DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Colonial Era
*****************************************************
#Post#: 1757--------------------------------------------------
American Slave Insurrections
By: 90sRetroFan Date: October 25, 2020, 1:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Another story of our heroism written by our enemies:
HTML https://www.amren.com/features/2020/10/american-slave-insurrections/
[quote]Records about antebellum slave insurrections are scarce.
Whites generally suppressed reports of servile insurrection
because they didn’t want to encourage other slaves, so many of
the rebellions we know about were the ones too large to censor.
Slaves tried to revolt hundreds of times in the antebellum
period. The first settlement within the present-day United
States had a slave revolt. San Miguel de Gualdape — established
by Spaniards in what is now Georgia in 1526 — failed in just a
few months, due to shipwreck, hunger, cold, disease, hostile
Indians, and a slave rebellion.[ii]
...
Blacks often tried to kill their masters,[v] and the preferred
methods were arson and poison. Arson was so common that it
raised insurance premiums. Entire towns could be lost to the
torch.[vi] In the 1790s, prominent citizens of Charleston, South
Carolina, organized a committee to ensure that brick or stone be
used in building new buildings instead of wood, making them
harder to burn. Servile arson also encouraged construction of
fire-escapes, which became common in 19th-century Virginia.[vii]
Newspaper reports from the time show poisoning was also common.
In 1751, South Carolina ordered the death penalty for slaves who
tried to poison whites, and the guilty would not receive benefit
of clergy. The preamble to this legislation explained that it
was necessary because the crime was attempted so often.
...
Fugitives slaves, or maroons, also harassed whites. They formed
loose bands and communities, and preyed on whites, plundering
plantations and robbing travelers. Maroons “plagued every slave
society in which mountains, swamps, or other terrain provided a
hinterland into which slaves could flee.”
Occasionally, maroons made alliances with American Indians; the
Florida Seminole Wars are the best example.[xi] In 1823, maroons
in Norfolk County, Virginia, killed several whites
...
Insurrections could involve any number from a dozen to several
thousand slaves. On most occasions, authorities discovered
conspiracies and smashed them. When this failed, insurrections
had one main purpose: to slaughter as many whites as possible.
The most murderous insurrection killed nearly 60 whites.[xiv]
Here are some of the most significant revolts.
In 1712, a band of around two dozen slaves and Indians in New
York City got hold of guns, swords, knives, and axes. Early one
Sunday morning, one of the insurrectionists set fire to his
master’s plantation while others hid in the dark as local whites
arrived to douse the blaze. Blacks ambushed and killed at least
nine.[xv]
...
African-born slaves also led the 1739 insurrection near the
Stono River in South Carolina.[xviii] The only eyewitness
account of that event, the bloodiest insurrection in South
Carolina, was that of Lieutenant-Governor Lawrence Bull.
Returning to Charles Town from Granville County on horseback,
Bull happened upon a band of 80 or so blacks, carrying guns and
flags and chanting, “Liberty!” Bull rode off and notified the
militia.
The black leader was an illiterate slave named Jemmy (also known
as Cato). The rebels decapitated their first two white victims,
and displayed the heads on a staircase. The blacks then sacked
several plantations, plundered liquor stores, and killed
whites.[xix] By the time the insurrection was put down, slaves
had razed a dozen plantations and killed and at least 25 white
men, women, and children.[xx]
...
In 1738, two different bands of slaves in the region escaped
their plantations to head for what they hoped would be freedom
in Spanish Florida. One of them, passing through Georgia,
murdered several whites.[xxi]
...
Gabriel Prosser marked the turn of the nineteenth century with a
vast plot in Henrico County, Virginia. He was literate, willful,
stood six feet two or three inches tall, and was considered by
both blacks and whites as “a fellow of great courage and
intellect above his rank in life.”[xxiii] In the spring of 1800,
slaves in Virginia quietly made crude swords and bayonets, and
hundreds of bullets. About one thousand — some mounted — armed
with clubs, scythes, homemade swords and bayonets and a few
guns, gathered six miles outside of Richmond. However, a
downpour delayed their invasion of the city. Word got out about
the insurrection, and Governor James Monroe of Virginia posted
artillery and called up 650 militiamen. Before the slaves could
attack, authorities arrested any they could identify.
Governor Monroe interviewed Prosser, noting that “from what he
said to me, he seemed to have made up his mind to die, and to
have resolved to say but little on the subject of the
conspiracy.” John Randolph, who saw several of the blacks in
custody, wrote: “[The slaves] have exhibited a spirit, which, if
it becomes general, must deluge the Southern country in blood.
They manifested a sense of their rights, and contempt of danger,
and a thirst for revenge which portend the most unhappy
consequences.”
Mississippi Territorial Governor W.C.C. Claiborne suggested that
50,000 slaves may have been in on the plot; others estimated
their numbers at between two and 10 thousand. Governor Monroe
believed that the plot had reached Virginia’s entire slave
population.[xxiv] The blacks had decided to spare all Frenchmen,
Methodists, and Quakers whom they considered sympathetic to
emancipation. They would kill all others, but show mercy to
whites who agreed to emancipation — by only cutting off an
arm.[xxv]
In 1811, there was a large insurrection in Louisiana. It began
when the ringleader, together with two dozen subordinates,
hacked his master’s son to death as he slept.
...
As many as 500 slaves, led by a free mulatto from Saint-Domingue
and armed with axes, clubs, knives, and a few firearms, marched
on New Orleans. They sacked plantations, intent on “killing
every white they could get their hands on.” Local planters and
militiamen took action, but the slaves were not fully subdued
until Governor Claiborne called out the full militia.
...
In 1822, in Charleston, South Carolina, Denmark Vesey led what
Thomas Higginson, Unitarian minister and member of the Secret
Six (the group of wealthy Northern abolitionists who financed
John Brown’s attack at Harper’s Ferry), called “the most
elaborate insurrectionary plot ever formed by American slaves.”
