[
Views
]
[
Top Five Views
]
IF YOU'RE DOING IT BIG, Sen. Barack Obama thinks you could give a little more come tax time.
THE 4TH OF JULY weekend is nearly here. I don't know about you, but I have mixed emotions about this holiday.
AS MUCH AS I enjoy a good Obama-bash, I have to disagree with you on this one. Given your penchant for calling me idealistic and naïve about therealpolitik of presidential campaigns, I'm surprised that you're tripping about UnityFest 2008.
[
Blog Roll
]
Discuss:
The Bush Family's Slaveholding Past
Member Comments
-
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By:
she-whitey at 06/28/2008 5:23:26 PM
Comment:
Good article!
While reading it, I wondered about on the past of Obama's family, the American and the African ones? Now, reading other people's comments I see the answer. Now what does that mean? Possibly that is the reason he got nominated for the presidency? -
Posted By:
merry1951 at 06/26/2008 8:41:53 PM
Comment:
Gee, isn't that interesting, something the Bushes have in common with Obama.
His family also owned slaves on his mothers side. This is really a biased article. It would have been more interesting by invistagting both families. Sound like Obama's anscestors owned many more than the Walkers. It also appears that the Walkers bought a farm, were not wealthy, and 2 slaves came with the property. -
Posted By:
FASS52 at 06/26/2008 5:04:37 PM
Comment:
This story about the Bushes ties to slavery pales to what they are really into today. If you really want to know here's the link:
http://top-secret-at.blogspot -
Posted By:
THANKFUL at 06/26/2008 12:25:35 PM
Comment:
Mr. Ball I have been a big fan of yours since "slaves in my Family, and "The sweet Hell Inside." You and Mrs. Edwina Whitlock did a wonderful job. I miss the historical books you have written. KEEP WRITING! -
Posted By:
JulieFanselow at 02/22/2008 1:37:47 PM
Comment:
I am reading this article in the wake of Bill O'Reilly's comment about sending a "lynching party" after Michelle Obama, which was made a week after George Bush condemned noose displays and lynching jokes.
Is America coming close to a time when we can finally, fully face up to our "original sin" and the myriad ways it still impacts us? Given the outrage against O'Reilly's comments, I am hopeful.
Thank you for this story.I have linked to it from our new blog at Everyday Democracy (formerly the Study Circles Resource Center), where we work with communities nationwide to face racism and other issues head on with inclusive large-scale dialogue and action plans.
http://democracyspace.typepad.com/democracyspaceorg/2008/02/friday-digest-2.html
Peace! -
Posted By:
torcal at 02/22/2008 10:45:33 AM
Comment:
The reason is simple. The Bush family did not have enough money to own slaves until Prescott Bush happened to marry the daughter of Herbert Walker, a partner in Brown Brothers in NY and legindary pal of WA Harriman. They made fortunes insider trading on Wall Street and later, I understand, in the defense industry in WWII. The secret is that the Bushes never did anything to earn money except marry into it. Why do you think they deify the name "Herbert Walker" in their names? Whithout his angel's touch, they would be slinging hash and relying on Social Security like the rest of us. -
Posted By:
torcal at 02/22/2008 10:41:27 AM
Comment:
You have, in part, answered your own question. The Bush family line is particularly unremarkable and I doubt whether they could own any slaves. The money came in when Prescott Bush married the daughter of Herbert Walker, a famous pal of W.A. Harriman who made millions insider trading on Wall Street, among other endeavors, and it was the Walkers, not the Bushes, who had the money and owned the slaves. Perhaps the Bushes don't want anyone to find out about their humble beginnings and that they married into money rather than making it themselves. -
Posted By:
MoMaMe at 02/21/2008 11:28:40 PM
Comment:
I must apologize for the multiple entries. I was not seeing them as going through, tried several options to no avail. Now I see they all posted. Sorry, I was not trying to abuse the forums. -
Posted By:
edify at 02/21/2008 3:49:27 PM
Comment:
For more perspective on this early Walker(Bush) family, read the three articles at this URL: http://genealogyinstlouis.accessgenealogy.com/RogerHughes.htm . Also note, as if it matters(?), that Ball got the writer's name wrong. -
Posted By:
MoMaMe at 02/20/2008 6:41:41 PM
Comment:
The ancestors of Barack Obama also owned slaves... http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/politics/bal-te.obama02mar02,0,3453027.story
And so while we must acknowledge the ills of the past, it seems unproductive to blame those decendants today, as if they actually were the past slave masters themselves.
