“I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political

equality of the White and Black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters

or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with White people;

and 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 from living together on terms of social

and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there

must be a 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.” ~ Abraham Lincoln, 1858



“I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political

equality of the White and Black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters

or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with White people;

and 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 from living together on terms of social

and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there

must be a 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.” ~ Abraham Lincoln, 1858









Click on this text to learn the truth about slavery in general


Forty Acres And A Jew

All of the Jews Who Banked Off the Slave Trade in America Part 1 of 2





Forty Acres And A Jew

All of the Jews Who Banked Off the Slave Trade in America Part 2 of 2








by Hadding Scott

That Jews married their White slaves, resulting in some blond Jews, was the

finding of the respected German-American anthropologist Theodor Poesche.


In the same way one can explain common Jewish physical characteristics like the “Jew-fro” by the fact that Jews sometime long ago mixed with Negroes, perhaps also their slaves. The finding that Jews in general have considerable Negro admixture was published by Jew A.E. Mourant in 1978, and in some of them it is obvious. Indeed the Lemba Jews of southern Africa appear entirely Negro; yet they have been authenticated through genetic testing as a genuine Jewish population that bears the Cohenic Y-chromosome. In ancient times the Book of Ezra told them to put away their “foreign wives.” In spite of that, the Jews today are a very racially mixed people.


Why There are Blond Jews
by Theodor Poesche


Excerpted from Die Arier: ein Beitrag zur historischen Anthropologie, 1878, pp. 31-32

Translated by Hadding Scott, 2014


Finally let us consider the blond Jews, which in Germany are about 11% of Jews according to the surveys in the schools*. These must be declared straightaway as racially mixed, like the blonds of the Turkic peoples. The proof is found in the fact that blond Jews occur only in the countries of the blonds. In Africa there are none; where blonds were prevalent however, miscegenation also happened.


A Polish law around the year 1100 forbids marriages between Jews and Christians, likewise an old Spanish law: proof enough that this took place. From another law of that period it is evident that the Jews converted their servants, slaves that they had bought, to their religion, and thereby totally assimilated them.


About the participation of the Jews in the slave-trade of the Middle Ages, unexpected revelations have recently occurred. I find in the work of my esteemed teacher, Dr. Alfred Schmeckel, the following report about Ditmar von Merseburg (reproduced in the Merseburger Gymnasialprogramm for 1855) on page 10: “In the year 1010 Margrave Guncelin von Meissen was deposed by a court of princes appointed by the Emperor at Merseburg, and imprisoned for a long time because he was found guilty of having sold Christian families to Jews.” Since then Waitz has published in the Anzeiger zur Kunde der deutschen Vorzeit quite a number of cases from which it emerges that in the early Middle Ages Jews took just as much interest in peddling slaves (in most cases Slavs, hence Slav = slave) as now in peddling horses. Waitz cites old municipal tax-schedules [Staedtetarife] in which it is set down how much entrance-tax [Eingangssteuer] a Jew had to pay for a slave.


These blond Jews thus are probably not, as Virchow loves to proclaim, “Urgermanen” and their posterity, but probably the mixed progeny of Aryans, especially Slavs, and of Jews.

* Most likely Poesche refers here to the survey of 6,758,827 of Germany’s schoolchildren in respect to color of skin, hair, and eyes that was undertaken in the 1870s by Rudolf Virchow (1821-1902). Virchow had gained fame through contributions to medical science but also held some idiosyncratic views: he was an anti-Darwinist, denying evolution entirely, and also an anti-Nordicist and anti-anti-Semite. Virchow’s survey was apparently intended to prove the opposite of what it did prove. The Jew Franz Boas, founder of “cultural anthropology” (which is essentially anti-racist propaganda in the guise of scholarship) was one of Virchow’s students.





Click on this text for the truth about WHITE slavery




"For almost 150 years the United States has been conducting an interesting experiment.  The subjects of the experiment:  black people and working-class whites.

The hypothesis to be tested: Can a people taken from the jungles of Africa and forced into slavery be fully integrated as citizens in a majority white population?

The whites were descendants of Europeans who had created a majestic civilization.  The former slaves had been tribal peoples with no written language and virtually no intellectual achievements.  Acting on a policy that was not fair to either group, the government released newly freed black people into a white society that saw them as inferiors.  America has struggled with racial discord ever since.

Decade after decade the problems persisted but the experimenters never gave up.  They insisted that if they could find the right formula the experiment would work, and concocted program after program to get the result they wanted.  They created the Freedmans Bureau, passed civil rights laws, tried to build the Great Society, declared War on Poverty, ordered race preferences, built housing projects, and tried midnight basketball.

Their new laws intruded into peoples lives in ways that would have been otherwise unthinkable.  They called in National Guard troops to enforce school integration.  They outlawed freedom of association.  Over the protests of parents, they put white children on buses and sent them to black schools and vice-versa.  They tried with money, special programs, relaxed standards, and endless hand wringing to close the achievement gap.  To keep white backlash in check they began punishing public and even private statements on race.  They hung up Orwellian public banners that commanded whites to Celebrate Diversity! and Say No to Racism.  Nothing was off limits if it might salvage the experiment.

Some thought that what W.E.B. DuBois called the Talented Tenth would lead the way for black people.  A group of elite, educated blacks would knock down doors of opportunity and show the world what blacks were capable of.

There is a Talented Tenth.  They are the black Americans who have become entrepreneurs, lawyers, doctors and scientists.  But ten percent is not enough.  For the experiment to work, the ten percent has to be followed by a critical mass of people who can hold middle-class jobs and promote social stability.  That is what is missing.

