| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - President Andrew Jackson's slaves
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


President Andrew Jackson's slaves

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
ibnkhaldoun87 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 02 Aug 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 7
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ibnkhaldoun87 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: President Andrew Jackson's slaves
    Posted: 02 Aug 2016 at 15:13
I found this on a book called Justifying the Unjustifiable: An anthology of sources defending slavery. It is a reward notice placed in a local newspaper by President Jackson (1829 to 1837) himself offering to reward anyone who found his fugitive slave.

Stop the Runaway

Fifty Dollar Reward

Eloped from the subscriber, living near Nashville, on the 25th of June last, a Mulatto Man Slave, about thirty years old, six feet and an inch, high, stout made and active, talks sensible, stoops in his walk, and has a remarkable large foot, broad across the root of the toes. Will pass for a free man, as I am informed he has obtained by some means, certificates as such. Took with him a drab great coat, dark mixed body coat, a ruffled shirt, cotton home-spun shirts and overalls. He will make for Detroit, through the states of Kentucky and Ohio, or the upper part of Louisiana. The above reward will be given to any person that will take him, and deliver him, or secure them in jail, so that I can get him. If taken out of the state, the above reward, and all reasonable expenses paid, and ten dollars extra, for every hundred lashes any person will give him, to the amount of three hundred.

Andrew Jackson

Near Nashville, State of Tennessee.   

It just goes to show the racism inherent to the early U.S goverment. Many presidents owned slaves and many defended the institution of slavery. 

I wonder what anyone here knows about Jackson's slaves. How many did he own and what sort of work did he make them do. I suppose he owned a plantation near Nashville. I'd be interested in any further details.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Aug 2016 at 15:28
The vast majority of the world practiced slavery at this time. The people in the United States were markedly more humane in their treatment of their slaves than nearly any other slave holding nation on the planet.

The US was no more racist than the blacks who caught the slaves which they sold to the largely Jewish slave traders who then told them to the several European descended people who inhabitated the New World colonies and nations. And they were no more racist than one of the the first owners of black slaves in the territory of today's United States: who was himself a black man.

Edited by Constantine XI - 02 Aug 2016 at 16:32
Back to Top
ibnkhaldoun87 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 02 Aug 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 7
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ibnkhaldoun87 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Aug 2016 at 16:07
I never claimed that the U.S was more racist than other nations. I know that slavery was common at the time all around the world, as it had been since, at least, the beginning of written history. But I don't agree that they were markedly more humane in their treatment of slaves. I think that is a myth that started around reconstruction (which was propagated through literature and film [ex: Gone with the Wind]). If you notice in the reward notice above Jackson was offering ten dollars extra for every hundred lashes inflicted on the fugitive by whoever found him. That doesn't seem particularly humane to me.
Back to Top
ibnkhaldoun87 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 02 Aug 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 7
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ibnkhaldoun87 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Aug 2016 at 16:12
By the way, do you happen to know the name of that man who you claim was the first slave owner in the U.S?
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Aug 2016 at 16:31
In terms of humanity, the only way you could judge whether the United States was more humane in its treatment of slaves would be to compare it with an in-depth knowledge of the treatment of slaves in most of the other slave owning nations which existed at the time. I would argue very strongly that the Americans did indeed treat their slaves dramatically better than the Africans, Portuguese, and Arabs who captured and used far more slaves than the Americans did.

On the topic of whether America's enslavement of blacks was racist, you really have to ask why America had black slaves but no European slaves. And the answer is that Africans were very happy to enslave and sell their own kind to Jewish slave merchants, while Europeans strictly forbade this practice. And when the British commenced their crusade to eradicate the slave trade at great material cost to themselves in the 19th century, African chiefs begged emphatically for the British to do anything they liked other than outlaw the slave trade. Slavery existed because Africans were willing to capture and sell Africans. White Europeans strictly outlawed such a practice among their own kind. The slave trade reflected the commercial realities of the time, which in turn reflected the African keenness to enslave their own kind and the European whites having a prohibition upon doing so (except in the much less offensive forms such as serfdom).

Anthony Johnson was a former Angolan slave who became the first slave owner engaged in a civil litigation case over his ownership of (black) slaves in the colonies, in particular a black slave by the name of John Casor.
Back to Top
ibnkhaldoun87 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 02 Aug 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 7
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ibnkhaldoun87 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Aug 2016 at 16:49
Thanks for the info on Johnson. Interesting to know. I agree that it isn't easy to compare levels of humaneness, but I'm not sure buying slaves rather than selling them puts you on higher moral ground. Besides, if Europeans had not helped to expand the slave market so thoroughly, the enslavement of africans by africans wouldn't have reached the same scale. Although, obviously, africans and arabs are as much to blame for the slave trade as Europeans. 

I do think, however, that serfdom was somewhat better than the enslavement of blacks. The fact that serfs shared a culture and a common language with their masters probably made their relation somewhat nicer. It is, after all, easier to treat people like animals when you can't even communicate with them.  
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Aug 2016 at 19:50
The focus on racism and misogyny in Western culture is disproportionate to the focus on it's contribution to human rights. Human rights are a social construct of Western civilization.

I would guess that the degenerate Marx may have something to do with this intellectual rabbit hole we have fallen into :-)

Edited by wolfhnd - 02 Aug 2016 at 19:51
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Aug 2016 at 23:34
You're welcome.

Quote I agree that it isn't easy to compare levels of humaneness, but I'm not sure buying slaves rather than selling them puts you on higher moral ground

Well I think the point to understand here is that willingness to sell one's own kind (i.e. black Africans) into slavery does make a group comparatively less moral than those who were unwilling to sell their own kind into slavery (i.e. white Europeans). I have no doubt that if black Africans possessed the agency and technology to enslave Europeans, they would have done so. It seems likely to me that some of them did buy European slaves traded by Muslim north Africans.

Quote Besides, if Europeans had not helped to expand the slave market so thoroughly, the enslavement of africans by africans wouldn't have reached the same scale. Although, obviously, africans and arabs are as much to blame for the slave trade as Europeans.

To be fair, Europeans were late arrivals to the black slave trade and were only responsible for a modest minority of the total black slave trade. The local Africans themselves would have enslaved one another without foreign demand. On what scale, we just don't know.

Arabs/Muslims were far more active in the black slave trade than Europeans, and historical documents from the time of Muhammad demonstrate this. The Quran makes many references to the natural inferiority of blacks and their natural place as slaves for Muslims. As a people who were not "of the book" (i.e. non-Muslims who weren't Christians, Jews or Zoroastrians), Muslim slave owners were entitled to do whatever they desired to their black slaves without limit. Captured females were used as sex slaves and any offspring resulting from this usage was subjected to infanticide. Boys and young men who were captured had their penis and testicals cut off in a procedure so horrific that between 9-10 and 29-30 of those subjected to the procedure died. In this way the Muslims were able to ensure that black Africans rarely left much of a presence within their societies as free Muslims. While Europeans are estimated to have bought around 17 million slaves from the largely Jewish trans-Atlantic slave companies, the Muslim trans-Sahara slave trade probably saw around 110 million souls transported into slavery in a new land. The Muslim trade in blacks continues to this day as Muslims on horseback sweep down upon primitive villages in places like Darfur and continue a practice which was done by Muhammad himself.

Quote I do think, however, that serfdom was somewhat better than the enslavement of blacks. The fact that serfs shared a culture and a common language with their masters probably made their relation somewhat nicer. It is, after all, easier to treat people like animals when you can't even communicate with them.  

I agree that serfdom was better than slavery for a great number of reasons, mostly due to the fact that serfs had specific legal rights not held by slaves. And secondly a serf typically had the right to work a portion of his allotted land for his own private benefit.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Aug 2016 at 23:50
Originally posted by wolfhnd wolfhnd wrote:

The focus on racism and misogyny in Western culture is disproportionate to the focus on it's contribution to human rights. Human rights are a social construct of Western civilization.

I would guess that the degenerate Marx may have something to do with this intellectual rabbit hole we have fallen into :-)

Yes, this is very true. It seems that people of European descent are uniquely susceptible to this kind of tortuous guilt, failing to entertain any sense of proportion of their own sins/kindnesses in comparison to those of other societies.

The entertainment industries in Western societies in tandem with its academic 'elites' have worked very hard to portray Western societies are uniquely evil with little regard for fairness or accuracy.
Back to Top
ibnkhaldoun87 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 02 Aug 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 7
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ibnkhaldoun87 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Aug 2016 at 02:02
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

 The Quran makes many references to the natural inferiority of blacks and their natural place as slaves for Muslims. As a people who were not "of the book" (i.e. non-Muslims who weren't Christians, Jews or Zoroastrians), Muslim slave owners were entitled to do whatever they desired to their black slaves without limit. 

This isn't completely true. The Quran does justify slavery. For example in the following ayat (also saw it in this book):

33:55 O Prophet, We have made lawful for thee thy wives whom thou hast given their wages and what thy right hand owns, spoils of war that God has given thee…

In the Quran the expression "what thy right hand owns" refers to slaves. So there's no doubt that The Quran justifies slavery. What isn't true however is that it makes any mention of race. As a matter of fact one of the rallying points of the religion is that there is no racism inherent in it. Muslims, for example, make a big deal out of the fact that one of Muhammad's first companions was a black freed slave by the name of Bilal Ibn Rabah. It is true, however, that the arab slave trade was probably the largest. It's also true that the last country to abolish slavery was Mauritania (a majority Muslim country) where only since 2007 can slave owners be prosecuted. 

It's also worth noting that Aristotle (one of the fathers of so called western culture) defended the concept of natural slavery extensively in his Politics. Again, with no specific reference to race. And the Greeks did enslave fellow Europeans. 



Edited by ibnkhaldoun87 - 03 Aug 2016 at 02:25
Back to Top
ibnkhaldoun87 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 02 Aug 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 7
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ibnkhaldoun87 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Aug 2016 at 02:22
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

 
The entertainment industries in Western societies in tandem with its academic 'elites' have worked very hard to portray Western societies are uniquely evil with little regard for fairness or accuracy.

To be fair Hollywood has done its fair share of demonizing foreign cultures and presenting them as uniquely evil. Evil guys tend to be Russian or Arab for example and their histories are dealt with in a stereotypical manner (with little regard for fairness or accuracy)

It's certainly undeniable that European civilization has done much for humanity as a whole but don't forget that they were also influenced by foreign ideas. Modern mathematics, for example, come from Arab scholars working in Baghdad during the Islamic Golden Age, who had been, in turn influenced by indian mathematicians. And it was the Arabs who preserved the writings of Aristotle.

There has always been a great exchange of ideas amongst cultures and to pretend one group of people in particular is solely responsible for a certain way of thinking is painting a complex process too simply. 

I am, by the way, Colombian [English is not my first language] and therefore indigenous american, african and european; genetically as well as culturally. It's probably because of this that statements about Western culture being in some ways superior seem shallow to me. All cultures have an element of self examination in them. And all cultures have influenced each other in ways which we can hardly comprehend.


Edited by ibnkhaldoun87 - 03 Aug 2016 at 04:46
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 3278
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Aug 2016 at 01:43
Jackson was a bit of a bastard (figuratively speaking), when the Supreme Court said that the expulsion of the Cherokee nation was illegal, he asked 'how many divisions does the Supreme Court have?'  But Jackson was responsible for "Jacksonian Democracy" and he was a hero at the battle of New Orleans (where some Indian tribes fought on his side, against the British (War of 1812)).  Jackson was a tough old buzzard.  A would be assassin had to be saved by others from Jackson, after he had fired his pistol.  There was gold discovered on Cherokee land, and Americans wanted to move in (and Jackson was a popular leader).  Also, the Supreme Court was the home of John Marshall and the Federalists, kind of a hold out when the rest of the country had changed.
So it is not just slavery that Jackson was associated with, I am sure that Indian tribe casinos will take a $20, but they're not too thrilled about Jackson either.  I think that it is obscene that we have him on the $20, and even more obscene putting Tubman on the $20 _without_ taking him off.  But he is a old hero, and probably still a hero to the democrats.  I would rather see _just_ Tubman on the $20.

I am not sure that Western Civilization has done that much for humanity, more like "Western Civilization" has done much for itself, and sometimes humanity has benefited.  But sometimes there is a claim that humanity has benefited, but if we were able to look at it from a detached perspective, we would be less sure.  Slavery for Aristotle was not the same as the Biblical rationale of slave owners that Blacks were sons of Ham and therefore, 'deserved their status.'  Slavery in Roman times was a way of assimulating foreign people.  That doesn't mean it wasn't ugly, but it wasn't as complete as modern slavery.  The philosophical system of stoicism had an Emperor as a practitioner, Marcus Aurelius, but it also had a slave, Epictetus.  The belief in natural slavery meant that some people were slaves no matter what their status was, but also that some were free (by nature) whatever their status was.  The cynic philosopher Diogenes, when told to say what he was good for while on the auction block, said, "to rule men!"  Some guy bought him to tutor his sons.  Of course, there is also the story of Phaedo of Elis, Plato named a dialogue after him, he was captured by Athens in the Peloponessian War and made a slave, a prostitute in a brothel.  Eventually his freedom was bought by a rich man on the behest of Socrates.  But my point is two fold, slavery was a vicious institution back then, the respect that Epictetus and Diogenes were not typical, and second while Phaedo was demeaned in his slavery, he wasn't demeaned in the eyes of Socrates or for that matter Plato.  He was a victim of unfortunate circumstances (a war slave).  Today, we don't have those circumstances (or do we?), but I doubt we would accept someone with that past as well.
Back to Top
john1565 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2018
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 5
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote john1565 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Feb 2018 at 13:15
Originally posted by wrote:

You're welcome.

Quote I agree that it isn't easy to compare levels of humaneness, but I'm not sure buying slaves rather than selling them puts you on higher moral ground

Well I think the point to understand here is that willingness to sell one's own kind (i.e. black Africans) into slavery does make a group comparatively less moral than those who were unwilling to sell their own kind into slavery (i.e. white Europeans). I have no doubt that if black Africans possessed the agency and technology to enslave Europeans, they would have done so. It seems likely to me that some of them did buy European slaves traded by Muslim north Africans.

Quote Besides, if Europeans had not helped to expand the slave market so thoroughly, the enslavement of africans by africans wouldn't have reached the same scale. Although, obviously, africans and arabs are as much to blame for the slave trade as Europeans.

 Captured females were used as sex slaves and any offspring resulting from this usage was subjected to infanticide. Boys and young men who were captured had their penis and testicals cut off in a procedure so horrific that between 9-10 and 29-30 of those subjected to the procedure died. In this way the Muslims were able to ensure that black Africans rarely left much of a presence within their societies as free Muslims. 

Quote I do think, however, that serfdom was somewhat better than the enslavement of blacks. The fact that serfs shared a culture and a common language with their masters probably made their relation somewhat nicer. It is, after all, easier to treat people like animals when you can't even communicate with them.  

I agree that serfdom was better than slavery for a great number of reasons, mostly due to the fact that serfs had specific legal rights not held by slaves. And secondly a serf typically had the right to work a portion of his allotted land for his own private benefit.

This part "boys and young men who were captured had their penis and testicals cut off in a procedure so horrific that between 9-10 and 29-30 of those subjected to the procedure died. In this way the Muslims were able to ensure that black Africans rarely left much of a presence within their societies as free Muslims. "
is relly horrific! May I get a reference please?


Edited by john1565 - 26 Feb 2018 at 13:15
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 1701
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Feb 2018 at 15:37
john1565 , hi.here is an education-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31E1gHowYcA
Look at crowd footage in Iran and Iraq, you won't see any Africans.
African penis was an aphrodisiac, since they were usually attached to large men, adult men were immediately killed in Arab slave raids. They liked boys and baby girls. (Plato?)


Few authors dared describe the horrors involved in the Trans- Sahara slave trade:  kidnapping and castrating young boys to be sold as eunuchs ("the living dead") in the homes of wealthy Arab landlords and force marching young women across endless miles of scorching sand in the Sahara desert to become slave concubines, most dying in transit.  The Muslim slave trade typically dealt in the sale of castrated male slaves:  eunuchs.  Eunuchs were created by completely amputating the scrotum and penis of eight to twelve year old African boys.  Hundreds of thousands of young boys bled to death during this gory procedure.  The survival rate from this process ranged from 1 in 10 to 1 in 30.  These castrated boys brought the highest price at the slave market. 

SHARIA LAW AND SLAVERY-

       Islam's Black Slaves notes:  "the Quran stipulated that female slaves might lawfully be enjoyed by their masters [RAPED].Muhammad himself owned many slaves, some of whom he captured in wars of conquest and some he purchased.  The names of forty slaves owned by Muhammad are recorded by Muslim chroniclers.  Islamic law (Sharia) contains elaborate regulations for slavery.  A slave had no right to be heard in court (testimony was forbidden by slaves), slaves had no right to property, could marry only with the permission of the owner, and were considered to be chattel, that is the movable property, of the slave owner.  Muslim slave owners were specifically entitled by Sharia law to sexually exploit their slaves,  including hiring them out as prostitutes.

       One reason why very little has been written about the Arab involvement in slavery is that traditional Islamic culture still condones slavery.  The Sharia, the codified Islamic law which is based upon the teachings and example of Muhammad, contains explicit regulations for slavery.  

       One of the primary principles of Islam is following the example of Muhammad ,  called the SUNNA. Whatever Muhammad did, his followers must do, what he forbade, they must forbid, what he did not forbid, they may not forbid. 

       As Muhammad himself traded in slaves and owned slaves, accumulating multiple wives, even marrying a six year old, and having concubines - slavery and the sexual exploitation of women is deeply ingrained in Islamic tradition.  Muslim nations had engaged in the slave trade for over 600 years before Europe became involved in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. 


We learn about the Atlantic slave trade and the grave crimes committed against the subjugated black African people. But we hardly ever learn about the heinous crimes perpetuated by the Islamic Empire. We hardly ever learn about the Islamic slave trade, which was extensively more atrocious than the Atlantic slave trade in that it was more profitable, affected a wider demography of indigenous peoples, and went on longer! What’s more, slavery in Islam exists till this very day, and is afforded legitimacy by the unchanging divine Islamic text. 

‘Paradise is the description of the luxurious surroundings dwelt in by Houris and Ghilman. Houris are the most beautiful ever-young virgins with wide, flexing eyes and swelling bosoms. Ghilman are the immortal young boys, pretty like pearls, clothed in green silk and brocade and embellished with bracelets of silver.’848 The concept of ghilman in Islam may have been prompted by the dominant culture of sodomy that existed amongst Arabs during Muhammad’s time as discussed already (see p. 131–32). Sodomy was also prevalent in Persia. According to Hitti, ‘We read of ghilman in the reign of al-Rashid; but it was evidently the Caliph al-Amin, who, following Persian precedent, established in the Arab world the ghilman institution for the practice of sexual relations. A judge of whom there is record used four hundred such youths. Poets did not disdain to give public expression to their perverted passions and to address amorous pieces of their compositions to beardless young boys.849

The third reason for the high demand for eunuchs was homosexual infatuation of many Muslim rulers, generals and nobles. Eunuchs, kept for carnal indulgence, also called ghilman, used to be handsome young boys. They used to wear ‘rich and attractive uniforms and often beautified and perfumed their bodies in effeminate fashion.’ The concept of ghilman comes from the following verses of the Quran, which describes heavenly male attendants (ghilman) in paradise:

  • ‘Round about them will serve, (devoted) to them, young male servants (handsome) as Pearls well-guarded.’ [Quran 52:24]
  • ‘There wait on them immortal youths, with bowls and ewers and a cup from a pure spring.’ [Quran 56:17–18]


Edited by Vanuatu - 28 Feb 2018 at 15:50
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." - Mark Twain
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 3278
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Mar 2018 at 03:29
I have this sense that most revealed religions are a moderating response to what went on there before.  It is interesting to think that was the case with Islam.  The Arabs before Mohammed would bury girl infants alive.  That too is mentioned in the Quran.

But there is a question about whether the foundation of a nation or a religion, fundamentally establishes its nature, or whether roses can come from sh-t.  Rome ultimately was founded on murder and rape (although I'm not sure I would consider Rome a positive moral example).  I do like the Sufis though.
Some blacks would argue that the United States was founded with slavery and still has that taint, they should hope that they are wrong, though.

I think that sometimes liberals don't understand that there is something worse, by far, then cultural conservatives.  The Islamic world is not friendly to Christians, or to agnostics or atheists either.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.172 seconds.