Seriously how many of us even agree with the agendas of our fathers let alone our distant, and unknown to us fore fathers?
I say give a person credit for their OWN views and way of life, not the history that they were randomly decended from.
That said most the country agrees it is time for change, and time for Bush to move along. Putting this slavery/family history slant to wanting him to go has absolutely no relevance in my opinion.-
Posted By:
MoMaMe at 02/21/2008 11:25:55 PM
Comment:
Ok, I have no idea why this comment shows up more than once. It was only posted once ( I thought) but seems the comment abilities here are not working well. Sorry.
-
-
Posted By:
MoMaMe at 02/20/2008 4:00:29 PM
Comment:
The ancestors of Barack Obama also owned slaves... http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/politics/bal-te.obama02mar02,0,3453027.story
And so while we must acknowledge the ills of the past, it seems unproductive to blame those decendants today, as if they actually were the past slave masters themselves.
Seriously how many of us even agree with the agendas of our fathers let alone our distant, and unknown to us fore fathers?
I say give a person credit for their OWN views and way of life, not the history that they were randomly decended from.
That said most the country agrees it is time for change, and time for Bush to move along. Putting this slavery/family history slant to wanting him to go has absolutely no relevance in my opinion. -
Posted By:
MoMaMe at 02/20/2008 3:44:14 PM
Comment:
The ancestors of Barack Obama also owned slaves... http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/politics/bal-te.obama02mar02,0,3453027.story
And so while we must acknowledge the ills of the past, it seems unproductive to blame those decendants today, as if they actually were the past slave masters themselves.
Seriously how many of us even agree with the agendas of our fathers let alone our distant, and unknown to us fore fathers?
I say give a person credit for their OWN views and way of life, not the history that they were randomly decended from.
That said most the country agrees it is time for change, and time for Bush to move along. Putting this slavery/family history slant to wanting him to go has absolutely no relevance in my opinion. -
Posted By:
hesperia at 02/20/2008 4:55:20 AM
Comment:
The historian, Wendy Brown, has written: "We inherit not ???what really happened??? to the dead but what lives on from that happening, what is conjured from it, how past generations and events occupy the force fields of the present, how they claim us, and how they haunt, plague, and inspirit our imaginations and visions for the future.??? Politics Out of History
I believe her and so wonder how anyone could say that such an important and defining American institution of slavery happened "then" while "this is now". This strikes me as being a dangerous form of denial. I believe that the longer we fail to engage with this history, the longer we will be controlled by it. I think of the struggles of (some) citizens of the German state to come to terms with the Holocaust it perpetrated upon the Jews of Europe and wonder if it would have taken place if Germany had not lost the war. I rather think not, though that is impossible to prove. My point is though, that to some extent, there was an attempt to hold the perpetrators of war crimes to account and, in so doing, perhaps all Germans of that time were also held to account, at least symbolically. While the white Americans of the South were defeated in the Civil War which freed African American slaves, it doesn't seem to me that there was a similar account taking of their crimes, perhaps because the war was civil and there was a pressing economic need to "leave the past behind" and get on with the business of the country which was, of course, business, no less after the war than before it. People need to be held to account. Or at least, some people need to be held to account in order that an entire society be held to account. That "opportunity" having been lost, it's rather difficult to see through what mechanism anyone can be held to account today. Nevertheless, it strikes me that it is crucially important to find a way to do so, not to lay the past to rest, but to become as fully aware as possible of the impact the event of slavery had and continues to have on American life, society, culture etc. But there is no forum for doing so. And it appears hardly likely that it could be a politician of George W's ilk who could get the ball rolling. However, I do admire the challenge you set for him and your dare to all who read your words. I would also be very interested if you had some ideas about how this account taking could take place, assuming there is anyone at all who would have the will to do it. Would it take just one famous, conscious caucasian person to start the dialogue? Or does it require some legal or political process in which some people might have no choice but to participate? -
Posted By:
EARTHMAN at 02/20/2008 3:02:38 AM
Comment:
Slavery is more common in the world today than it was 2 centuries ago. It's alive and well in the United States today, and growing. The "enforcers" merely changed the name from "slave" to "human resource."