Through the years, too many black people continue to show an inability to function and prosper in a culture unsuited to them.  Detroit is bankrupt, the south side of Chicago is a war zone, and the vast majority of black cities all over America are beset by degeneracy and violence.  And blacks never take responsibility for their failures.  Instead, they lash out in anger and resentment.

Across the generations and across the country, as we have seen in Detroit, Watts, Newark, Los Angeles, Cincinnati, and now Ferguson, rioting and looting are just one racial incident away.  The white elite would tell us that this doesn't mean the experiment has failed. We just have to try harder.  We need more money, more time, more understanding, more programs, and more opportunities.

But nothing changes no matter how much money is spent, no matter how many laws are passed, no matter how many black geniuses are portrayed on TV, and no matter who is president.  Some argue its a problem of culture, as if culture creates peoples behavior instead of the other way around. Others blame white privilege.

But since 1965, when the elites opened Americas doors to the Third World, immigrants from Asia and India, people who are not white, not rich, and not connected have quietly succeeded.  While the children of these people are winning spelling bees and getting top scores on the SAT, black youths are committing half the country's violent crime, which includes viciously punching random white people on the street for the thrill of it that has nothing to do with poverty.

The experiment has failed.  Not because of white culture, or white privilege, or white racism.  The fundamental problem is that American black culture has evolved into an un-fixable and crime ridden mess. *They do not want to change their culture or society, and expect others to tolerate their violence and amoral behavior.  They have become socially incompatible with other races by their own design, not because of the racism of others - but by their own hatred of non-blacks.*

Our leaders don't seem to understand just how tired their white subjects are with this experiment.  *They don't understand that white people aren't out to get black people; they are just exhausted with them.  They are exhausted by the social pathologies, the violence, the endless complaints, and the blind racial solidarity, the bottomless pit of grievances, the excuses, and the reflexive animosity.* The elites explain everything with racism, and refuse to believe that white frustration could soon reach the boiling point."---

"You can't legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom.  What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.  The government can't give to anybody anything that the government doesn't first take from somebody else.  When half of the people get the idea that they don't have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation.
You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
Anthony Bryan

Click on this text to listen to and watch Professor Tony Martin describe the JEWISH involvement in the Slave Trade


Howard Zinn, in his faux history book, presented a much
sanitized treatment of the African slave trade without
mentioning Jewish participation... of course.
Howard didn’t even mention the first Jewish Senator in the United
States (from Florida 1845-1851/1855 to 1861), David
Levy Yulee, who was a vociferous advocate of slavery.

Yulee resigned from the U.S. Senate when Florida
succeeded from the Union and became a member of the
Confederate Congress. He was a slave holder himself and
used slave labor to build and maintain his Florida sugar
plantation that was destroyed during the Civil War (now
the Yulee Sugar Mill Ruins State Historic Site).

To be fair I’ll now use a Jewish authority on the subject
of slavery rather than sources such as
Professor Tony Martin, or the Nation of Islam’s Louis
(both are probably better sources)...

The following passage is from Rabbi/Dr. Marc Lee
Raphael’s book "Jews and Judaism in the United States: A
Documentary History"
(New York: Behrman House, Inc.,
Published 1983), page 14:

"Jews also took an active part in the Dutch colonial
slave trade; indeed, the bylaws of the Recife and
Mauricia congregations (1648) included an
imposta (Jewish tax) of five soldos for each Negro
slave a Brazilian Jew purchased from the West
Indies Company. Slave auctions were postponed if
they fell on a Jewish holiday. In Curacao in the
seventeenth century, as well as in the British
colonies of Barbados and Jamaica in the eighteenth
century, Jewish merchants played a major role in
the slave trade. In fact in all of the American
colonies, whether French (Martinique), British, or
Dutch, Jewish merchants frequently dominated.
This was no less true on the North American
mainland; where during the eighteenth century
Jews participated in the ‘triangular trade’ that
brought slaves from Africa to the West Indies and
there exchanged them for molasses, which in turn
was taken to New England and converted into rum
for sale in Africa. Isaac Da Costa of Charleston in
the 1750’s, David Franks of Philadelphia in the
1760’s, and Aaron Lopez of Newport in the late
1760’s and 1770’s dominated Jewish slave trading
on the American continent."
The following passage is from Rabbi/Dr. Raphael’s book
found on pages 23-25 regarding Jews involved in New
World commerce and the African slave trade:

"During the sixteenth century, exiled from their
Spanish homeland and hard-pressed to escape the
clutches of the Inquisition, Spanish and Portuguese
Jews fled to the Netherlands; the Dutch
enthusiastically welcomed these talented, skilled businessmen.
While thriving in Amsterdam, where they became
the hub of a unique urban Jewish universe and
attained status that anticipated Jewish
emancipation in the West by over a century, they
began in the 1500’s and 1600’s to establish
themselves in the Dutch and English colonies in
the New World. These included Curacao, Surinam,
Recife, and New Amsterdam (Dutch), as well as
Barbados, Jamaica, Newport, and Savannah (English).

In these European outposts the Jews, with their
years of mercantile experience and networks of
friends and family providing market reports of
great use, played a significant role in the merchant
capitalism, commercial revolution, and territorial
expansion that developed the New World and
established the colonial economies. The Jewish-
Caribbean nexus provided Jews with the
opportunity to claim a disproportionate influence
in seventeenth and eighteenth century New World
Commerce, and enabled West Indian Jewry, far
outnumbering its coreligionists further north, to
enjoy a centrality which North American Jewry
would not achieve for a long time to come.

