a *remonstrance and rebuttal written by J. Robert Harman Jr., president of the West Point Society of New York.
*a strong protest, complaint, or criticism about something.]

Harman’s letter, dated Aug, 31, not only refuted the Truscott column but called the Times to task for accepting a contribution from a person of Truscott’s bias and history (which Harman briefly summarized).

More than three weeks later after the Times had hastily printed a routine opposed letter objecting to the Truscott column but making no disclosure of the writer’s past, Harrison Salisbury. Times associate editor, wrote Harman that, because it had already run one letter (dated five days after Harman’s), the Times “had decided against carrying anything further.”

In opening its op-ed page to the likes of Truscott. whose background the Times surely must have known, and in then declining to grant equal time to a respected West Point alumni spokesman, let alone to disclose the nature of Truscott’s past association with and separation from the Army, the Times violated elementary tenets in the journalist’s code of fair play and truth.

Were this shabby episode alone, it would reflect badly enough on a journal which proclaims considerable rectitude if not moral anointment.

The Times, has. however, also lent its op-ed page in 1972 to irresponsible attack on West Point and on the Army by a sorehead non-West Point officer who had retired hastily on receipt of Vietnam orders.

It also has run how-to-do-it incitations for putting out underground Army newspapers, contributed by a seditious soldier-editor.

The entire thrust of these New York Times articles, tendentious in the extreme, antimilitary, cynical and destructive in nearly every respect, has been to undermine the Army as an institution in its hour of greatest travail, national unpopularity and vulnerability.

For the Times to give the sanction of publication in its pages to such views is hurtful enough to the common defense. For it to afford space — while stifling full disclosure and rebuttal — to anti-Army advocacy of such tarnished provenance is unforgivable.


There is more to say about Lucian K. Truscott IV, and how he let his ancestor Thomas Jefferson down, but I will leave that for another time.

Today Truscott likes to attack Commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces, President Donald Trump. Were Thomas Jefferson alive today, he might apologize to President Trump, saying, “I have hundreds of descendants. There was bound to be at least one turncoat amongst them.”

So, if you recently read an article or heard a sound-bite by Truscott concerning the monument controversy, you know that he has much to hide, and not much to offer in the way of evaluating our American heritage.

As Kevin Williamson recently wrote...

"If you have come across the byline of Lucian K. Truscott IV in the past, then you may know that he is a distant relative of Thomas Jefferson’s. In fact, almost every article that I can remember having seen from him (not a huge sample, I admit) mentions that connection. Being a distant relation of Thomas Jefferson’s is, in part, the profession of Lucian K. Truscott IV. And that is sufficient to get him into the pages of the New York Times with an exercise in pointlessness headlined “I’m a Direct Descendant of Thomas Jefferson. Take Down His Memorial.”

As any direct descendant of Adam could tell you, being a distant relation of Jefferson’s gives no one any special insight into the contemporary controversy over Washington’s monuments. Does Lucian K. Truscott IV have anything interesting to say on the subject of the Jefferson Memorial? No, Lucian K. Truscott IV does not have anything interesting to say on the subject of the Jefferson Memorial. The Times knows that he has nothing interesting to say, but the Times thinks it is interesting that he says it. The Times is wrong about that. There is not one original thought or interesting sentence in the essay."
Before proceeding into the iconoclastic statue controversy, let's be clear: there is a sinister motive behind the Black Lives Matter
organization wanting these statues removed:

The BLM Marxist's organizers co-opt 'Woke' simpleton protesters to topple a Confederate statue in Richmond:  June 6, 2020.

More than 700 officers injured in George Floyd protests across U.S.

2 Marines
are assaulted in Philadelphia while on active duty
A Black Marine Vet
speaks out against BLM
The Rise of Mob Violence in America
(A Biblical caveat concerning one comment made in this video: we are born into sin; it is not just "inherited" as bad habits and evil habits can be taught by a parent to children; or as children may learn from others. Parents have a lot to do with how children are brought up.
See Psalm 51:5 and 1 John 1:10).

Kneeling to and for any organization will never be enough for a mob.  We should only kneel to God.  In light of what the Bible says, Christians should be very careful about who and what they kneel to, and for.  There are serious spiritual consequences for kneeling to anyone or anything, other than God.

The Bible also says in Exodus 23:24, “Do not bow down before their gods or worship them or follow their practices. You must demolish them and break their sacred stones to pieces."