I'm stunned that more people haven't figured this out. -
Posted By:
EARTHMAN at 02/20/2008 2:56:27 AM
Comment:
Some people seem to be missing the point. Antebellum slaveholders were honest in comparison with their modern counterparts. Slaves were mostly black owned by mostly whites and indians. They called them "slaves" and considered them sub-human.
Their modern contemporaries are of all races and don't call them "slaves." They call them "human resources."
Now, be good little "human resources" and vote in your next "resource master."
By the whimpering comments I've read, thus far, I'm ashamed to call you "human resources" my countrymen.
Think! Fight back now or enjoy your miserable life on your knees. -
Posted By:
sonofeire at 02/20/2008 2:07:52 AM
Comment:
Oh gee !
My Gaelic Irish ancestors were pirates, in the 11th century, who preyed upon the Welsh and English. So, I guess I should feel guilty.
But wait !
My own later ancestors were driven off their land in Donegal when Oliver Cromwell invaded Ireland more than 350 years ago. Some were killed. Some fled to Scotland and France. Some were sold into penal servitude in the West Indies.
Can I apply for reparations? -
Posted By:
sonofeire at 02/20/2008 2:02:09 AM
Comment:
Oh gee !
My ancestors were Gaelic Irish pirates, in the 11th century, who preyed upon the Welsh and English. So, I guess I should feel guilty.
Oh, but wait ! My own later ancestors were driven off their land in Donegal when Oliver Cromwell invaded Ireland more than 350 years ago. Some of my poor kin were killed, some fled to Scotland and France, some were sold into penal servitude in the West Indies. Can I apply for reparations? -
Posted By:
Seaweed74 at 02/20/2008 12:52:57 AM
Comment:
What difference does that make now? None!
A big fuss is made over the fact that Washinton and Jefferson owned slaves but what difference does that make now? None!
That was then. This is now. -
Posted By:
hoosiermandarin@yahoo.com at 02/19/2008 6:39:51 PM
Comment:
This superb piece is similar to a dispassionate study of the Landlord class of the anti bellum period who were unfairly maligned as Simon Legree types, when in actuality most of them who were faced with mid sized to large estates and no ability to farm them without share croppers.
Sharecropping was a hard way to make a living for both parties with owner generally going to the bank to borrow money to grubstake the croppers.
The good ones, far and away the bulk, simply passed through interest costs to their people. If the cropper lost money, often the case, the landlord iften could not repay the loans and had to find the money somehow or lose the land. This would mean both parties were in the cold.
The typical cropper farmed two to five acres of land being limited by working with a the help of a mule and a hoe.
The people who were blamed for the sytem's problems were the landlords, not the bankers who charged rapacious interest and manipulated commodities costs which they than bought to sell at a huge margin.
This is what happened in Mao's China also only he included the intellectuals.
The Kong family, started by by Confuscious, was among the early bankers who didn't "own" land, just the money needed to keep the landlord class afloat...and perpetually in debt.
As a result Mao not only devastated the landlords he destroyed the financial infrastructure of the country and blamed the landlords, the backbine of the country.