Groups of Jews began to arrive in Surinam in the
middle of the seventeenth century, after the
Portuguese regained control of northern Brazil. By
1694, twenty-seven years after the British had
surrendered Surinam to the Dutch; there were
about 100 Jewish families and fifty single Jews
there, or about 570 persons. They possessed more
than forty estates and 9,000 slaves, contributed
25,905 pounds of sugar as a gift for the building of
a hospital, and carries on an active trade with
Newport and other colonial ports. By 1730, Jews
owned 115 plantations and were a large part of a
sugar export business which sent out 21,680,000
pounds of sugar to Europe and New World
markets in 1730 alone.

Slave trading was a major feature of Jewish
economic life in Surinam which was a major
stopping-off point in the triangular trade. Both
North American and Caribbean Jews played a key
role in this commerce; records of a slave sale in
1707 reveal that the ten largest Jewish purchasers
(10,400 guilders) spent more than 25 percent of the
total funds (38,605 guilders) exchanged."
Rabbi/Dr. Raphael’s research is confirmed by other
sources I examined and his choice of words confirms a
historic reoccurring pattern. When he writes, “In
European outposts the Jews, with their years of
mercantile experience and networks of friends and
family providing market reports of great use,
played a significant role in the merchant
capitalism...etc.” ...he is talking about what I call tribal-cronyism.
When he writes about, “While thriving in Amsterdam,
where they became a hub of a unique urban Jewish
universe ...etc.”, he is again talking about tribal
cronyism that is now centered primarily in New York
City, U.S.A.

According to a recent United Jewish Appeal/ Federation
of New York (UJA) study, eight counties in the greater
New York area is the contemporary urban Jewish
universe where the largest Jewish community in the
world, outside of Israel which surpassed New York in
2006, thrives. New York has more Jews than Tel Aviv.

The present Jewish population in New York is around
1,635,000; after dropping from a peak of 2,500,000 in the
1950s. There has been a Jewish migration to many other
states since the 1950s; mostly to California (presently
with 1,219,000) and Florida (with 638,000 Jews)... New
Jersey has 504,000... Illinois has 297,000...Pennsylvania
has 294,000... Massachusetts has 277,000...and so on
until we notice Wyoming with 950 Jewish
residents...and trailing last are North Dakota with 400
and South Dakota with only 395 Jewish residents.

The first Jewish presence in New York dates to the
arrival 23 Jewish refugees in 1654, which fled from
Recife, Brazil, after the Portuguese conquered New
Holland and brought The Spanish Inquisition with them.

Major immigration of Jews to New York began in the
1880s with the increase of anti-Semitic actions in Central
and Eastern Europe. A new wave of Russian Orthodox
Jews began arriving in the 1980s through the 1990s
tipping the scales to the overall Orthodox Jewish side,
versus liberal Jewish population representation.


Click on this text to hear Segregation On Steroids - Louis Farrakhan






An African-American apologizes for misattributed

perceptions of white racism against

blacks perpetrated by Jews

Hello and welcome to my website:
We Thought They Were White.
My name is Dontell Jackson,
and like many African-Americans, I was brought up in a culture deeply infused with
propaganda designed to lay the blame for all of the black race's ills on the white man.
It was not until I began looking into the actual history of blacks, whites, and other races
in America, that I came to realize that many if not most of the resentment that
African-Americans harbor regarding our long history of abuse and exploitation has been
intentionally misdirected by those who are most responsible for it, to shift the blame away
from themselves as a people onto the white race who they regard as their enemies.

The reality is that the white race had little to do with the slave trade that took our
ancestors away from Africa and sold them into bondage in the New World. That
crime was committed not by White Europeans, but by Jews who were engaged in
transatlantic commerce between the Old World and the Americas where they hoped
to establish a New Jerusalem from which to rule the world by way of exploiting all
races who were not members of their tribe of "chosen people." In their efforts to
accomplish that goal, the white race has been hoodwinked and
manipulated as unsuspecting pawns almost as much as the black race has been.

Blacks have been purposely misled by the Jewish people who, in previous centuries,
built their fortunes in the transatlantic slave trade, and who continue to manipulate
and exploit us even today. Because most black people make no distinction between
Jews and whites, it is easy for the Jews to evade justice and escape the blame for
the wrongs that they have inflicted on our people for centuries by convincing blacks
that it was the white man who did it. In most cases the vast majority of the white race
had nothing to do with slavery or other crimes that have been committed against our
people. Whites were and continue to be exploited and manipulated by the Jews,
the same as blacks, and their race is even more hated by the Jew, where blacks
are simply disregarded by the Jews with indifference, as are other races. We are all
simply pawns to the Jews who have no other use for us beyond being a source of
profit to them and a weapon that can be used to help destroy whites, who they see
as their sworn enemies, by encouraging us to breed with them until there are no
longer any whites left.

I would like to invite all of my black brothers and sisters to join me in untangling the lies,
deceptions and half-truths that have been foisted upon us as a race, and to explore the
true history of what has been done to us as a people by those who were more than happy
to encourage us to think these wrongs were committed against us by whites, when in
reality those crimes were carried out by Jews.

Please feel free to share the information that I have presented on this site with as many
of your friends, relatives, and associates as possible, so that we as a people can gain
greater freedom through knowledge of the truth which is the only thing that can set us free
from the state of subjugation, manipulation, and exploitation at the hands of those who
have and who continue to deceive us. Let us educate ourselves as a people by sharing
this knowledge of the truth among all of our race so that we can at last break free
of the bondage of the lies and superstition that have enslaved our minds and our spirits.