"I only kneel for God"
Georgia State Trooper
refuses to kneel during protest.
Meanwhile, in Chicago,
a conference call with the Mayor and Aldermen, revealed the Mayor's unconcern with the violence.  And in another instance, a Black politician, revealed on camera, that he wouldn't have even attended the protest that turned violent, if he hadn't been running in a local primary:
Attempting to Change American History
A 21st Century "5th Column" takes over Seattle Police Precinct:
My brother Jim, who died in the line of duty as a policeman, was honored posthumously by this organization.  I have decided to present their viewpoint on the most recent event in Seattle, WA.

Seattle Leaders Surrender Police Precinct to the “Mostly Peaceful Protesters,” so They Won’t Destroy it.

Symbol of Anarchy (a circle with an "A" superimposed over it) painted in Seattle:
Tucker Carlson interviews a reporter who gives an inside look at the chaos of CHAZ anarchy in Seattle:
Former Police Lieutenant gives assessment of Seattle Anarchy:
BLM Marxists and ANTIFA take over in Seattle

Made up mostly of white, Nazi-like Anarchists, who wear all-black clothes, and who have co-opted the BLM movement, whom they don't really respect, to incite violence. 

And yes, to answer a question I have been often asked, they do have young white men who have joined Antifa as anarchists.

This is a very old movement among the young people in this country,  I met my first one, a young teenager, who attended our Sunday School in one of the Virginia churches I pastored, who explained what the "A" superimposed over the "O" meant.  And that was back in the 1980s!!
"No gods, No masters" is the philosophy of Anarchy, as seen in the graffiti of the following picture.  This philosophy is being pushed by liberal/left-wing professors in larger universities.
What is ANTIFA?

Antifa, short for “anti-fascist,” is an amorphous movement whose adherents oppose people or groups they consider authoritarian or racist, according to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which monitors extremists. Antifa aims to “intimidate and dissuade racists,” but its aggressive tactics including physical confrontations can create “a vicious, self-defeating cycle of attacks, counter-attacks and blame,” the ADL said.

The FBI has been increasingly concerned about violence perpetrated by Antifa at public events, according to a 2018 report by the Congressional Research Service, a public policy research arm of the U.S. Congress.

They like to wear black ("Black-Bloc") and cover their faces so they cannot be identified by the police or other protesters they despise and brawl with.

BUT IN FACT: They ARE a FASCIST organization which wants to destroy capitalism and our democracy!!

The name Antifa suggests that they are anti-fascist, but they are themselves the definition of fascism. Wikipedia defines Antifa this way, “Antifa aims to achieve their objectives through the use of both non-violent and violent direct action rather than through policy reform.

Antifa political activists engage in protest tactics such as digital activism and militancy, sometimes involving property damage, physical violence… Individuals involved in the movement tend to hold anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist views, subscribing to a range of left-wing ideologies such as anarchism, communism, Marxism, social democracy and socialism.”

Wikipedia further describes fascism this way “Far-right, authoritarian ultra-nationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, as well as strong regimentation of society and of the economy.

Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete and regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary.” Antifa would certainly not be considered far-right, but they are fascist in every other sense of the definition.

Rowan Dean of Sky News Australia tells the public exactly what Antifa is:
A "Proud Boy" gang member with an "Antifa Hunting License" sticker on his helmet:
"Black Bloc"

is a tactic of the anarchy movement, and refers to the mostly white men in Antifa who wear all black clothes (they go "Black Bloc" wearing all black clothes and head and face covered in black hoods to keep law enforcement from identifying them), currently a part of the Seattle/Portland unrest.  Here, seen a few years back, as they co-op the "Occupy" movement:
The Marxist-led Antifa has been around for a long time in Seattle, Washington and Portland, Oregon.
Note what the banner says:
"Ruining Lives since 2007"?  I do not find anywhere in the Bible that Jesus taught that we should "ruin" someone's life.
They identify the names of those they oppose from photos taken undercover at protests, by posting them with identifying arrows and their names, on Antifa Rose City webpages in order for the Antifa members to be able to identify them later when they meet at a protest to brawl.  They oppose not only "alt-right" (extreme right-wing) groups like "Proud Boys," but also Trump and other democratic peaceful groups.  They have co-opted the BLM movement for their own evil ends: destruction of our country and way of life.  John Read and his family and the Wauchope family would oppose this.