He destroyed the intellectuals as well as he couldn't control the thinkers. -
Posted By:
EJ Pooper at 02/19/2008 5:52:27 PM
Comment:
How the hell are we supposed to get past the history of racism, slavery, etc if we all keep making so much of what was done before any of us were born? -
Posted By:
brianw at 02/19/2008 5:33:59 PM
Comment:
As a descendant of slave owners (and abolotionists), I agree this past is something that should be reckoned with. History is not something you dismiss by getting over it, but something you acknowlege to get on with it. -
Posted By:
kevinyshi at 02/19/2008 4:50:23 PM
Comment:
Ah what was the point of the article? I don't see any coherent argument being made by the author. Can someone please elucidate this issue for me.
And the last little metaphor is just badly done and sticks out like a sour thumb...sorry for being blunt. -
Posted By:
ILuvLA at 02/19/2008 4:07:00 PM
Comment:
"With this, the president joins perhaps fifteen million living white Americans who trace their roots to the long-gone master class."
As do most "black" Americans. -
Posted By:
ARH at 02/19/2008 3:28:37 PM
Comment:
Those who seek greater accountability for America's slaveowning past would do better by diminishing this genealogical obsession over comparing descendants with predecessors. Certainly we wouldn't quarantine descendants of serial killers, or require them to publicly admit their blood relations. Among the seemingly innumerable avenues available for justifiably criticizing the Bush dynasty, linking an obscure ancestral past with present failures is the least viable. If anything this kind of thinking detracts from the cause of those who seek more historically responsible understandings of slavery in America and its present effects. Mr. Ball's argument reduces a powerful, collective grievance against the pernicious slave trading of nascent America to a tenuous, ineffectual, and pedestrian criticism of a lame duck president. Why should anyone care if Bush's family--like millions of other privileged families in the US--once owned slaves before GWB was even born? Maybe we should focus on how our past influences our here and now, rather than following this genealogy of personal scorn. Does being a descendant of a slaveowning family make one any more or less responsible for denouncing slavery and all of its baggage? Absolutely not; we should take collective responsibility, and leave this politics of the personal in the historical trash bin. -
Posted By:
tamiers1111 at 02/19/2008 3:15:32 PM
Comment:
Ball's claim that the current President Bush should atone for slavery in his family's distant past is beyond reason. His "place in life" and personal actions have no direct and barely an indirect connection to the far past. I'm sure that Mr. Ball has some long ago ancestors who participated in some awful misdeeds of some sort yet I am unaware of any atoning he has done. President Bush has no more responsiblity for his long dead relatives than Mr. Ball does for his. -
Posted By:
JC at 02/19/2008 3:12:05 PM
Comment:
How is this George W's fault??? -
Posted By:
jyell at 02/19/2008 3:08:36 PM
Comment:
Far be it from me to feel badly at an attempt to further reveal the corruption of the Bush family, however this article is full of silly conclusions and ignoring or ignorance of the facts. If you want to say something negative about the Bush family explore the claims that a large part of their fortunes were made enabling and in sympathy with the Nazi's. If true would certainly explain a lot about their arrogance.
However on to one of the most silly accounts, of course up to 1850 all the census only named the principle adult in a household, every one else living in the house hold even elder males were only counted by age group. Women never appeared by name unless they were the actual legal head of family.
I hardly need to explain as another already pointed out. Slavery was all over Africa for thousands of years before Northern Europeans started being involved and the slaves they got were largely caught by other blacks and Afro-Arabs. I can add that Islam continued to think it was alright to hold slaves up thru WWII and it is suspected that the practice hasn't stopped even today. So why does Islam get a pass?
Now if it wasn't for slavery and the civil war bringing it largely to an end I might say that the south was right in its objection to the National Government breaking the agreement between the people of the south and north. However, although I have plenty of ancestors involved in slavery at the time it was accepted and encouraged. Did it lead to great crimes, you bet. Does it mean that G. W. needs to grovel in shame of his ancestors---don't be a jackass. -
Posted By:
JC at 02/19/2008 3:08:14 PM
Comment:
This is the stupiest story i've read this year. -
Posted By:
hrladyship at 02/19/2008 2:57:07 PM
Comment:
As others have stated here, what difference does it make? There are few families in this country who, if their ancestors arrived in America prior to 1800, do not have a history of slave ownership at worst, using slaves at best. Many seem to forget that slavery was practiced throughout all 13 colonies at one time.
