News: Famed philanthropist Johns Hopkins revealed to have been slaveowner

James N.

Colonel
Forum Host
Annual Winner
Featured Book Reviewer
Joined
Feb 23, 2013
Location
East Texas
I love it when the skeletons come out from the closets of all the supposed do-gooders - I can still remember the look on the face of the smug and sanctimonious Ken Burns when Louis Gates informed about HIS Maryland slave-owning ancestor!
 

Bruce Vail

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Jul 8, 2015
I love it when the skeletons come out from the closets of all the supposed do-gooders - I can still remember the look on the face of the smug and sanctimonious Ken Burns when Louis Gates informed about HIS Maryland slave-owning ancestor!

I too love the sound of skeletons falling out of the closet. Even my own. Learned in recent years that one of my Vail ancestors had an out-of-wedlock child and and that his first wife obtained a rare divorce (for 1799) as a result. He was also kicked out of the Quaker church.
 

Bruce Vail

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Jul 8, 2015
Everyone has skeletons. No one is perfect. That is no reason to change every name, take down every statue.

These people would find that God had flaws.

Frankly, the new evidence that has been discovered is pretty small beer, if you ask me. As I understand it, it is not even conclusive that Johns Hopkins himself was the actual owner. At one time a lot of Quakers were slaveowners -- they didn't start agitating against slavery till late 1700s.
 

RobertP

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Nov 11, 2009
Location
Dallas
Everyone has skeletons. No one is perfect. That is no reason to change every name, take down every statue.

These people would find that God had flaws.
At the risk of being thumped I will say this. We once had a member who would with condescending sanctimony argue like a bulldog about the evils of the Confederacy and treat the anyone here the same way if their sympathies lay with the participants on that side. It went on for years until he was revealed as a pervert in a relationship with another member who thought exactly the same way he did. You have to wonder if the man’s wife would care more about that behavior or whether Mr. Johns Hopkins owned 4 slaves. Just sayin’.
 
Last edited:

lelliott19

Brigadier General
Moderator
* OFFICIAL *
CWT PRESENTER
Forum Host
Silver Patron
Joined
Mar 15, 2013
As I understand it, it is not even conclusive that Johns Hopkins himself was the actual owner.
Johns Hopkins of Baltimore, MD is listed by name as the owner in the 1850 US Census Slave Schedule. Although only two enslaved people show up in the snip, there are actually four enumerated on the schedule --- all males, ages 45, 50, 25, and 18.
1608661435120.png

1608661606096.png


What I can't figure out is why the article doesn't mention the 1860 US Census Slave Schedule for District 2 (Bladensburgh District) which lists a Johns Hopkins as owner of 12 enslaved people --- including mostly children and babies with no easily identifiable mother enumerated among the group. I suppose it's possible that there were other people living in this part of Maryland named Johns Hopkins, but it seems like the author of the article would have mentioned the 1860 slave schedule and explained why this slave owner Johns Hopkins is not the Johns Hopkins of the University? It's possible that these enslaved people were enumerated at the Maryland Agricultural College, although that is just my hypothesis because of where they appear in the schedule.
1608660583722.png


That "2" over in the right hand column below is for the "number of slave houses" and seems to indicate that all 12 enslaved people were living in TWO houses. The male baby enumerated on line 39 is 10 months old, indicated by 10/12, and designated as Mulatto. The female baby enumerated on line 40 is 6 months old, indicated by 6/12, and designated as black. If the 16 yo female designated as mulatto is the mother of the 10 month old male baby, she is pretty young to be having babies. And who is the mother of the 6 month old female baby? There are no other women of child bearing age in the group.
1608660878958.png
 

Bruce Vail

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Jul 8, 2015
Johns Hopkins of Baltimore, MD is listed by name as the owner in the 1850 US Census Slave Schedule. Although only two enslaved people show up in the snip, there are actually four enumerated on the schedule --- all males, ages 45, 50, 25, and 18.
View attachment 385454
View attachment 385455

What I can't figure out is why the article doesn't mention the 1860 US Census Slave Schedule for District 2 (Bladensburgh District) which lists a Johns Hopkins as owner of 12 enslaved people --- including mostly children and babies with no easily identifiable mother enumerated among the group. I suppose it's possible that there were other people living in this part of Maryland named Johns Hopkins, but it seems like the author of the article would have mentioned the 1860 slave schedule and explained why this slave owner Johns Hopkins is not the Johns Hopkins of the University? It's possible that these enslaved people were enumerated at the Maryland Agricultural College, although that is just my hypothesis because of where they appear in the schedule.
View attachment 385452

That "2" over in the right hand column below is for the "number of slave houses" and seems to indicate that all 12 enslaved people were living in TWO houses. The male baby enumerated on line 39 is 10 months old, indicated by 10/12, and designated as Mulatto. The female baby enumerated on line 40 is 6 months old, indicated by 6/12, and designated as black. If the 16 yo female designated as mulatto is the mother of the 10 month old male baby, she is pretty young to be having babies. And who is the mother of the 6 month old female baby? There are no other women of child bearing age in the group.
View attachment 385453


Thanks for adding this material.

I guesss I misunderstood something I read. There were several articles and at least one implied that there was no proof that Hopkins was an actual owner. My mistake.
 
Top