Make no mistake: Antifa groups are against our Democratic American society and other Democracies in Great Britain, Australia, and other Western and European countries.  They would like to see our government and way of life destroyed.

There is a disappointing silence among Congressional Democrats about this Marxism in our country. 

John Read's family would not have been silent.  He supported our country before and after the Civil War.  That is a matter of record.  He was also a Christian and would not have tolerated the criminal abuse and behavior now seen by those who steal (loot) from others.
Portland, Oregon in 2022:

Frustrated families in Dem-led Portland are selling their HOMES as homeless camps go up outside their front doors!

Here's the story:

The Boogaloo Movement


They carry high-powered rifles and wear tactical gear, but their Hawaiian shirts and leis are what stand out in the crowds that have formed at state capital buildings to protest COVID-19 lockdown orders. The signature look for the “boogaloo” anti-government movement is designed to get attention.


The anti-government boogaloo movement embodies a militant ideology whose members believe the United States will enter into a second civil war, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups. Boogaloo followers anticipate the government will attempt to confiscate people’s guns.


The boogaloo ideology itself is not white supremacist, but some white supremacist groups have embraced it, the ADL found.


“Whereas the militia movement (and) radical gun rights activists typically promote the boogaloo as a war against the government or liberals, white supremacists conceive of the boogaloo as a race war or a white revolution,” the ADL wrote in a November analysis.


Boogaloo groups have grown in popularity online in the past year. The Tech Transparency Project, a Washington-based tech watchdog group, found tens of thousands of people joined boogaloo-related Facebook groups over a 30-day period in March and April as stay-at-home orders took effect across the United States to prevent the spread of the novel coronavirus. Project researchers found discussions about tactical strategies, weapons and creating explosives in some boogaloo Facebook group.


They carry high-powered rifles and wear tactical gear, but their Hawaiian shirts and leis are what stand out in the crowds that have formed at state capital buildings to protest COVID-19 lockdown orders. The signature look for the “boogaloo” anti-government movement is designed to get attention.


Pictures of these members of the movement wear fatigues or Hawaiian shirts, and are usually fully armed:

A Christian street preacher is attacked in Seattle by Antifa gang:
Reporter on the ground details the
Antifa Anarchy:
Kyle Shideler, director and senior analyst for homeland security and counterterrorism at the Center for Security Policy, spoke with the Daily Caller's Samantha Renck about the history of Antifa, Seattle's Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone and more:
Some years back, we included an interview with Dr. Alveda King reference the riot in Charlottesville, Virginia, which can be seen earlier on this page concerning that 2017 event. 
Here, in 2020, she talks about the
Seattle Mayor
in denial about the growing unrest:
"Summer of Love" in Seattle, according to the mayor, is just as violent in other major cities, where young black children are being killed and the BLM movement is nowhere to be found in protesting those murders by other blacks.
As of June 30th, the CHOP/CHAZ has been dismantled.
And George Floyd? The man who is being eulogized in June 2020?  Not to condone how he died, but the whole story includes the fact that he had a long rap sheet for criminal activity:
So-called "peaceful protests" in England are transformed into violence by thugs who have co-opted the BLM agenda.
Black Lives Matter protesters in England
destroy and deface monuments, including that of Winston Churchill.
I had no earthly idea that Churchill owned slaves during World War II. 
Of course he didn't !!
My comment about the next photo:
If you think Churchill was a war-provoking racist, wait till you meet the German guy he defeated.
British citizens come that night and the next day, to help clean up Churchill statue; they know that Churchill DID NOT own slaves and was not a racist.
Ignorant people, who have not studied History, defacing a statue of Winston Churchill are Idiots.  They have not one idea of what he did to preserve the freedom of Great Britain.  He did not own slaves!!
Here is Churchill speaking on "We Shall Never Surrender":
You cannot appease the BLM and Antifa:
Minneapolis Mayor tries to appease the mob.
Idiotic Antifa racists deface Winston Churchill statue.  He was instrumental in defeating Facisism in WW2.
These groups are simply Anti-Democracy.
Churchill statue vandalised again as topless climate protesters chain themselves to railings

It comes a few months after it was defaced during racism demonstrations and had to be boarded up.

Thursday 10 September 2020

Winston Churchill's statue in Parliament Square has been vandalised with graffiti again.

The words "is a racist" were sprayed on the plinth beneath the statue of the wartime prime minister.

It comes only three months after it was vandalised with similar words during Black Lives Matter protests - forcing it to be boarded up for its own protection.

Those who support the
Black Lives Matter organization,
DO NOT understand history;
they are IGNORANT of the role Churchill played in helping to defeat Nazi Germany; they have been fooled by this Communist front organization!
Consider this from
Winston Churchill:

London's Metropolitan Police said a man had been arrested on suspicion of causing criminal damage on Thursday evening.

Today's graffiti was sprayed amid protests by "Extinction Rebellion" activists in the capital.

Police made arrests after at least 13 topless women put bike locks round their necks and chained themselves to railings near parliament to highlight the "bare truth" of climate change.

Words including drought, starvation and wildfires were written on their chests and they wore masks with 4C written on them - referencing the temperature increase that many scientists believe will have dire consequences for the planet.

Sarah Mintram, a teacher who took part in the action, said: "Now we've got your attention. By neglecting to communicate the consequences of a 4C world - war, famine, drought, displacement - the government are failing to protect us."

Police removed the D-locks from the protesters' necks and took them away in four vans as their supporters cheered.

The Met said 648 people had so far been arrested during the climate protests in London this month.

Last week demonstrators delayed the delivery of millions of newspapers when they blocked printworks in Hertfordshire and Merseyside.

And the Lincoln statue in London?  It too was is the clean up going on:

As the protests descended into chaos, one protester was seen climbing on the historic monument "The Cenotaph" which honors those who died in World War I, and setting fire to the Union Jack flag:

I didn't know British soldiers in
World War I owned slaves. 
They didn't !!
Antifa Marxism is alive and well in London and other parts of England:
Destruction of another statue:
Politically Correct Mob now look like the 'Woke' Taliban:
From the British Prime Minister:
The British Prime Minister speaks on the Violence in the UK:

Violent protesters warned they could face jail within 24 hours ahead of Black Lives Matter and far-right demonstrations.

Violent protesters could be jailed within 24 hours, as authorities attempt to deter march trouble, reports have suggested.

The fast-track court plans courts come as Black Lives Matter (BLM) and far-right demonstrations are expected this weekend.

Anybody caught vandalising, causing criminal damage or assaulting police officers could be processed through magistrates’ courts with extended opening hours quickly, according to The Times.

The paper suggests that Justice Secretary Robert Buckland and Home Secretary Priti Patel have drawn up the plans based on the response to the 2011 London riots.

The British Home Secretary responds:
Of course, not everyone in London supports the BLM rioters:
Defaced monuments show protesters lack of knowledge
It has been learned that the statue of the founder of the Boy Scouts has been targeted for attack by the UK protestors. 
Rover Scout Matthew Trott salutes a statue of Robert Baden-Powell on Poole Quay in Dorset Credit: Andrew Matthews/PA:

Meanwhile, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council has delayed plans to temporarily remove a statue of Scouts founder Robert Baden-Powell after angry residents vowed to fight to protect it.

The council had originally said it would move the statue from Poole Quay on Thursday over concerns it was on a target list compiled by anti-racism activists.

The statue features on a “topple the racists” website which lists more than 60 statues and memorials across the UK which they argue should be taken down, because they “celebrate slavery and racism”.

In a statement issued on Thursday afternoon, the council said the listing “placed the much-loved statue at risk of damage or even destruction”.

It added: “We know that local people feel proud of Lord Baden-Powell’s and the Scout movement’s links with Poole, and that some people feel that we would be giving in to the protesters by temporarily removing the statue.

“However, we feel it is responsible to protect it for future generations to enjoy and respect.”

The council said the statue would not be removed because its “foundations are deeper than originally envisaged” with discussions needed with contractors on how to move it safely.

24-hour security will be put in place “until it is either removed or the threat diminishes,” the council said.

I am incensed that anyone would want to attack the Boy Scouts of Britain or the U.S.  My brother and I both belonged to this organization and I am angry that the statue of it's founder has been targeted by this BLM group in England.
(Paintings courtesy of Norman Rockwell, in public domain).

Two-thirds of Britons back

Prime Minister Boris Johnson's

refusal to 'take the knee' because people should not be 'bullied' into making 'gestures'