It is also true that a large portion of the American population have no knowledge of their ancestors any further back than perhaps grandparents. In some areas of the South, it can be extremely difficult to trace one's ancestry due to the Civil War having been fought in that part of the country, resulting in the destruction or loss of hundreds of records and repositories.
Learning the history of the "peculiar institution" of slavery as practiced in our country is useful in knowing where we came from as a nation, and to instill in us the knowledge that we must never let such a thing happen again. It does no one any good to go around beating our breasts, shouting mea culpa. We are not responsible for what our ancestors did. We are only response for ensuring that such cruelty never happens again. -
Posted By:
Spanky at 02/19/2008 2:48:45 PM
Comment:
First off let us remember that african's origianally sold their countrymen to the white slave traders. So every slave has some relation to those who first sold them and put them on the slave ships. Maybe we should go back in time and fine those african slave traders who made slavery possible in the first place! We could also assume that the walkers freed thier slaves when they left maryland as much as the fact that they sold them. So the authors theories really give us little facts and alot of assuptions -
Posted By:
rmiller1959 at 02/19/2008 2:15:36 PM
Comment:
I'm left asking the question, "What exactly do you want President Bush to do?" I've known the Bush family since my college days and I believe the son and the father are particularly sensitive to minority issues. They may not support the remedies that some espouse but their hearts are in the right place. President Bush has sent more money to Africa and done more for the AIDS epidemic there than any past President, Republican or Democrat. He has nothing to gain from this initiative but he pursues it nonetheless because he believes in it. Blacks in America ought to speak to the people in Africa whose lives have been literally saved because this Administration made a commitment to a cause which too few Americans take seriously. It would give them a greater sense of perspective. As for the slaveowner question, my great-great-great grandfather was a slaveowner (for the record, I'm black; my great-great-great grandfather was white). Barack Obama's ancestors on his mother's side were slaveowners. Millions of Americans, black and white, have slaveowners in their ancestry. What would you recommend these Americans do to adequately address this issue from your point of view? This is not a trick question; I'd really like to know. -
Posted By:
bengunn1980 at 02/19/2008 2:07:13 PM
Comment:
whoopdie doo. bush's ancestors owned slaves. Why does it matter? its not as if he or his father or his fathers father etc. were the ones doing this. im sure that lots of blacks have slave trading ancestors since as we all know black african leaders sold slaves to the evil white man. So for every white with a slaveowning relative there is a black with a slave trading relative. -
Posted By:
blablablabla at 02/19/2008 2:04:02 PM
Comment:
this is ridiculous. there is no reason at all that president bush should have to mention that his family owned slaves almost 200 years ago. how many people even know the names of their ancestors from 200 years ago?! do you think that the president should be punished for his familys past? and mentioning that his family purchased a plantation in the 1930's? what are you trying to say, that everyone who owns land in the south that was once a plantation is a white supremacist trying to relive the glory days of the antebellum south?!!! if you go back even farther in history, it was blacks who began this whole process in the first place, enslaving members of other tribes and eventually selling them to the whites. everyone had a part in slavery, why are blacks not held accountable for their ancestors who enslaved other blacks or sold them to slave traders? they are just as guilty as the whites in this regard. in my opinion no one should be held accountable for anything that they had no part in. neither of the bush presidents has had anything to do with slavery, so why hold them acountable? i often feel that i am expected to have some sort of guilt complex because i am white, but my ancestors didn't arrive in the u.s. until well after slavery had ended and i don't think that any of my ancestors or relatives have lived any further south than new york city. so that means that i effectively had no involvement whatsoever, which cannot be said for even enslaved blacks who may have had relatives involved in the slave trade. now i am in no way supportive of anything at all discriminatory, but i am tired of being expected to apologize for being white. -