Not Fighting for Slavery


David Martin

March 19, 2019


There is no chain so heavy or yoke so oppressive as that which men will unwittingly place

upon their own necks, or bend their necks to receive, while being beguiled and led

along by liberty shriekers under their pretended banner of freedom. – William Watson


On February 16, I sent the following email to the 14 members of the history faculty at my

alma mater, Davidson College, as well as to one emeritus history faculty member. They

were all open copied. At the same time, I blind copied 148 members of my class. At

the closing of the email, I identified myself as a member of the graduating class of 1965:


My freshman English professor at Davidson, James Purcell, introduced me to noted

journalist, H.L. Mencken, in the fall of 1961 in the thick assigned compendium called

Readings for Liberal EducationI have been a fan ever since.  More than anything,

Mencken has given me insights into American history that I have not found from those

whom Mencken called “the timorous eunuchs who posture as American historians.” 

You might be interested in my own variations on a theme by Mencken.

(link to assigned book not in original email)


For good insights on the American scene, one might fare better reading the

work of the Frenchman, Laurent Guyénot, than that of any practicing American

historian I know of.  Guyénot has the good sense to take my historical work seriously. 

I fear, though, that Guyénot’s work might not be very well received at an

institution that would employ William Kristol to teach ethics, of all things.


The arch-neocon warmonger Kristol was made Vann Professor of Ethics in Society at

Davidson at the beginning of 2019-2020 school year, giving him a position from which

he could continue to poison national discourse, after the perennially

money-gushing magazine he edited, the Weekly Standard, finally threw in the towel.  

I heard nothing from anyone for a few days, and then finally this short email came

in from the emeritus professor:

Thanks for sharing Mencken’s–and your–thinking about the Gettysburg Address.


Interesting, but not a point of view that I agree with.  To me, the North was fighting

(even if many soldiers didn’t know it) for the values expressed in the Declaration of

Independence that all people are created equal, while the South was fighting above

all to perpetuate an institution (slavery) that contradicted that basic American value.


I don’t think we need to have further correspondence,

as we are unlikely to persuade each other differently.


Needless to say, this solitary, expressly close-minded profession of faith in the conventional

wisdom regarding President Abraham Lincoln’s protracted, extremely bloody, though

eventually successful, precipitant military response to the secession of a few Southern

states from the Union in 1861 hardly did anything to raise my opinion of the American

history profession. Readers will notice, furthermore, that my email was really directed more

toward my ground-breaking work on the death of our first Secretary of Defense James

Forrestal, which is what the Guyénot article is about, and the respondent had nothing

to say about that. He also failed to address himself to a single point that I

made about the very devious, though slick and inspiring, Gettysburg Address.


What Were They Dying, Killing, and Maiming For?


Reading carefully, one will notice, actually, a small concession on the emeritus professor’s

part. “Even if many soldiers didn’t know it,” he says, the “it” being that the Union soldiers

were putting their lives on the line to bring an end to the institution of slavery in the United

States. It looks like he might actually know a thing or two about American history, and what

he surely knows is that virtually no one at the time, North or South, saw that as what

they were fighting over. The Northern leaders, most especially the commander in chief,

Abraham Lincoln, didn’t tell them that that was what the war was about. “I have no purpose,

directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in States where it exists.

I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so,” he had

stated in his inaugural address.


That brings us to the primary subject of this article, the 1887 memoir of the British citizen

and native Scotsman, William Watson, who was an engineer and businessman and a

longtime resident of New Orleans. He was well-connected in the city, an opponent of

slavery, like virtually all of the Confederate generals and other officers who gave up their

commissions in the United States Army to lead the soldiers of their home region, and like

my own ancestors in the foothills of North Carolina. He could have been an officer, he

tells us, but for the fact that he would have had to give up his British citizenship, which

was required by Confederate law. As it was, he was a high-ranking noncommissioned officer

who rose to an important leadership position in his military company. He gives us this

account from the Battle of Farmington, Tennessee, after they had overrun a Union position:


Several hundred prisoners were taken, some fine heavy siege guns, several hundred

stands of arms, and a large quantity of camp equipage fell into our hands. The

advance of the enemy on our right flank was checked, and they would be compelled

to change their tactics in that direction.


We remained on the field for some time awaiting orders. The place where the enemy

had camped was being cleared and the ground was strewn with debris. Knapsacks,

clothing, newspapers, letters, and other small articles lay scattered about. I packed up

and examined some of the letters. They were mostly all headed with some patriotic

motto, and a great many printed cards were enclosed or lay scattered about bearing

emblematic figures and inscriptions, such as female figures pointing to Fort Sumter

with the words: “Sumter first, peace afterwards.” Others with the emblem of the

Union—the eagle and the motto, “E pluribus unum,” with the words: “Fight for the Union

and the Union only,” and many similar representations, but never one having

the slightest reference to the question of slavery. (emphasis added)*


From what else I know, that sample is very representative. The Northerners were fighting

to restore the Union, as though it were something sacred, very much that holy entity in their

eyes as captured by Lincoln in his brief Gettysburg oration, and their immediate casus belli,

as President Lincoln had played it to the hilt, was the “vicious assault” on American lives

and property (though as with the Iranian retaliation for the killing of General Qasem Soleimani,

no one was killed) by the Southerners in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina.


Even less than the Northern soldiers saw themselves fighting for the cause of abolitionist

fanatics, as most people North and South regarded them at the time, Southern soldiers

were not fighting to preserve slavery. It’s quite understandable in the case of one of my

great grandfathers who fought in General Robert E. Lee’s Army and was captured first

at the Battle of Hanover County Courthouse, was paroled after some period of time as

a P.O.W., rejoined and was captured again at the Battle of the Wilderness, spending the

remainder of the war in the Yankee hell hole of P.O.W. camp at Point Lookout, Maryland.

The residents of his home county of Yadkin were virtually all subsistence farmers; slavery

was virtually non-existent there. His case was representative of much of western North

Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia, and also of northern Georgia and Alabama,

and even of northern Mississippi and Louisiana and much of Arkansas and Texas.


But what of the soldiers from the lowlands where slavery was prevalent? Watson lived in

the heart of the Deep South and he fought alongside soldiers from the region. Here is

what he has to say about them:


I may here state with some authority that the greater part of the men of the Southern

army, who really fought the battles of the South, did not fight to maintain slavery, and

the question of slavery was never before their eyes. So far as my observations

went, slavery was only a minor point of little or no interest to a large portion of the

population, and could never of itself have led to secession and war. Any interference

in that or any other law of the State which did not conflict with the Federal Constitution

involved a principle of much greater importance, almost unanimously cherished by

the Southern people, which was, the sovereign rights of individual States to make

and maintain their own laws, and it was upon this principle alone that slaveholders

and politicians got the large body of the people to follow them.


He then goes on to explain how, in his view, they were maneuvered first by Southern

“fire-eating bullies” into secession from the Union upon the election, by only about a third

of the total vote in an election split four ways, of a regional Presidential candidate in 1860

(Lincoln did not receive a single vote in my great grandfather’s generally anti-slavery

home North Carolina county nor in the entire state of Mississippi.) and then into the

devastating war by cynical Northern politicians.


Wherefore Warfare?


The really big question, though, is not what the contestants on both sides perceived

that they were fighting for or even what they were actually fighting for, but why they

were fighting in the first place. Never in my education nor in any public discussion that

I can recall is a separation ever made between the hasty actions of a few Southern

states in the wake of the disastrous outcome—in the view of those states’ leaders at

the time—of the 1860 presidential election and the horrendous war that followed soon

after. One great value of Watson’s memoir is that it permits us to see the situation at

the time that it occurred through the eyes of a very articulate and well-informed person.

The fact that he was not native to his New Orleans home also lends a greater-than-average

objectivity to his point of view. Neither he nor many around him believed that the

ill-considered—in his view—actions of seven Deep South states meant that they were

inevitably going to war over it. Even the leaders of the secession movement dreaded

such a possibility, not just because war is a truly horrible thing, but also because the

imbalance of population and resources was so great that it would be a war that they would

be very unlikely to win. Here Watson describes the general view as Lincoln was taking office:


As to what Mr. Lincoln’s policy might be there was nothing to indicate, and it was

the subject of much speculation among the bulk of the population within the seceded States.


No one thought that he would adopt a coercive policy; it was now too late for that.


It had been pointed out by [outgoing President James] Buchanan in his message

to Congress, that the executive of the United States had really no power under the

constitution to coerce sovereign States.


The States had seceded separately from the Union, each remaining for a time a

separate and independent Government, and afterwards formed themselves into

a Confederacy, and all without any protest or hindrance on the part of the Federal

Government. They had the sympathy of the Middle States, and also of a large number

of the Northern Democrats. They were now well organized and had become powerful,

and the President could not but see that any attempt at coercion would lead to further

secession, and meet with the most determined resistance, and

must result in civil war and bloodshed. (emphasis added)


As we can see, at that point the very idea that Lincoln might choose policies that could only

result in a war between the North and the South was pretty close to unthinkable. In the

opening days of the Lincoln administration, the seceded states had also sent negotiators

(Commissioners) to Washington offering, among other things, appropriate payment for

federal properties within their territories. Although little initial progress had been made,

people saw the parlay as a hopeful sign.


The future Confederate soldier Watson, perhaps like my future-soldier forbears and much

of the population of the South and even the nation at large, saw what those seceding Deep

South states were engaged in was a quixotic venture. Free of them, the remainder of the

country would then be able to get rid of the anachronistic form of labor that they had inherited

once and for all. Meanwhile, says Watson:


[The seceding states] would find themselves almost alone in maintaining their peculiar

institution in the face of the civilized world. They would be surrounded and hemmed in

by the free States of the more powerful Union, and they would have no fugitive slave

law to protect their institution. The largest portion of the population being non-slave

holders, their sympathies would be with the old Union of which many of them were

natives, and they were bound to it by strong ties of traditional attachment. In short,

there was a great probability of these States again seeking admission severally

back into the United States.


Alas, patience did not prevail and the hopes of the Watsons of the country were dashed.

Who did the dashing? On this subject, writing in 1887, not professing to be any sort of a

scholar, Watson comes up with what seemed to be a plausible answer, but he and lots of

other people were clearly wrong:


It was the opinion of many quiet but wise and intelligent men in the South, that although

Mr. Lincoln might be an honest, upright, and simple man, and had no bad feeling or

intention towards the South, still he had as an adviser in Mr. Seward, a subtle and deceitful

man possessed of great ability, and having an intense hatred toward the South.


Not Seward’s Folly, or Malevolence


The fact of the matter, we now can see in greater retrospect, is that Lincoln’s chosen

Secretary of State, William H. Seward, former Governor of New York and Senator from

that state, as an outspoken and principled opponent of slavery might have gained the

reputation in the South as a hater of the region, but he was no Thaddeus Stevens, and it

was inaccurate to characterize him that way. Neither could one say that about Lincoln,

but when it comes to those other adjectives, we shall see in the light of how the

hopes for peace were dashed, Watson has Seward and Lincoln reversed.


Watson places the onus for the firing of the first shot at Fort Sumter heavily upon Seward

as the supposed power behind the Lincoln throne and, of course, upon Confederate President,

Jefferson Davis, where it belonged to a degree, but perhaps not to the degree that he and

most of the world to this day believe. The subject under discussion here by

Watson is the resupplying of the federal island fort in Charleston’s harbor:


It was therefore very natural that [Army Chief of Staff] General [Winfield] Scott, a

military man of great ability, should advise the withdrawal of the troops as a military

necessity while an opportunity still existed, for had hostilities broken out the Federal

garrison would have been prisoners of war and so much loss to the United States.

But Mr. Seward knew his own game; he had effectually measured

the patience, and sagacity of Jefferson Davis and his cabinet.


While it seems inexplicable that the Confederate leaders should without any apparent

necessity act so precipitantly, and incur the onus and responsibility of the war by

bombarding the fort and actually commencing hostilities, I have never heard any

satisfactory reason given for the rash act. Of course, the excuse set forth by the

Confederate leaders was the importance of the fort and the great danger to be apprehended

to the Confederate cause should the Federal Government be able to send an expedition

to force an entry into Charleston harbor and occupy and strengthen Fort Sumter.


But there was not the slightest grounds for this apprehension, and the Confederate

commanders had no such apprehensions. The time was now gone past for this.

It would have been impossible for the Federal Government to have got ready an

expedition in less than three months which could with any chance of success attempt

to force a passage into Charleston, whilst it was well known that the garrison could

not hold out for more than ten days at the very utmost.


The military argument, which from his own ample Civil War experience Watson was

on good grounds for making, was that Fort Moultrie, which was on a spit of land more

seaward than Fort Sumter and which the Union had been forced to abandon upon South

Carolina’s secession, effectively guarded the harbor. The Confederates had loaded it up

with cannons and it would have required an overwhelming force that the Union could not

muster to dislodge them. More Watson:


It was evident that Mr. Seward, who was the real head of affairs at Washington, saw

very well that the vanity and pugnacity of Jefferson Davis and his cabinet, and the

defiant and warlike attitude of the Confederate leaders, would soon overcome their

patience and wiser judgment, and cause them to commit themselves by striking a

blow somewhere which would thoroughly rouse the indignation of the North and make

the war against the South popular.


Nor was he wrong in his conjecture.


The Confederate government, if they now wished to avoid the responsibility of striking

the first blow, acted with a rashness quite uncalled for and amounting to stupidity.


Watson was wrong to include Davis’s entire cabinet in his indictment. Seward’s counterpart

in the new Confederate government saw the rashness and stupidity ahead of time:


One of the few Southern statesmen who understood what the master politician and

experienced trial lawyer from Illinois was up to was Confederate Secretary of State

Robert Toombs, who, before Fort Sumter, warned that firing on the fort “is suicide,

murder, and will lose every friend at the North.” Toombs was right. The bombardment

of Fort Sumter, even though it injured no one, helped to end the secession movements

in the middle states as well as the support for secession among many Northern opinion

makers. (Thomas DiLorenzo,

The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, pp. 121-122)


Jefferson Davis, in his own book, A Short History of the Confederate States of America,

appears to validate Watson’s and Toombs’s view of his judgment as he attempts to justify

opening fire upon Fort Sumter:


To have waited further strengthening of the enemy by land and vessel forces, with

hostile purpose, now declared, for the sake of having them “fire the first gun,” would

have been as unwise as it would be to hesitate to strike down an assailant who levels

a deadly weapon at one’s heart until he has actually fired. He who makes the

assault is not necessarily he who strikes the first blow or fires the first gun.


Let him try telling that to the court of public opinion, and as we have seen, the analogy

that he has made is a very bad one from a purely military standpoint. And then it gets

worse for him, again, in his own words:


The Federal garrison was generously permitted to retire with the honors of war.

The event, however, was seized upon to inflame the minds of the Northern people.

The disguise which had been worn in the communications with the Confederate

Commissioners was now torn off, and it was craftily attempted to show that the South,

which had been pleading for peace and still stood on the defensive, had, by this

bombardment, inaugurated a war against the United States.



Could the man have been so deluded as not to have anticipated that Lincoln would play

it that way and that he would be very successful in doing so? It saddens me to think

of my forbears having to live under such leadership. But at that point, in North Carolina,

they were not yet under Davis’s leadership, but Lincoln’s. Lincoln’s subsequent actions

would take care of that, though. Here we return to Watson’s narrative describing the very

predictable response to the Fort Sumter bombardment:


The Lincoln newspapers of course made the most of it. The Northern people,

few of whom knew the position or understood Mr. Seward’s game, were fired

with indignation, and the bombardment of Fort Sumter was declared to be the

opening of hostilities and the commencement of war.


Mr. Seward took care to take the tide at the flood. He did not give the Northern

people time to reflect, or allow any pro-Southern papers time to comment on

his shuffling game or plead any extenuating circumstances on behalf of the

Confederates, few as there were to plead, but followed up the news of the bombardment

so quickly with an exposition of Mr. Lincoln’s policy by his proclamation and

declaration of war that it was obvious he must have had it all prepared and

ready before the bombardment took place. He at the same time turned to the

commissioners whom he had kept waiting for an audience and gave as his reply—

“No compromise with traitors.”

Mr. Lincoln’s proclamation, which was issued immediately after the bombardment

of Fort Sumter, was a declaration of war against the States said to be in rebellion

against the United States, and a call for 75,000 men to crush the rebellion. To

each State outside of the Confederacy was issued an order to furnish its quota of

men. And an imperative demand was made upon these states in rebellion to lay

down their arms and submit to the authority of the United States within 10 days.


The purport of the proclamation was so sweeping and imperative and so

menacing in its tone, that it caused the greatest excitement not only within the

Confederate States but throughout the whole of the Southern States. It seemed

to outdo even the arrogance and pugnacity of Jefferson Davis and his cabinet.

It left no opening for any peaceful settlement, and it entirely ignored the existence

of any loyal or peaceful citizens within the Confederate States. It made no appeal

to them. It held out to them no guarantee or protection of amnesty. It gave them no

alternative but unconditional surrender or the sword.


It was that proclamation that forced the hands of Arkansas, Virginia, North Carolina,

and Tennessee, who threw in their lot with their adjoining fellow Southern states. None

of the Fort Sumter provocation nor its aftermath was Seward’s doing, though, as we

see from this summary of the spurned wise advice that he offered to Lincoln on the matter:


Secretary of State William H. Seward eloquently argued for abandoning Sumter.

Seward based his case on the impossibility of peacefully provisioning the fort.

Since the attempt would involve military action, it would “probably initiate a civil

war.” While he would defend the Union by force if necessary, civil war was, next

to disunion itself, a national calamity. The fundamental question for Seward,

then, was how to restore the Union by a peaceful policy that would not provoke civil war.


Seward’s solution was to allow the secession crisis to subside by avoiding new

provocations. Southerners were fundamentally devoted to the Union, but this

sentiment had temporarily been silenced by fears associated with Lincoln’s election.

Conciliatory policies, however, by denying to the disunionists new offenses, would

permit loyal southerners to regain their governments and restore the Union. For

evidence of the beneficial effects of conciliation, Seward pointed to the stalling

of secessionist momentum after the initial surge.


Seward especially emphasized the good effect of conciliatory measures on the

upper South, whose continued loyalty would help patriots in the deep South return

to the Union. Time must be provided “for reason to resume its sway.

Time will do this, if it be not hindered by new alarms and provocations.”


As for Fort Sumter, Seward contended that even if held, it had no military value for

the United States. It was only as a symbol, “a monument” of the government’s

“authority and sovereignty.” He would continue to hold it as long as it could be

done without involving problems greater than the advantages of continued

possession. But, he warned, sending reinforcements or supplies would entail

using military force, and would appear as though the government initiated

conflict without adequate justification.


Seward stated that he would, in certain circumstances, advocate the use of force.

But he “would not provoke war in any way now.” And he would not initiate war “to

regain a useless and unnecessary position on the soil of the seceding States,”

or one which could not be defended when in federal hands. (emphasis added)


Watson—and his Southern friends—would have been surprised to discover how close

Seward’s views were to his own, and how decent and reasonable the man comes across

in his recommendations. The culprit was Abraham Lincoln, himself, or whoever was

pulling his strings, and that person or group of people was clearly not Seward.


Dishonest, Diabolical Abe


It has long been known, as laid out in the DiLorenzo book previously cited, that Lincoln

successfully baited the South into firing the first shot of the war and then quickly

capitalized upon the fact, but only more recently has California trial lawyer

Joseph Ryan revealed Lincoln’s full perfidy in pulling off the deed: “Lincoln, the sly

country lawyer,” he writes, “tricked the Confederate government into believing that he

intended to use naval warships to invade the harbor. The hook for Lincoln’s trick was

the U.S.S. Powhatan.”


Here is the problem that Lincoln faced, as Ryan explains it:


How, in riling the country to war, was Lincoln to hide the fact that he was the

aggressor? How to make it seem that South Carolina was the aggressor and

that Lincoln’s government was merely defending itself from such aggression.

How, in other words, to provoke South Carolina into bombarding the fort

without, apparently, any provocation?


And here was his solution. The Powhatan was the flagship of a flotilla of four warships

that Lincoln ordered to fight its way into Charleston’s harbor and provide provisions for

Fort Sumter. Those were the orders that went through the normal channels of the Navy

Department. The final assault was not to be made until the word came down from the

flagship’s commander, Captain Samuel Mercer. But Lincoln had been informed that

the Navy Department, much like the current Trump administration is laced with Deep

State operatives, was thoroughly infiltrated by sympathizers with the South, and the

word of Lincoln’s orders would reach Jefferson Davis and his boys well before the ships

reached Charleston. This, then, was the “deadly weapon” that Davis perceived to

be leveled at his new nation’s heart. At the same time, Lincoln sent a lieutenant with

sealed orders for Capt. Mercer, not to be opened until the Powhatan was at sea and

completely out of reach of the Confederacy’s spy network. Those orders changed the

destination of the Powhatan from Fort Sumter to the other federal fort in Southern

territory, Fort Pickens, at the harbor of Pensacola, Florida. Fort Pickens was not the

political flashpoint that Fort Sumter was. It was easily defended and was of far less

strategic importance. General Scott had no problem with doing what was militarily

necessary to hang onto it, as Lincoln had indicated in his inaugural address he was

determined to do. Most importantly, the Southern leaders had apparently

accepted it as something that they could tolerate, de facto, if not in principle.


The three ships left floating at sea near Charleston were never to receive the attack

order. Lincoln had no intention of firing his deadly weapon. His purpose was only to

persuade the Southern leaders that that was his purpose, forcing them to make the

move that made the most military sense to them, to force the surrender of Fort

Sumter while the forcing was still relatively easy, with immediate menace looming.


Accepting the case that Ryan makes, Jefferson Davis does not appear to be quite

as foolish as William Watson and lot of us thought he was, but he

was foolish, nonetheless, in his apparent inability to see the big picture.


The man who is revealed by the Fort Sumter episode as a conniver extraordinaire

was Abraham Lincoln, who was hell bent on war as the response to the secession of

those Southern states. If there were people pulling his strings, it does not appear that

they were in the executive branch of the government. It was almost certainly not Seward.

But why was Lincoln so determined to resort to bloodshed, not as a last resort, but

right off the bat?


At this point, I think what I believe to be the general consensus of those generally

unreliable professional historians of the country provides one good answer. He and

a lot of the people around him thought that it would be a relatively quick and easy

affair. Had matters progressed the way Lincoln expected, the seceding states would

have been quickly bludgeoned back into the Union well before he would have had

to resort to the showy war measure known as the Emancipation Proclamation, which

proclaimed freedom for the slaves only where the federal government had no power

to bring it about, in Confederate held territory.


For the other big reason, we turn to John V. Denson’s 2006 article,

Why Did Lincoln Invade the South?

He examines the little known Hampton Roads Peace Conference between high officials

of the federal and Confederate governments in February of 1865. Its purpose was to

negotiate either a temporary or permanent burying of the hatchet in order to do something

about the French encroachment into Mexico in violation of the Monroe Doctrine. I

commend the entire article to your attention, but here is Denson’s summation. From

the Union side, we were really back to the terms of Lincoln’s first inaugural

address, as though there had never been any Emancipation Proclamation:


In summary, the South wanted independence, not the protection of slavery, and

the North wanted reunion rather than abolition of slavery. This is what President

Lincoln had stated in the very beginning before the war and again what he had stated

near the end of the war.


It was generally recognized in both the North and the South by 1865 that slavery

was a dying institution, not just in America, but throughout Western Civilization.

It was also obvious to both the North and the South that slavery would be hard to

maintain in a separate Confederate South without the constitutional and statutory

fugitive slave provisions which had required free states to return escaped slaves.

In fact, many abolitionists had advocated Northern secession before the war as

a means to end slavery by depriving the Southern states of the benefits of the fugitive

slave clause in the Constitution and the laws relating thereto. The offer of the North

to pay for the freed slaves was merely an added inducement to rejoin the Union but

Lincoln had always been willing to accept slavery where it already existed if the

South would remain in, or later, rejoin the Union. The right of a state to secede clearly

had been accepted in the North and the South at the time of the formation of the

Union and up until the time of the War Between the States. For example, the New

England states frequently asserted the right of secession and threatened to use it

on five occasions: in 1803 because of President Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase;

in 1807 over the Embargo Act; in 1812 over the admission of Louisiana as a state;

in 1814 at the Hartford Convention because of the War of 1812; and finally, in 1845

over the annexation of Texas.

The War Between the States was not a noble war to abolish slavery, but instead

was a war of conquest to require the Southern states to continue paying the taxes

which paid for the federal government and to change the system of government

given to us by our Founders and instead replace it with a strong national government

thereby removing most of the political power from the states and the people. When

the famous British historian, Lord Acton, wrote to Robert E. Lee after the war,

in a letter dated November 4, 1866, he inquired about Lee’s assessment of the

meaning of the war and the result that would follow. Lord Acton’s letter stated,

in part, that:


“I saw in State Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign

will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption

of Democracy . . . Therefore I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty,

our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at

Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo.”


Lee replied in a letter dated December 15, 1866, and stated, in part, what the

result would be:


” . . . [T]he consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive

abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of the ruin which has

overwhelmed all those that have preceded it.”


Good and Bad Leaders


General Lee was one of the leaders that the war veteran Watson, like a lot of other

people at the time and later, held in very high esteem. He contrasts him with Davis

in that he feels that Lee would have had the good sense to concede defeat and

save a lot of lives when it had become clear that there was no hope for victory.

In this case, Watson’s opinion was based upon Lee’s reputation, not upon any direct

experience. Watson served in the West, never under Lee in the East. He does speak

highly of two Confederate generals under whom he did serve, Benjamin McCulloch

and James McIntosh. Jefferson Davis, however, in order to resolve the conflict between

western commander McCulloch and the commander of the Missouri forces, Gen.

Sterling Price, sent General Earl Van Dorn to assume command over both of them.

Van Dorn then managed to get both McCulloch and McIntosh killed in what Watson saw

as both the ill-conceived and executed Battle of Pea Ridge. As Watson described

McCulloch and McIntosh, their losses to the Confederate military leadership were right

up there with the deaths of Stonewall Jackson at Chancellorsville and Albert Sidney

Johnston at Shiloh. That’s another thing Watson probably held against Jefferson Davis.

It’s beyond the scope of his book, but when the notorious womanizer Van Dorn was

shot to death by a cuckolded husband in Tennessee, Watson probably regarded it as

no great loss to the Confederate army.


Watson also differed sharply with Davis over the general who has given his name

to both the U.S. Army’s Fort Bragg in North Carolina and the coastal resort town in

Northern California, also named Fort Bragg after the frontier fort that was once there.

We are speaking of General Braxton Bragg. Watson describes him as an almost sadistic

martinet, while Davis saw him as a fine disciplinarian. As bad as Bragg was, he was

probably several notches up the humanitarian scale in Watson’s eyes than “Beast Butler,”

that is, General Benjamin Butler, the man Lincoln appointed as military governor when

Union forces conquered New Orleans.


When he is writing about things beyond his direct experience, like in his assessment

of the role of Secretary of State Seward in starting the war, one might take Watson’s

observations with something of a grain of salt, but I, for one, felt that I got a better grasp

on the reality of the War between States from Watson than from almost anything that

I have encountered from our professional historians. I might say the same thing for the

more recent writings of the practicing attorneys Joseph Ryan and John V. Denson

and the Ph.D. economist, Thomas DiLorenzo, a man whose credentials the current

writer shares. For their part, the professional historians, when it comes to the War,

I have found to be hardly more reliable than they are about James Forrestal’s death.




*All quotes from Watson’s book and further on from Jefferson Davis’s book lack

page number citations because they are from the Kindle edition. If you want to find

the quotation in its context, you can search a selection from the quote on the Kindle,

if you have one. Amazon has made it cheap and easy to become a relative expert

on the War between the States by providing a number of first-hand accounts of the war

for the bargain basement price of $.99.






By the way...


"Blacks had it worse then any other race when it comes to slavery" really? The Irish slave trade began when James II sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.
Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.
From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade. