Photo of slave wearing collar device from Ken Burns documentary

Status
Not open for further replies.
I really do believe were arrogant and racist, how else can we explain away all the condtions we held another race of people. The seperate lodgings, seperate water fountains, The rear of the bus etc. I don't exclude myself or my ancestors from passing this along. Like everything else it's learned somewhere along the line.

Mulejack
I'm arrogant, but not racist. Culturist as all get-out, though!
numberone.gif
 
Nathan Bedford Forrest was pleased to sell a few slaves. The advertisement for his slave trading business in Memphis was titled, I kid you not; "Negro Mart."
Oh, are you serious? NEGRO MART?

Is it horrible that this made me laugh? Probably...
 
Oh, are you serious? NEGRO MART?

Is it horrible that this made me laugh? Probably...

The advertisement reads..

"..the best selected assortment of Field Hands, House Servants & Mechanics at their(Forrest & Maples) Negro Mart...They are daily receiving from Virginia, Kentucky and Missouri, fresh supplies of likely Young Negros....persons wishing to purchase are invited to examine their stock before purchasing elsewhere."

You can google the image, its pretty common. And by the way, yeah, its horrible.
 
The advertisement reads..

"..the best selected assortment of Field Hands, House Servants & Mechanics at their(Forrest & Maples) Negro Mart...They are daily receiving from Virginia, Kentucky and Missouri, fresh supplies of likely Young Negros....persons wishing to purchase are invited to examine their stock before purchasing elsewhere."

You can google the image, its pretty common. And by the way, yeah, its horrible.
I guess so. I'll cop to a dark sense of humor. Several jokes have been suggesting themselves to me, none of which are going to see the light of day as far as I'm concerned.

Negro Mart... honestly, Bedford, honestly!
 
K Hale,

Well, he usually referred to it as his n-word yard... But Natchez had a famous Negro Mart (called that, too) that drew so many people there were trade shows and fairs and all that. Don't think my funnel cake would settle too well there...

Forrest's ad also claims the cleanest, safest, most comfortable jail in the Union! Newcomers got a bath, debugged, new negro clothes (see previous posts), a health check and adequate food. Most of them could come and go as long as they were back by closing time and there for somebody to look at. He didn't have too many runaways and, quite frankly, if I was owned by Forrest I would wait a spell to run, too!

He ran, as it were, an upscale market. That attracted the richest planters and gave him an edge on the competition, which was pretty keen in Memphis. He had no use for the various devices mentioned on this thread - he had a fast turnover and most weren't there long enough to get into that serious of trouble.
 
I've read the comments like "Slaves-R-Us," but "Negro Mart" takes the cake!
 
Maybe,it's just me,but that is horrible,and I don't want to see something like that.

It would be interesting to conduct a study on the advertisement revenue that was generated on the buying, selling and trading of human beings in the USA or even the plethora of "runaway slave ads." You know it was widespread, because they had an icon for runaways. The icon for runaway slaves was a barefooted black guy with a handkerchief warped around a stick that he carried over his shoulder. The icon for a slave sale was an African with a bone or a ring in his nose.

It must have been an awful sight to behold. If Charleston, South Carolina changed its laws to forbid selling slaves in public, then you know it was a pitiful spectacle. To comply with the law the Old Slave Mart in Charleston just constructed a roof over an alley.

Furthermore, Washington DC ended public slave trading. Although you won't find any markers in the City of Washington, DC there were plenty of slave markets. Like the one in the current location of Lafayette Park across the street from the White House. Or the site of the US Supreme Court wasn't just a slave jail, but it became the prisoner camp for Confederate prisoners of war. Or, the National Mall in Washington DC that used to be a camp for the slave labor that constructed the Capitol and the White House. Or the slave markets just off the Mall near the Smithsonian Museum of Aerospace. Everywhere you walk in Washington, DC there was either a slave market, slave pen or a plantation.

Visitors and assorted dignitaries used to complain about the clanging chains of the slave coffles that were dotted the landscape in the Nation's Capitol. Just think about it, 3 million people were sold to the deep south. Mississippi didn't become a state until 1817 and the foreign slave trade ended in 1808, Virginia, Maryland, Washington DC and Pennsylvania provided most of the humanity that were enslaved in the newly acquired territories and states.
 
K Hale,

I think Forrest might steal Slaves-R-Us! Catchy! :tongue: Incidentally, the Forrest mentioned in the ad isn't Bedford - it was actually brother William. Forrest would start up a dealership and once it was profiting, sell his shares or partnership to one of his brothers. William was the silent partner in at least four such operations - he was also reckoned to be even richer than his brother.
 
I agree. I don't know how the North gets it's dirty sheets cleaned by history. The Newport Rhode Island merchants were the biggest slave traders in North America. New York and Massachusetts had thriving slave ports. The Newport, Rhode Island slave traders traveled from the east coast of the USA to Sierra Leone (Bunce Island) to purchase humans that would end up in Sullivan's Island in South Carolina for the rice plantations. Why do the Northerners get away with their complicity in the slave trade.

Similarly, the New York cotton merchants, factors, and traders made fortunes in slave grown cotton. Just like the Lehman Brothers who were Alabama cotton traders that started the cotton exchange in New York City. Why does history whitewash the northern ties to the institution of slavery.

So what post said Northerners had clean hands?
 
So what post said Northerners had clean hands?

I do believe that I linked the quote of "bellary":

"Holding other people in bondage wasn't a new concept to Africans, or any other race or society. Africans sacrificed, murdered, and engaged in cannibalism.

Historically, the South gets singled out with the black mark because they were the "buyer." The South was not the seller, shipper, cannibal, or stone age idol worshiper intent on sacrificing to idols."


Maybe he was referring to "Africa" and not the "north." But, I certainly read the quote as the southerners holding the historical baggage, while northern complicity gets whitewashed from the historic narrative. Since, most of the slaves in the USA were domestic, that is to say they were born in the USA not foreign born in Africa, the slave traders came from New York, Massachusetts and Rhode Island. The internal trade was down the P atomic and the Mississippi River. While some slaves were shipped around the Atlantic to the ports in New Orleans, Charleston (more accurate Sullivan's Island), and Mississippi. These were northern traders and southern buyers. The whole idol thing could be taken a bunch of different ways. Are they Catholics who worship stone images of Mother Mary? Are they the European pagans that worshiped at places like Stone Hinge? Is the stone worship of money and real estate like Masons? That one was too vague to address, so I just spoke on the whole northern slave trading thing. Since, most of the southern states didn't become apart of the USA until AFTER the ending of the African foreign slave trade ended. He had to be referring to the domestic slave trade in the USA. Africa has been out of the picture, with respect to US slavery since 1808. And the British ended its African slave trading in 1807. So, just to be historically accurate he couldn't have been speaking of Africa. That's just silly.
 
The US slave trade was domestic. American born slaves sold within the borders of the USA. Africa has been out of the picture with respect to US slavery since 1808. That's just a fact.

Now, if one were to discuss the slave trade in Cuba (1820 )or Brazil (1830), then the dates of African voyages certainly maybe more germane. But, if the focus is on USA slaves, then any date after 1808 is a domestic trade or it's illegal smuggling (like drug dealers).
 
I do believe that I linked the quote of "bellary":

"Holding other people in bondage wasn't a new concept to Africans, or any other race or society. Africans sacrificed, murdered, and engaged in cannibalism.

Historically, the South gets singled out with the black mark because they were the "buyer." The South was not the seller, shipper, cannibal, or stone age idol worshiper intent on sacrificing to idols."


Maybe he was referring to "Africa" and not the "north." But, I certainly read the quote as the southerners holding the historical baggage, while northern complicity gets whitewashed from the historic narrative. Since, most of the slaves in the USA were domestic, that is to say they were born in the USA not foreign born in Africa, the slave traders came from New York, Massachusetts and Rhode Island. The internal trade was down the P atomic and the Mississippi River. While some slaves were shipped around the Atlantic to the ports in New Orleans, Charleston (more accurate Sullivan's Island), and Mississippi. These were northern traders and southern buyers. The whole idol thing could be taken a bunch of different ways. Are they Catholics who worship stone images of Mother Mary? Are they the European pagans that worshiped at places like Stone Hinge? Is the stone worship of money and real estate like Masons? That one was too vague to address, so I just spoke on the whole northern slave trading thing. Since, most of the southern states didn't become apart of the USA until AFTER the ending of the African foreign slave trade ended. He had to be referring to the domestic slave trade in the USA. Africa has been out of the picture, with respect to US slavery since 1808. And the British ended its African slave trading in 1807. So, just to be historically accurate he couldn't have been speaking of Africa. That's just silly.