Posted By:
runone at 02/19/2008 1:48:31 PM
Comment:
Someone has got to be kidding, and has way too much time on their hands. To dig back how many years to find dirt. it has no relevance in this day. How many times have I heard that some people just haven't had the chances others had because of slavery back then. If someone wants to study hard, work hard, they can get where they want to go. Then there is those who have to blame someone or something for their own lack of initiative. I know many, many people of different races who have nice houses, wonderful families, positions of influence and authority. They didn't feel the need to blame anyone . -
Posted By:
blablablabla at 02/19/2008 1:38:13 PM
Comment:
this is ridiculous. there is no reason at all that president bush should have to mention that his family owned slaves almost 200 years ago. how many people even know the names of their ancestors from 200 years ago?! do you think that the president should be punished for his familys past? and mentioning that his family purchased a plantation in the 1930's? what are you trying to say, that everyone who owns land in the south that was once a plantation is a white supremacist trying to relive the glory days of the antebellum south?!!! if you go back even farther in history, it was blacks who began this whole process in the first place, enslaving members of other tribes and eventually selling them to the whites. everyone had a part in slavery, why are blacks not held accountable for their ancestors who enslaved other blacks or sold them to slave traders? they are just as guilty as the whites in this regard. in my opinion no one should be held accountable for anything that they had no part in. neither of the bush presidents has had anything to do with slavery, so why hold them acountable? i often feel that i am expected to have some sort of guilt complex because i am white, but my ancestors didn't arrive in the u.s. until well after slavery had ended and i don't think that any of my ancestors or relatives have lived any further south than new york city. so that means that i effectively had no involvement whatsoever, which cannot be said for even enslaved blacks who may have had relatives involved in the slave trade. now i am in no way supportive of anything at all discriminatory, but i am tired of being expected to apologize for being white. -
Posted By:
chuck at 02/19/2008 11:57:54 AM
Comment:
Is this really necessary? You can whack Bush for a lot, but not acknowledging the 30 slaves his family had in 1838 isn't high on my list of priorities and shouldn't be on your either. This article concludes with the "antibellum lifestyle" at Colcannon, clearly a cheapshot. I would imagine that a half century ago that any wealthy estate in the Deep South had a preponderance of black servants. You imply that the Walker family specifically went out and hired servile black servants to mimic the conditions and power relationships of the slave-owning plantations. What a cheap shot! -
Posted By:
BGee at 02/19/2008 10:23:21 AM
Comment:
To say this story was an abject waste of my time would be an understatment. I wonder when the African American community will start dealing with the real problems that it faces, rather than waste time squabbling over irrelevances... -
Posted By:
cambell at 02/19/2008 9:58:08 AM
Comment:
you ought to be ashamed of yourself. many african presidents and activists including bob geldolf, have publicly stated that president bush has helped africa more than any other president in history. to attempt to lessen this accomplishment and the fortitude it took to get it accomplished, is just plain wrong. get over it. everyone of our ancestors were complicit in it, from the ones who bought slaves down to the africans who sold them. man up and quit living in the past. -
Posted By:
BlueEyes_Austin at 02/19/2008 9:47:25 AM
Comment:
"The heirs of slaveholders are not responsible for the past; but in a better world, they would be accountable for that past. They would make an effort to deal with the slave story, talk about it, and try to come to terms with it."