Vesey’s conspiracy involved thousands of slaves who planned to
exterminate every white in Charleston, seize bank reserves, and
sail to Haiti.[xxix] One of the black leaders reportedly
remarked that the men “would know what to do with the white
women.”[xxx] Their plan was ambitious, with simultaneous attacks
from five directions and a sixth force on horseback to patrol
the streets.[xxxi]
Slaves within the city were set to start fires and set
explosions with stolen black powder. When whites ran out of
their homes to put the fires out, the blacks were to slaughter
them. In the chaos, columns of slaves would fall upon the city
from every direction, seizing the state and federal arsenals.
...
The plot failed and the authorities sentenced Vesey to death. On
the day of his execution, federal soldiers were called to help
the militia suppress another insurrection.[xxxiii] The fact that
Vesey was a free black, rather than a slave, “sent shockwaves
throughout Charleston’s white community, the members of which
had always considered the free blacks living in their midst to
be a nonthreatening, although unwelcome, presence.”[xxxiv]
Though Vesey and his subordinates had maintained lists of their
co-conspirators, only one list and part of another were
recovered. One witness testified that nearly 7,000 slaves had
been involved, while another implicated 9,000.
In 1831, Nat Turner led the deadliest slave revolt in American
history, in Southampton County, Virginia. Thomas Gray, the
lawyer for several of the slaves involved in the revolt and the
man who published Turner’s confession, wrote that the
insurrection “was not instigated by motives of revenge or sudden
anger, but the results of long deliberation, and a settled
purpose of mind.” Gray continued: “It will thus appear, that
whilst everything upon the surface of society wore a calm and
peaceful aspect; whilst not one note of preparation was heard to
warn . . . of woe and death, a gloomy fanatic was revolving in
the recesses of his own dark, bewildered, and overwrought mind,
schemes of indiscriminate massacre to the whites.”[xxxv]
Virginia had a white majority, so any rebellion was sure to be
suicide.[xxxvi]
...
The slaves fanned out across the countryside and marched house
to house, killing every white they found. The slaughter
continued well into the next day; as the death toll mounted, so
too did Nat Turner’s band. By the end, he had about 60 slaves,
“all mounted and armed with guns, axes, swords and clubs.” At
one home, the family tried to barricade the door. Turner later
explained:
Vain hope! Will, with one stroke of his axe, opened it, and
we entered and found Mrs. Turner and Mrs. Newsome in the middle
of a room, almost frightened to death. Will immediately killed
Mrs. Turner, with one blow of his axe. I took Mrs. Newsome by
the hand, and . . . struck her several blows over the head, but
not being able to kill her, as the sword was dull. Will, turning
around . . . dispatched her also.[xxxix]
When Turner arrived at the Whitehead family’s home, he said he
was:
[Ready] to commence the work of death, but they whom I left,
had not been idle; all the family were already murdered, but
Mrs. Whitehead and her daughter Margaret. As I came ‘round to
the door, I saw Will pulling Mrs. Whitehead out of the house,
and at the step he nearly severed her head from her body, with
his broad axe. Miss Margaret. . . had concealed herself. . . on
my approach, she fled, but was soon overtaken, and after
repeated blows with a sword, I killed her by a blow on the head,
with a fence rail.
...
One slave insurrection succeeded: a mutiny aboard the slave
transport Creole in 1841. One black and one white were killed in
the mutiny, after which the blacks forced the white navigator to
sail to the British Bahamas. Most of the blacks escaped to
freedom.[xliv]
...
As for weapons, large numbers of slaves had access to axes.
Slaves who worked in the sugar fields carried knives large
enough to decapitate a man with one blow, and every slave who
worked in the tobacco fields carried a blade. Many slaves knew
how to use firearms despite legal restrictions.
...
Fears of servile revolt were so serious that they affected
Confederate troop movements.[lxiv] Throughout the war, there
were steady reports of conspiracies and individual acts of
sabotage, arson, and murder. Maroons dramatically increased
their depredations. In several cases, white deserters and
escaped Yankee prisoners formed biracial groups of bandits who
preyed on lightly-defended Southerners while the Confederate
Army was away fighting.[lxv]
...
“[H]orrified as Southern whites were by the uprising, some
Northerners . . . could hardly suppress their satisfaction at
what they took to be a justified rebellion against the
horrendous institution of slavery.”[lxxi]
...
HTML https://www.amren.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Slavery-in-US-Map-600x360.png
[/quote]
#Post#: 11018--------------------------------------------------
Re: American Slave Insurrections
By: 90sRetroFan Date: February 3, 2022, 1:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Our enemy Coulter thinks she can challenge us with questions:
HTML https://vdare.com/articles/ann-coulter-it-s-hate-white-history-month
[quote]1. Why did slavery end so much sooner in white Christian
countries?
2. Are countries run by Muslims, Buddhists or voodoo doctors
more or less likely to recognize human rights than Christian
nations?
3. Why would your teachers refuse to tell you about slavery
among the “Indigenous” peoples?
4. A Smithsonian magazine article about the Trail of Tears is
titled, “How Native American Slaveholders Complicate the Trail
of Tears Narrative.” What’s the “narrative”?
5. In your other readings, have you found that the sins of
whites and Christians are comically exaggerated, while those of
nonwhites and non-Christians are buried in a lead casket and
dropped in the middle of the sea?[/quote]
Challenge accepted.
1. Because whereas the rest of the world enslaved without regard
to ethnic background, "whites" enslaved "non-whites" but not
"whites". Thus, in absence of an ingroup-outgroup
double-standard, slaves elsewhere had less motivation to rebel
than did slaves in "white"-ruled countries.
2. Less likely (proudly so!), because "human rights" are a
Western concept consequential to the uniquely Western belief
that non-humans have no souls. In contrast, Mohammed taught that
non-humans can be better Muslims than humans, Siddhartha taught
that all sentient beings can achieve Buddhahood, and animists at
least believe non-humans have souls. However, Jesus also
preached against anthropocentrism, therefore there is nothing
Christian about "human rights". It is in fact Judaism:
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocentrism
[quote]In the 1985 CBC series "A Planet For the Taking", Dr.
David Suzuki explored the Old Testament roots of
anthropocentrism and how it shaped human views of non-human
animals. Some Christian proponents of anthropocentrism base
their belief on the Bible, such as the verse 1:26 in the Book of
Genesis:
And [s]God[/s] said, Let us make man in our image, after our
likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,
and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all
the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the
earth.[/quote]
3. I am not refusing to do this (see 1.).
4. The narrative is that the Trail of Tears was racist. That
there existed Native American slave holders (bad people) among
those put on the Trail of Tears does not contradict the
narrative, because "white" slave holders (also bad people) were
not put on the Trail of Tears.
5. It is impossible to exaggerate the evil of "whites" even if
we wanted to:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/western-civilization-sustainable-evil/
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/western-civilization-is-a-health-hazard/
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/if-western-civilization-does-not-die-soon/
#Post#: 22794--------------------------------------------------
Re: Colonialism as viewed by Westerners
By: Terrorists Date: October 15, 2023, 12:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Journalist Rips Palestinian ‘Terrorism’ Narrative to Shreds
[quote]Breakthrough News journalist, Eugene Puryear, rips this
narrative apart, explaining the long history of oppressed and
colonized people being demonized and called terrorists and
savage to justify the continued occupation of those people. No
different than the Native resistance to American colonization,
slave rebellions in the Americas, the Haitian Revolution,
Palestinians are resisting Israeli colonialism, not out of
bloodlust as the media has portrayed it, but because of decades
of land thefts, massacres, second-class citizenship and the
denial of the right to return that has persisted for
decades.[/quote]
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFjyKDUSMDo
Only 6 minutes in to this video at time of post, but Puryear
nails it!
#Post#: 22975--------------------------------------------------
Re: Exposing people with the Western Darwinian Worldview
By: antihellenistic Date: October 22, 2023, 11:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The correct way to see Western Civilization :
[quote]The whites have always been an unjust, jealous,
unmerciful, avaricious and blood-thirsty set of beings, always
seeking after power and authority.-We view them all over the
confederacy of Greece, where they were first known to be
anything, (in consequence of education) we see them there,
cutting each other's throats-trying to subject each other to
wretchedness and misery-to effect which, they used all kinds of
deceitful, unfair, and unmerciful means. We view them next in
Rome, where the spirit of tyranny and deceit raged still higher.
We view them in Gaul, Spain, and Britain.-In fine, we view them
all over Europe, together with what were scattered about in Asia
and Africa, as heathens, and we see them acting more like devils
than accountable men.
It is not a little remarkable, that in the nineteenth century a
remnant of this same barbarous people should boast of their
national superiority of intellect, and of wisdom and religion;
who, in the seventeenth century, crossed the Atlantic and
practised the same crime their barbarous ancestry had done in
the fourth, fifth and sixth centuries: bringing with them the
same boasted spirit of enterprise; and not unlike their fathers,
staining their route with blood, as they have rolled along, as a
cloud of locusts, toward the West. The late unholy war with the
Indians, and the wicked crusade against the peace of Mexico, are
striking illustrations of the nobleness of this race of people,
and the powers of their mind.- David Walker (September 28, 1796
– August 6, 1830), American abolitionist, writer, and
anti-slavery activist.
...
...by the dint of war, and the destruction of the vanquished,
since the founding of London, A. D. 49. Their whole career
presents a motley mixture of barbarism and civilization, of
fraud and philanthropy, of patriotism and avarice, of religion
and bloodshed . . . . And instead of their advanced state in
science being attributable to a superior development of
intellectual faculties, . . . it is solely owing to . . .their
innate thirst for blood and plunder..:2. - Hosea Easton,
(1798–1837), American Congregationalist and Methodist minister,
abolitionist activist, and author.[/quote]
Source :
The History of White People by Neil Irvin Painter page 88, 89,
90
About David Walker :
[quote]David Walker (September 28, 1796 – August 6, 1830)[a] was
an American abolitionist, writer, and anti-slavery activist.
Though his father was enslaved, his mother was free; therefore,
he was free as well (partus sequitur ventrem). In 1829, while
living in Boston, Massachusetts, with the assistance of the
African Grand Lodge (later named Prince Hall Grand Lodge,
Jurisdiction of Massachusetts), he published An Appeal to the
Colored Citizens of the World,[4] a call for black unity and a
fight against slavery.[/quote]
Source :
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Walker_(abolitionist)
About Hosea Easton :
[quote]Hosea Easton (1798–1837) was an American
Congregationalist and Methodist minister, abolitionist activist,
and author. He was one of the leaders of the convention movement
in New England.[1][/quote]
Source :
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosea_Easton
The sad thing about their struggle's history :
[quote]Despite their pungency, neither Walker's Appeal nor
Easton's Treatise on the Intellectual Character ever truly
penetrated the public consciousness at home or in Europe during
the nineteenth century. The visibility of Walker's Appeal grew
in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, but
never approached the reputation of the champion of foreign
analysts.[/quote]
Source :
The History of White People by Neil Irvin Painter page 90
That's the reason for the need of United States to be controlled
autocratically by the leftist, to ensure the leftism ideas
control the society.