The point of that post was that Africans are savages and therefore fit to be slaves. No more stone idols afterall. It's an argument that didn't hold water in 1850, let alone in 2011.

Have you read "Complicity" which is specifically about northern involvement in the slave trade?
 
I really do believe were arrogant and racist, how else can we explain away all the condtions we held another race of people. The seperate lodgings, seperate water fountains, The rear of the bus etc. I don't exclude myself or my ancestors from passing this along. Like everything else it's learned somewhere along the line.

Mulejack

And those are uniquely white traits? You don't think African tribes were arrogant, racist and cruel? You think the American Indians were a bunch of angels? You really don't think the Arabs, Orientals, and every other human race don't have a history of enslaving others? The only difference between the white race and all those other races is that the white race was able to use technology to do it on a much larger scale. But if you think for one minute that those other races wouldn't have done the same in the same position, you need to study history a little deeper. Clearly you don't believe that "all men are created equal."
 
K Hale,

Well, he usually referred to it as his n-word yard... But Natchez had a famous Negro Mart (called that, too) that drew so many people there were trade shows and fairs and all that. Don't think my funnel cake would settle too well there...

Forrest's ad also claims the cleanest, safest, most comfortable jail in the Union! Newcomers got a bath, debugged, new negro clothes (see previous posts), a health check and adequate food. Most of them could come and go as long as they were back by closing time and there for somebody to look at. He didn't have too many runaways and, quite frankly, if I was owned by Forrest I would wait a spell to run, too!

He ran, as it were, an upscale market. That attracted the richest planters and gave him an edge on the competition, which was pretty keen in Memphis. He had no use for the various devices mentioned on this thread - he had a fast turnover and most weren't there long enough to get into that serious of trouble.

What is this need to minimize or excuse Forrest's trafficking in human beings? "Upscale!"

When I look at that ad my gorge rises. I don't think "what an awesome showroom!"

"safest!" Ask yourself, safe for whom? From what?
 
The point of that post was that Africans are savages and therefore fit to be slaves. No more stone idols afterall. It's an argument that didn't hold water in 1850, let alone in 2011.

Have you read "Complicity" which is specifically about northern involvement in the slave trade?

Yes, I understood what the gist of the post was. It seems like if one would just read history, not just buy into the simplistic sloganeering and soundbite narratives, then it is quite clear that slave owning was a rich man's game. The rich planters didn't even allow poor whites or even middle-class whites to play the game.

The planter class were Capitalist with a capital "C." They amassed their wealth from the bodies of black enslaved labor. They certainly had enough money to "hire" white servants, but they didn't. If you read deeper into history, the planter class were like the old English Lords. They had a big Manor House occupied by the Lord of the Manor or the planter and his black house slaves.

His (yes, it was mostly male) outbuildings were arranged to show a hierarchical class system with his enslaved labor force. The blacksmith and other skilled artisans generally lived closer to the Manor House in better constructed outbuildings. Those laborers received better food, housing and clothing. Many of such were "hired out" (the wages going to the master, of course) to other planters or merchants. The field hands received the most crude housing units, generally on the outskirts of the land, certainly not near the Manor House.

A white overseer (generally there was only one) had a separate residence in one of the outbuildings. He didn't eat meals with the Lord of the Manor. He used the servants entrance to the Manor House. He was not a part of the planter class.

So, with hundreds of black laborers living on the estate, and the domestic black house servants living inside the Manor, and ONE white overseer. The rich white planters would trick the poor whites, by telling them that blacks were subhuman. That's why they were the wet-nurse the heirs of the estate. Because, the richest, most powerful men would have a subhuman raise their children. Not hardly. It was a trick.