What a nonsense. First, it is absurd to be accountable for something you are not responsible for. Second, the geometric expansion of relatives in the seven or more generations since slavery ended means that dozens if not hundreds of individuals are "responsible" for the historical acts of a single individual. -
Posted By:
oxoniana at 02/19/2008 9:08:40 AM
Comment:
To dickpeery: what are you on about? The US wasn't formed to protect slavery, and Britain didn't outlaw slavery until the 1830s (50+ years after independence). Perhaps you're thinking of the three-fifths compromise necessary for the ratification of the Constitution? Furthermore, the nation's capitol was not, at any time, located at Mount Vernon. It was located along the Potomac River so as to be in a more "neutral" position between the northern (more populous and industrial) and southern (less populous, more rural-agricultural) states than either New York City or Philadelphia. And at the time of the Revolutionary War, and the signing of the Constitution, "slave territory" was anywhere in the former British colonies. Check your facts, please. -
Posted By:
Min at 02/19/2008 6:55:34 AM
Comment:
I'd want to know if Obama's family owned slaves at any point (and Hilary's, McCain's, and all the other presidential contenders) being that not only is his mother white, but Obama is related to both Bush and Cheney....-
Posted By:
MoMaMe at 02/20/2008 8:41:13 PM
Comment:
The ancestors of Barack Obama also owned slaves... http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/politics/bal-te.obama02mar02,0,3453027.story
And so while we must acknowledge the ills of the past, it seems unproductive to blame those decendants today, as if they actually were the past slave masters themselves.
Seriously how many of us even agree with the agendas of our fathers let alone our distant, and unknown to us fore fathers?
I say give a person credit for their OWN views and way of life, not the history that they were randomly decended from.
That said most the country agrees it is time for change, and time for Bush to move along. Putting this slavery/family history slant to wanting him to go has absolutely no relevance in my opinion.
-
-
Posted By:
pattycake at 02/19/2008 5:15:53 AM
Comment:
No, dickpeery, they moved the capital to DC because it was between the North and the South states, ie not biased towards one or the other. -
Posted By:
pattycake at 02/19/2008 3:25:11 AM
Comment:
Well said, lectrashep.
Also, I fear this is just another attempt to belittle a president already proved to be marginalized and wrong on so many things. How come the author isn't looking into the slave-owning history of Obama, a *current* hopeful presidential candidate and possible future president? His (white) mother's family can be found to have slaves. -
Posted By:
blessinggirl at 02/18/2008 8:55:06 PM
Comment:
To the "get over it" posters, do you know that Edward Ball is white? His first book describes his shock and dismay in learning that his family owned slaves. He made a conscious effort to locate the ancestors of those his family held in bondage. Mr. Ball's work is not an attempt to live in the past--as many of us like to do--but to illuminate American history. Whether we today who call ourselves black had ancestors who were free or slave, collectively our lives were taken down different paths than those deemed white. To ignore the cultural and sociological results is folly. -
Posted By:
dickpeery at 02/18/2008 1:10:05 PM
Comment:
President's Day is a good time to remember the origins of the country. The United States was organized to protect slavery. The Southern planters would not have joined the rebellion if slavery had not been outlawed in Britain by court decree. After the Revolutionary War, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson worked very hard to get the nation's capital moved from abolitionist Philadelphia to Washington's plantation in the heart of slave territory. As long as it is important to honor them with a holiday, it is important to understand all that it means. We are all descendants of slavery, even those Europeans who migrated to here after the Civil War and received instant affirmative action as white Americans. -
Posted By:
lectrashep at 02/18/2008 12:46:41 PM
Comment:
Why should the descendants of slave owners be held resonsible for, or made to feel guilty about their past?
That would be the same as persecuting descendants of a murderer or other criminal forever because of crimes comitted in the past.
Also, slavery was common in Africa. Most blacks were sold to the Europeans by other blacks, primarily because they were from a different tribe.
If you want to respond to this comment, only do so if you can do so intelligently. -
Posted By:
illuminatus at 02/16/2008 1:05:45 PM
Comment:
It is quite interesting, history always is, but I cannot really understand why this matters in any modern political sense in 2008. Not to minimise the undeniable horrors of the past, but as for its relevance today... well, so what? It is just an interesting factoid.-
Posted By:
lectrashep at 02/18/2008 12:41:55 PM
Comment:
Why should the descendants of slave owners be held accountable for, or be made to feel guilty about what happened in the past?
It would be the same as holding the descendants of a mass murderer or any other criminal responsible the actions of their relatives actions.
All of us have skeletons in our family closet.
-
-
Posted By:
Ben4jammin at 02/16/2008 10:07:24 AM
Comment:
The descendants of slaveholders do not wear special tattoos or announce themselves in secret handshakes, but most know who they are.
How does one determine if they are the descendant of a slaveholder? Meaning, if I wanted to know if I was, how would I go about finding out?
What about other recent presidents, such as Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Ford etc. Has anyone traced their family tree?-
Posted By:
strude86 at 02/16/2008 6:31:20 PM
Comment:
Enslavement depended upon region. Ford's ancestry is largely from New England and Pennsylvania, so he's unlikely to have had slaveholding forebears. Reagan's ancestors were pretty recent immigrants from Ireland and Scotland, and mostly came to the US after the Civil War--although one line of Scots-derived kin came through Canada to Illinois. Both Clinton and Carter had ancestry in the antebellum South. While I do not know if such is the case, it's certainly possible, and perhaps statistically likely, that both had slaveholders in their ancestry. I do know that they both, along with Lyndon Johnson, had forebears in the Confederate army. (Johnson had slaveholding forebears, as well.)
Kennedy, like Reagan, had ancestry that came over from Ireland in the mid-19th Century to New England, so slaveholding wouldn't have been possible. Some have argued that Eisenhower's otherwise untraceable great-grandmother was probably of African heritage.
See: Ancestry of American Presidents by Gary Boyd Roberts (1995) for confirmation and details.
-
-
Posted By:
strude86 at 02/16/2008 8:23:19 AM
Comment:
Again, the author is making a judgment without researching the facts when he speculates that the Walkers' slaves were sold to work in the cotton fields of Alabama or Mississippi.
Records in the county courthouse should reveal to whom (and for what price) the slaves over which the Walker family lost control in the 1830s were sold. It may well be that they went to neighbors in Maryland; the author's scenario may also ring true. To check the records would not be difficult.
While I am no fan of the Bush oligarchy, a more complete and thorough bit of work would make the writer's assertions stronger, if true. It might also paint a more subtle, nuanced image which bears in mind the attitudes and prejudices of the 1830s, rather than our more enlightened and genteel presumptions of today. -
Posted By:
strude86 at 02/16/2008 8:16:38 AM
Comment:
In faulting the slave schedules for giving only approximate ages of the parties, the author would do well to remember that in all federal censuses enumerated before 1850, only the head of the household was named in a roster, with approximate ages given for all parties--free or enslaved--within that person's control.
Beginning in 1850, the schedules offer the names of those enslaved, along with every name within a household. The same holds true in 1860.
In other words, in this instance, the author's claim that the enslaved were somehow particularly marginalized in the statistics doesn't ring true. Women, in particular, aged parents, farm employees as well as slaves and children, were all systemically ignored by the schedules. -
Posted By:
linda in cincinnati at 02/16/2008 7:04:32 AM
Comment:
It's always important to learn about history. -
Posted By:
Heil Mary at 02/15/2008 8:01:47 PM
Comment:
An ex-co-worker lives next door to a black Mr. Bush in the Prince George's County suburbs of D.C. This Mr. Bush apparently had proof the notorious Bushes owned his ancestors. Moreover, coincidentally, this Mr. Bush worked as a White House gardener and was cruelly fired by Ma Barker Bush when he attempted to speak to her about their embarrassing common history. The Washington Post even ran a story about this scandal. The white Bushes never make amends for their crime sprees. -
Posted By:
Heil Mary at 02/15/2008 7:49:25 PM
Comment:
An ex-coworker lives next door to a black Mr. Bush in the Prince George's County suburbs of D.C. This Mr. Bush apparently had proof the notorious Bushes owned his ancestors. Moreover, coincidentally, this Mr. Bush worked as a White House gardener and was cruelly fired by Ma Barker Bush when he attempted to speak to her about their embarrassing common history. The Washington Post even ran a story about this scandal. The white Bushes never make amends for their crime sprees.
Reply
Report Abuse
Enter comments if any for reporting abuse