109 years later
[quote]As for the fact, however, that one nation in Africa is
alleged have lost its freedom – that too is but an error; for it
is not a question of one nation in Africa having lost its
freedom – on the contrary practically all the previous
inhabitants of this continent have been made subject to the
sovereignty of other nations by bloody force, thereby losing
their freedom. Moroccans, Berbers, Arabs, Negroes, &c., have all
fallen victim to a foreign might, the swords of which, however,
were not inscribed ‘Made in Germany’, but ‘Made by the
Democracies’.” – Hitler’s Reply to Roosevelt, Reichstag 28
April 1939.[/quote]
Source : 13. David Brockschmidt, "History Lessons from the
Memory Hole - Let them eat their own words,"
HTML http://adelaideinstitute.org/newsletters/n248.htm
[quote]A negro with his taboos is far superior to a human who
firmly believes in Transubstantiation. - Adolf Hitler, December
13, 1941[/quote]
Source: Adolf Hitler - Table Talk page 146
[quote]December 16, 1941 : Führer on Japan : It is astonishing
that we, with the help of Japan, are destroying the positions of
the white race in East Asia while England together with the
Bolshevist are attacking Europe. The white race means the Dutch
in the East Indies, the British in Burma, Malaya and Singapore,
the US in the Philippines and the French in Indochina.
Hitler's remarks about Japan were put forward December 16, one
week after Japan began its offensive against Southeast Asia.
This is related to Hitler's statement on the radio which was
later also broadcast by Japanese radio and the Japanese press
that they are now carrying out a holy war against the white race
with one billion Asian people. ..."[/quote]
Source: Hitler's Footsteps in Indonesia, by Hoorst H. Geerken
page 210
[quote]The dirt was visible on the blacks only when the
missionaries, in order to teach them decorum, obliged them to
wear clothes. In its natural state, the negro is very clean. For
a missionary, the smell of dirt is agreeable. From this point of
view, they themselves are the dirtiest pigs. They have water
horrors. Adolf Hitler, February 19, 1942[/quote]
Source: Adolf Hitler - Table Talk pages 319 - 320
[quote]We were ready to throw our forces into the scales for the
preservation of the British Empire; and all that, mark you, at a
time when, to tell the truth, I feel much more sympathetically
inclined to the lowliest Hindu than to any of these arrogant
islanders. Later on, the Germans will be pleased that they did
not make any contribution to the survival of an out-dated state
of affairs for which the world of the future would have found it
hard to forgive them. We can with safety make one prophecy:
whatever the outcome of this war, the British Empire is at an
end. It has been mortally wounded. The future of the British
people is to die of hunger and tuberculosis in their cursed
island. - Adolf Hitler, 4th February 1945[/quote]
Source : Bormann, Martin – Testament of Adolf Hitler
(Hitler-Bormann Documents) Page 7
[quote]Spain, France and England had all weakened, weakened and
exhausted themselves in this futile colonial enterprise. The
continent from which Spain and England gave birth, which they
created piece by piece, has today acquired a completely
independent way of life and completely selfish views. Even so,
they were just an artificial world, without a soul, culture, or
civilization of their own; and judging from that point of view,
they were nothing more than dirt. - Adolf Hitler, 7th February
1945[/quote]
Source :
Bormann, Martin – Testament of Adolf Hitler (Hitler-Bormann
Documents) Page 13
[quote]The United States and Australia afford good examples.
Success, certainly - but only on the material side. They are
artificial edifices, bodies without age, of which it is it is
impossible to say whether they are still in a state of infancy
or whether they have already been touched by senility. In those
continents which were inhabited, failure has been even more
marked. In them, the white races have impose their will by
force, and the influence they have had on the native inhabitants
has been negligible. - Adolf Hitler, 7th February 1945[/quote]
Source :
Bormann, Martin – Testament of Adolf Hitler (Hitler-Bormann
Documents) Page 13
HTML https://64.media.tumblr.com/e783d0e29de15ae6028f4c579e156982/368b2ac112d0bc43-85/s1280x1920/4ef20267798975377db6d2b6269eb551aef8cf4a.jpg
#Post#: 24176--------------------------------------------------
Re: True Left breakthrough: anti-democracy
By: antihellenistic Date: November 28, 2023, 1:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]Ultimately the South was caught in an untenable
situation: it could not at the same time suppress over one-third
of its population and fight a war against a larger, stronger
power. As W.E.B. DuBois put it in Black Reconstruction in
America:
It was not the Abolitionist alone who freed the slaves. The
Abolitionists never had a real majority of the people of the
United States back of them. Freedom for the slave was the
logical result of a crazy attempt to wage war in the midst of
four million Black slaves, and trying the while sublimely to
ignore the interests of the slaves in the outcome of the
fighting. Yet, these slaves had enormous power in their hands.
Simply by stopping work, they could threaten the Confederacy
with starvation. By walking into the Federal camps, they showed
to doubting Northerners the easy possibility of using them as
workers, and as servants, as farmers, and as spies, and finally,
as fighting soldiers. And not only using them thus, but by the
same gesture, depriving their enemies of their use in just these
fields. It was the fugitive slave who made the slaveholders face
the alternative of surrendering to the North, or to the
Negroes.114
To an important extent, therefore, the Black slaves of the South
used the trauma of civil war to free themselves.[/quote]
Source :
White Freedom The Racial History of an Idea Tyler Edward Stovall
2021 Princeton University Press page 183, 184
#Post#: 25577--------------------------------------------------
Re: American Slave Insurrections
By: antihellenistic Date: March 21, 2024, 6:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]SUPPLEMENT
THE UNENSLAVING OF JEMMY
At daybreak on Sunday, September 9, 1739, twenty or so Africans
gathered at the Stono River, about twenty miles from Charleston.
At least nineteen were Angolan, and their acknowledged leader
was a man named Jemmy. Despite being thousands of miles from the
West African region where he was born, Jemmy had a warped
familiarity with the environment: the climate, soil, and
topography of South Carolina were similar to his homeland, as
were the people. At the time, only fifteen thousand of the
state’s forty-five thousand citizens were white, so even in
America, Jemmy was surrounded by Black faces.1 His status as a
warrior, a fearless leader, and a fellow African convinced his
co-conspirators that they could overcome all the wrath and
retribution that all the white gods could summon. They held the
power.
Before his capture, Jemmy could not have fathomed such an
inhumane institution as the enslavement system that lay beyond
the horizon of the African coast. Even though there was slavery
in Africa, America’s version was intergenerational, unending,
and, by definition, reduced humans to a form of animate chattel.
Although he was now a bondservant who was likely literate in at
least three languages, including English, Portuguese, and his
native tongue, some historians believe Jemmy probably served as
a Kongol or Angolan warrior who was captured and sold during an
incursion with a neighboring kingdom. He was likely trained in
combat, strategy, and the tactics of war. Jemmy was a leader. He
was a man. He was a human being. Above all, Jemmy was not a
slave.
Plus, Jemmy knew things. Jemmy knew that a recent malaria
outbreak had decimated Charleston. His linguistic flexibility
allowed him to communicate without fear of the uneducated white
men who knew nothing of rice or cattle. This ability to speak
Portuguese meant he probably understood the Spanish agents
sneaking through plantations, spreading rumors that enslaved
people would be free if they could make it to the free Black
community of Fort Mose in Spanish Florida. Jemmy the Rebel knew
that the healthy white Charlestonians would be in church on
Sunday for the annual Feast of the Nativity of Mary. He knew
that South Carolina had just passed a law that required every
free white man to carry a firearm. He also knew the law wouldn’t
go into effect for two more weeks. He knew a just God would
eventually give him freedom. He knew the white men never would.
But Jemmy could not wait for God or white men. He didn’t just
want to be free himself. Jemmy wanted everyone to be free. And
Jemmy had a plan. Jemmy’s crew met before daybreak on September
9, 1739, and knew exactly where they were going. After crossing
the Stono Bridge, they broke into a hardware store and armory
that sold guns and munitions. They executed the two shopkeepers,
decapitated them, confiscated the firearms, and kept things
moving. The group proceeded to the plantation owned by the
Godfrey family, killing the owner and his two children. When
they arrived at Wallace’s Tavern before dawn, they didn’t murder
the innkeeper, because, according to Jemmy’s co-conspirators,
Wallace was “a good man and kind to his slaves.”2
He would be the only white man spared.
By daybreak, the makeshift army had traveled only three miles of
the 150 to Fort Mose, and yet the group had doubled in size.
Some of their newly emancipated cohorts had joined voluntarily,
while others were conscripted into teaming up with the rebels to
keep the news from spreading. By eleven o’clock, somewhere
between sixty and one hundred Africans were on the prowl, flying
a banner, playing drums, dancing, and chanting, “Liberty.”
People who were lucky enough to escape the group’s wrath
reported that the rebels were drunk, unaware that war dancing
was a form of communication in the West African military
tradition that had survived by embedding itself in the
Gullah-Geechee culture.
By late afternoon, after traveling ten miles, the troops paused
in an open field before crossing the Edisto River, likely
calculating that word of their previous handiwork would cause
other enslaved Africans to join their ranks during the night.
They weren’t worried about being caught. They had killed every
white man who laid eyes on them, except for one who spotted them
just before noon. They had chased him, but he was on horseback
and escaped. Unfortunately, the “one guy” who got away was
William Bull, the lieutenant governor of South Carolina.
When an impromptu white militia summoned by Bull found the
selffreed slaves, a battle broke out.* Twenty whites were
killed, and at least thirty of the Black militia died, while
others were captured, imprisoned, and interrogated. The murdered
insurgents were decapitated and their heads affixed to posts
entering the city—a practice that would become an American
tradition.
The incident inspired fear across South Carolina. For months,
wives and daughters of slaveowners were moved out of the state.
The state assembly raised a special patrol along the Stono River
and offered rewards to natives if they captured escaped
Africans, but their efforts were largely unsuccessful. One of
the initial twenty leaders remained at large for at least twenty
years.
The Stono Rebellion changed the face of slavery in the slave
capital of the world and, by proxy, in America as a whole. As a
result of it, whites temporarily paused the slave trade for a
decade, blaming the violence on the fact that these rebels were
born in Africa. In its wake, white entrepreneurs formed a new
industry by creating American-born slaves. Masters encouraged
reproduction among the slaves they already owned, while slave
traders traveled the country buying human beings from estate
sales, auctions, and indebted enslavers. When the transatlantic
slave trade eventually reopened, they avoided the Congo-Angola
region because, the geniuses concluded, it wasn’t the brutal
idea of perpetual, intergenerational human bondage that had
caused Jemmy and his friends to lash out. Apparently, it was
geography.
Perhaps the most significant legacy of Jemmy’s war were the
draconian measures the legislature put forth to replace South
Carolina’s 1696 slave code. The post-Stono legislation forbade
slaves from growing their own food, earning money, learning to
write, or gathering in groups of three or more. It prohibited
Black males from traveling together in groups of seven or more
without the presence of a white man. It also gave owners the
right to kill any enslaved person who was rebellious, and went
as far as to regulate which colors and fabrics an enslaved Black
person could wear. It was a legal code of complete and total
oppression. Because white people were the minority, South
Carolina’s white population used cruelty as a tool to suppress
their worst fears.
Nearly every state’s laws governing the enslaved were based, in
part, on the Negro Act of 1740, proving that the uniquely
American version of human subjugation was never just a
thoughtless experiment. It was ingrained in the fabric of
America. It was intentional: a color-coded, neverending, legally
protected, constitutionally enshrined system of human
trafficking that extorted labor, intellectual property, and
talent in the most brutal way imaginable. It was born out of
fear and white supremacy. And yet with all the enlightened
philosophies, whips, and muskets this country could muster . . .
It still could not make a slave.[/quote]
Source :
Black AF History: The Un-Whitewashed Story of America page 67 -
70
#Post#: 25638--------------------------------------------------
Re: American Slave Insurrections
By: antihellenistic Date: March 25, 2024, 5:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary
for one people to dissolve the bonds of servitude which have
failed to define their existence, and to assume among the powers
of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws
of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to
the opinions of history requires that they should declare the
causes which impelled them to their actions.
Only we held these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are— no, that we are—endowed by their
creator of all things with certain unalienable rights, that
among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We
are the only ones who ever believed that, to secure these
rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their
authority from the consent of the governed. We do not consent.
Whenever any form of government becomes untenable of these ends,
it has been the right of the people to alter or to abolish it,
and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such
principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them
shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Prudence, indeed, dictates that governments long established
should not be changed for light and transient causes; and
accordingly, all experience hath shewn, that mankind is more
disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right
themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing
invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under
absolute despotism, it has always been the right and the duty of
the people to throw off such government, and to provide new
guards for their future security.
Such was the simmering long-suffering of African people in
America. Their existence on this continent is a story of
enslavement, oppression, and the most prolonged, undemocratic,
heartless treatment of men, women, and children in the history
of the human species. In every stage of those oppressions, the
subjugated people collectively petitioned for redress in the
most humble of terms. Their repeated petitions were answered
only by repeated injury. Thus, a country whose national
character is marked by every act that may define tyranny is
unfit to rule a people. Nor were the oppressed wanting in
attention from White America. The enslavers and their advocates
were warned, from time to time, of attempts to extend the
already unwarrantable jurisdiction over the permanently
indentured population. They were reminded of the circumstances
of their forcibly enslaved, who appealed to their native justice
and magnanimity. The bondsmen conjured them by the ties of their
freed kinsmen, their radical allies, and their common humanity
to disavow the institution. Yet they too were deaf to the voice
of justice and of consanguinity. And so, this immature infant
nation being impervious to reason, logic, compassion, and
self-realization, there came no other choice. The men for whom
this country had withheld liberty and justice since the day it
was founded had to save America from itself. They wanted that
smoke.
—“The Unanimous Declaration of ‘These Hands’ by the Black Folks
of America”[/quote]
Source :
Black AF History: The Un-Whitewashed Story of America page 148
#Post#: 25645--------------------------------------------------
Re: How "Moderates" Serve The Right
By: antihellenistic Date: March 25, 2024, 8:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
American Anti-Discrimination Idealism Cannot Came from
Moderatist Approach
[quote]Calhoun was arguably one of the most powerful men in
antebellum politics, having served as a congressman, senator,
secretary of war, secretary of state, and two terms as vice
president. In 1828, Calhoun penned the South Carolina Exposition
and Protest, which introduced the idea that states could nullify
federal laws, including tariffs, treaties, and taxes that
unfairly burdened the states that benefited from free labor—the
earliest rumbles of the region’s aversion to “big government”
policies that interfere with “states’ rights” and “the Southern
way of life.” If the South conceded to “big government” and the
campaign against the institution of forced labor, then the
federal government could theoretically outlaw human trafficking
altogether. John Calhoun wouldn’t have it. South Carolina had
already effectively nullified a federal judge’s anti-slavery
decision and other states took notice.
Eventually, Georgia, North Carolina, Florida, Alabama,
Mississippi, and Texas passed laws that were identical to the
Negro Seaman Act, effectively nullifying a federal judge’s
decision. In the Kansas and Missouri Territories, a five-year
war between 1854 and 1859 had erupted over the possibility of
slavery expanding into new states. At the heart of the conflict
was whether Kansas would outlaw slavery when it became a state
or ban the institution like its southern neighbor Missouri. As
Congress debated the matter, proslavery Border Ruffians went to
war against anti-slavery “Free Staters” to voice their opinion
on the issue in the most American way possible: killing anyone
who disagreed. The white-on-white violence even erupted in
Congress.
The “Radical” wing of the newly organized Republican Party was
comprised of a few anti-slavery politicians who understood that
war was the only way to eradicate such a profitable enterprise.
While some white abolitionists opposed race-based servitude,
most Republicans simply wanted to preserve the union of settler
states they called “America.” Contrary to the dominant
white-people-fought-to-end-slavery narrative, few, if any, white
men were willing to donate their lives to the cause of a free
African American. Just as the Founding Fathers acquiesced to the
South and excluded Black people from the “all men are created
equal” when initiating the American experiment, most political
leaders wanted to figure out a way to avoid a North vs. South
showdown, even if it meant denying Black people’s freedom. This
centrist sentiment resulted in the election of President Abraham
Lincoln, who admitted that his “paramount object in this
struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to
destroy slavery.”4
Lincoln calmed fears of disunion by insisting that he had no
plans to elevate Black Americans, free or enslaved, to the
status of white men. “I will say then that I am not, nor ever
have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and
political equality of the black and white races,” he said in an
1858 speech. “I will say in addition to this that there is a
physical difference between the white and black races which I
believe will forever forbid the two races living together on
terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they
cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the
position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other
man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the
white race.”5
Once again, I need to emphasize this: no one, not the Northern
abolitionists, Lincoln, the Union army, the Confederate
turncoats, or the slaves themselves, saw the inevitable showdown
as a battle to end slavery. “Neither North nor South had before
1861 the slightest intention of going to war,” wrote Du Bois.
“The thought was in many respects ridiculous. They were not
prepared for War. The national army was small, poorly equipped,
and without experience. There was no file from which someone
might draw plans of subjugation. When Northern armies entered
the South, they became armies of emancipation. It was the last
thing they planned to be. The North did not propose to attack
property. It did not propose to free slaves. This was to be a
white man’s War to preserve the Union, and the Union must be
preserved.”6
To explain how the country broke this intractable stalemate,
historians often point to Lincoln’s election, the Nullification
Crisis, Bleeding Kansas, the Missouri Compromise, or any number
of social, political, and economic factors that supposedly set
the nation on the path toward the War for White Rights. Rarely
mentioned are the Black revolutionaries who escalated the
national discord and further radicalized abolitionists and
political figures of the period until the incongruity of a
democracy that allowed human captivity could no longer be
ignored.
...
There are some who cannot wait for change and pledge themselves
to the cause of dismantling the status quo with their own hands.
When they are white, we refer to them as “patriots” or “freedom
fighters.” When they are Black, these unswerving agitators are
most frequently painted as “thugs” or criminals. But if the
informal nation within a nation known as Black America ever
existed, then the preternatural instinct for survival and
resistance that resides in the souls of Black folk at that time
must be described as a unique form of patriotism. They were more
radical than all of the Republicans combined, and they were the
driving force of the Southern economy. They were at once
powerful and oppressed . . . until they freed themselves and, in
doing so, saved America. They could not wait for deliverance, so
they undid their own shackles. History is written by the
victors, but it is made by the rebellious. This chapter is an
ode to the great Black American Revolution: After Jemmy. After
Denmark Vesey. After Nat Turner. After Black people, and each of
their small-scale uprisings and individual acts of desertion.
All of them.
Previously, we’d talked about the American Revolution as the
largest Black uprising, but perhaps the greatest insurrection in
America was ultimately the slow, steady trickle of men and women
who used the Underground Railroad to secure their freedom. While
history portrays the network of safe houses, abolitionists, and
conspirators as clandestine and secretive, the real Underground
Railroad used every available means, public and private, to
transform slaves to free men. Sometimes they secreted slaves to
Canada, while other times the buck contingent chose the path of
knucking. The tactics of the Black abolitionists frequently
escalated to the point where white abolitionists disavowed their
more radical Black counterparts.
Take, for example, the case of Shadrach Minkins. When white
abolitionist lawyers failed to successfully represent escapee
Minkins, the first person in New England seized under the 1850
Fugitive Slave Act, Boston’s Black leaders came up with a
different plan. A gang of “outraged black men” burst into the
courtroom, faces disguised, and wrestled Minkins away from
federal marshals. Hiding him in a basement, the outlaws
eventually helped the fugitive escape to Canada.7 Nine “African
American activists”8—including Robert Morris, the second Black
man admitted to the Massachusetts bar—were indicted and tried
for treason, but were ultimately acquitted on all counts. This
type of action was the Underground Railroad, too.
Others, after Jemmy, Nat Turner, and Denmark Vesey, tried to
jump-start nationwide revolts where Black captives took up arms
and went Stono on the slaveholders. John Brown’s brazen attack
on the U.S. arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia, on October 16,
1859, is often cited as the Civil War’s first unofficial battle.
Brown, a white abolitionist, alongside a crew of around twenty
insurgents, attempted to initiate an uprising, but they were
quickly snuffed out by a company of U.S. Marines. These freedom
fighters were later tried, and Brown was hanged along with his
co-conspirators
Brown was perceived as a tragic but delusional white man by
those who were too blind to see that a reckoning was coming.
Many Southerners took the incident as proof their captive
property was not interested in taking up arms to fight. “By the
confession of Brown it appears that the slaves were not parties
to the plot, which, however, was concocted with the expectation
that they would rise by thousands, and join in it as soon as the
first blow was struck; in which hope the conspirators were
signally disappointed,” read an editorial in the Kentucky
Commonwealth. “For one, we do not believe that many even of the
most radical Abolitionists were encouraged in it.”9
...
Continued revolts, escapes, and acts of rebellion didn’t just
bring the country closer to civil war—these incidents helped
secure victory for the Union, although that was never the main
goal of the enslaved. Again, the slaves were on the side of
freedom. Just as the throwdown between the Patriots and the
Loyalists provided an excuse for Africans to liberate themselves
during the Revolutionary War, the political and economic
arguments between the Southern slavemasters and the Union
preservationists were immaterial to the Black bondsmen held
captive below the Mason- Dixon. For them, armed conflict
provided the perfect opportunity for emancipation, by any means
necessary.
Given a choice between being part of America and owning slaves,
the South chose treason and secession, sending the nation into
what still stands as the bloodiest war in the history of this
country. This war was won through the efforts of the escaped
slaves, whose mere absence would eventually cause the economic
collapse of the Southern empire. Yet when their War for Unending
Enslavement began, the South considered their human property an
advantage. While there is no evidence of Black soldiers fighting
on behalf of the Confederacy, enslaved men and women were used
as cooks, laborers, and personal attendants in the military. In
many respects, it was these very Black people they forced into
labor who best undermined the Confederate States’ military
efforts.[/quote]
Source :
Black AF History: The Un-Whitewashed Story of America page 150,
151, 152, 153, 155
Sentences given in red color and bold show that moderate and
democratic methods cannot enforce anti-discrimination idealism
towards people, whereas sentences given in blue color and bold
show that authoritative and confrontative method can enforce
anti-discrimination idealism towards people.
#Post#: 25646--------------------------------------------------
Re: American Slave Insurrections
By: antihellenistic Date: March 25, 2024, 8:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Confrontative, not Democratic Method which Ending American
Slavery
[quote]When the fighting started, Union military leaders were
unprepared for the influx of escaped slaves ready to open
long-preserved cans of whoop-ass on their pro slavery
taskmasters. The debate over the legal status of “contrabands”
like Robert Smalls was as contentious as the ongoing debate over
the value of Black Lives. In 1861, Frank Baker, James Townsend,
and Shepard Mallory stole a skiff near the spot where the White
Lion landed with the first enslaved Africans in America. The
enslaved men had been leased to the Confederate army to defend
batteries in Virginia; instead, they rowed to Union-occupied
Fort Monroe and presented themselves to Major General Benjamin
Butler. When scouts informed Confederate major John B. Cary
about the escape, he requested the return of his leased
“property.” Butler refused.* Trained as an attorney, Butler
explained to the un-American troop leader that since Virginia
considered itself an enemy combatant, the rules of war dictated
that the men were now property seized during formal hostilities.
Following Butler’s informal declaration, Congress passed the
Confiscation Act of 1861, stripping Confederate volunteers and
their co-conspirators of their enslaved property that managed to
reach Union-occupied spaces
A few months later, Union major general David Hunter issued
General Order No. 11, declaring:
The three States of Georgia, Florida and South Carolina,
comprising the military department of the South, having
deliberately declared themselves no longer under the protection
of the United States of America, and having taken up arms
against the said United States, it becomes a military necessity
to declare them under martial law. This was accordingly done on
the 25th day of April, 1862. Slavery and martial law in a free
country are altogether incompatible; the persons in these three
States—Georgia, Florida and South Carolina— heretofore held as
slaves, are therefore declared forever free.17
According to established military tradition, Butler and Hunter
were technically correct, but the implications were enormous. If
the runaways were “contraband of war,” then, by extension, the
army, not Lincoln, held authority in the Confederate States of
America. Butler and Hunter’s acts incensed Lincoln. He had no
intention of wading into the fight over slavery, knowing it
would exacerbate the resistance of the already incorrigible
slaveholding states. “If I could save the Union without freeing
any slave I would do it,” Lincoln explained to New York Tribune
editor Horace Greeley, “and if I could save it by freeing all
the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some
and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about
slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to
save this Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not
believe it would help to save the Union.”18 Lincoln quickly
rescinded Hunter’s order, but it was too late. The Confederate
States were officially recognized as a separate entity.
But General Hunter’s controversial order that would eventually
set Lincoln, Congress, and the Union forces on the path toward
enlisting free Black recruits and emancipating slaves was not
his own idea. Hunter often consulted with a battlefield nurse
who had been helping slaves flee to freedom, enlarging Hunter’s
crew of renegade soldiers. Hunter had even been paying her, but
after the army stopped Hunter from recruiting Black soldiers,
she gave up her salary so she wouldn’t be seen as Hunter’s
favorite. Instead, she baked pies in the evening to sell to the
white soldiers. Reenter Harriet Tubman. The famed conductor of
the Underground Railroad was instrumental in Hunter’s success in
the South. Tubman’s years of experience facilitating escapes
gave Hunter access to a veritable super-soldier. Tubman could
map the terrain for other troops, gather intelligence from the
enslaved, and lead reconnaissance missions without being
detected. Clearly understanding the advantage Black soldiers
gave the Union, Hunter continued to antagonize the treasonous
Southerners, enlisting their fugitive slaves to fight against
them.[/quote]
Source :
Black AF History: The Un-Whitewashed Story of America page 156,
157, 158
#Post#: 26138--------------------------------------------------
Re: True Left breakthrough: anti-democracy
By: antihellenistic Date: April 26, 2024, 10:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It's the American Democrats who want to preserve slavery, with
democratic and utilitarian ideas
[quote]While other political, economic, and social issues have
mattered more or less over the years, white supremacy has been
the organizing principle of American politics before America
even existed. Of course, your raggedy history book will explain
how the nation’s first two political factions, the Federalists
and the Anti-Federalists, was about representation, states’
rights, and taxation, and not humanity or white supremacy.
They’ll say the Federalists wanted a strong federal government,
a national army, and a central bank that handled the country’s
debts, while the Anti-Federalists favored states’ rights, a
weaker executive branch, and a government that wasn’t dominated
by New England merchants and Northern aristocrats.
But a lot of the beef was about slavery. Even though many
Federalists owned slaves, Anti-Federalists were afraid that a
strong federal government dominated by Northern aristocrats
could essentially ban the institution. They wanted their new
nation to treat in the manner suggested by a more beloved group
of men known as the Isley Brothers once suggested, “It’s your
thing, do what you wanna do.” And so they compromised.
Ultimately, the new Constitution of the United States of America
actually told the states who to sock it to.
After the Founders signed away two-fifths of Black people’s
humanity in exchange for political expediency, the Federalists
and the Anti- Federalists formed into two parties. The
Federalists became the Federalist Party. They were religiously
puritanical, pro–big government, and strong in New England. The
Anti-Federalists became the Democrat-Republicans, a party that
favored an agrarian economy, smaller government, and states
retaining more rights.* It is important to note that neither
party was overly concerned with the abolition of slavery. Each
had anti-slavery factions, but aside from the New England states
that had abolished slavery, the
Democrat-Republican Party dominated early American politics. By
the election of 1824, the Federalist Party had collapsed, and
the Democrat- Republicans had splintered into factions.
Andrew Jackson actually won the popular vote in 1824 and had
more electoral votes, but because none of the candidates (all of
whom were Democrat-Republicans) won a majority of electoral
votes, the House of Representatives elected New Englander John
Quincy Adams as president. After the “corrupt bargain,” Jackson
desperately wanted a rematch against John Q. But Johnny was
already the Democrat-Republican nominee, so Jackson’s homeboys
from Tennessee took their horses down to Old Town Road and
nominated him for president under the banner of the Jackson
party. When Jackson beat the brakes off John Quincy Adams in the
rematch, Jackson’s conservative, pro-slavery supporters created
a political organization called the “Democrats.” At their
inaugural convention in 1840, the Democratic Party adopted its
first official platform, resolving that “all efforts of the
abolitionists or others, made to induce Congress to interfere
with questions of slavery . . . have an inevitable tendency to
diminish the happiness of the people, and endanger the stability
and permanency of the Union, and ought not to be countenanced by
any friend of our political institutions.”4 The Democrats’ main
platform centered around the concept of “nullification”—the idea
that states had the right to invalidate laws they deemed
unconstitutional. Of course, the only law they wanted to nullify
was the one about owning human beings. Democrats thought the
federal government should leave those decisions up to the
states.*
It is true that the Republican Party was founded on the
principles of anti-slavery. Founded in 1854, the GOP’s only real
concern was stopping the expansion of owning men.* They were so
in favor of ending America’s peculiar institution that members
were often called “Black Republicans” as a slur. And trust me,
they weren’t talking about Kanye West. Republicans also elected
the first woman to Congress, supported Black suffrage, and
pushed for civil rights legislation before Martin Luther King
was born.5 The Civil War, in effect, was a clash over the
evolution of America’s two political parties—one that wanted the
right to own men and another that vehemently opposed the
possession of human beings by others.[/quote]
Source :
Black AF History: The Un-Whitewashed Story of America page 322 -
323
*****************************************************