Slavery was a rich man's game. Only the wealthy were invited to play. The race thing was a trick. Died-in-the-wool capitalists when choosing their labor force, chose black laborers over white. Contrary to popular belief, slaves were not cheap labor. They were expensive and only the richest men could afford it.
 
What is this need to minimize or excuse Forrest's trafficking in human beings? "Upscale!"

When I look at that ad my gorge rises. I don't think "what an awesome showroom!"

"safest!" Ask yourself, safe for whom? From what?


You're quite right. Even in Natchez, Mississippi the slave marts were located in the outskirts of the town. The words that keep cropping-up in the first-hand accounts of slave markets, slave jails, slave pens were words like squalor, stench, disease, reached, small pox, yellow fever, cholera, foul, crying, wailing, whips, crude, pigs had better living conditions, clanging of chains, moaning, etc. Not awesome showroom.
 
Yes, I understood what the gist of the post was. It seems like if one would just read history, not just buy into the simplistic sloganeering and soundbite narratives, then it is quite clear that slave owning was a rich man's game. The rich planters didn't even allow poor whites or even middle-class whites to play the game.

The planter class were Capitalist with a capital "C." They amassed their wealth from the bodies of black enslaved labor. They certainly had enough money to "hire" white servants, but they didn't. If you read deeper into history, the planter class were like the old English Lords. They had a big Manor House occupied by the Lord of the Manor or the planter and his black house slaves.

His (yes, it was mostly male) outbuildings were arranged to show a hierarchical class system with his enslaved labor force. The blacksmith and other skilled artisans generally lived closer to the Manor House in better constructed outbuildings. Those laborers received better food, housing and clothing. Many of such were "hired out" (the wages going to the master, of course) to other planters or merchants. The field hands received the most crude housing units, generally on the outskirts of the land, certainly not near the Manor House.

A white overseer (generally there was only one) had a separate residence in one of the outbuildings. He didn't eat meals with the Lord of the Manor. He used the servants entrance to the Manor House. He was not a part of the planter class.

So, with hundreds of black laborers living on the estate, and the domestic black house servants living inside the Manor, and ONE white overseer. The rich white planters would trick the poor whites, by telling them that blacks were subhuman. That's why they were the wet-nurse the heirs of the estate. Because, the richest, most powerful men would have a subhuman raise their children. Not hardly. It was a trick.

Slavery was a rich man's game. Only the wealthy were invited to play. The race thing was a trick. Died-in-the-wool capitalists when choosing their labor force, chose black laborers over white. Contrary to popular belief, slaves were not cheap labor. They were expensive and only the richest men could afford it.

And just how big was this Lord of the Manor class? I don't mean the number of slave owners, I mean the Washington, Jefferson, Madison class. What you describe is the Colonial and very early 19th century model. In truth, most CW era plantations had no manor house, the owner lived in town. Look at the number of 'Southern Mansions' that exist today. Very few, really. And not because they were all burned, or fell down. Outside of Tidewater Virginia, the Carolina Low Country, Natchez (which of course were town houses - the plantations were mostly in the flat country across the Mississippi) and the River Road of Louisiana, there just weren't very many. The much, much more numerous smaller farmers with slaves likely didn't have overseers nor a hierarchy of cabins, nor artisans, nor carriage men. How do I know? My own family memoirs. What you describe is mostly a Gone With the Wind myth.
 
You're quite right. Even in Natchez, Mississippi the slave marts were located in the outskirts of the town. The words that keep cropping-up in the first-hand accounts of slave markets, slave jails, slave pens were words like squalor, stench, disease, reached, small pox, yellow fever, cholera, foul, crying, wailing, whips, crude, pigs had better living conditions, clanging of chains, moaning, etc. Not awesome showroom.

Slave markets were not pretty places to be sure. But why would a seller treat his valuable merchandise worse than pigs? In the capitalistic society you described above it just doesn't make sense does it, unless the slave trader got off more by beating Negroes than he did counting dollars.

As for yellow fever and cholera, it was a common leveler among all the population. It was a persistent fear among all classes in the Deep South as frequent outbreaks killed thousands until the 20th century. Read some history of New Orleans and the River Parishes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top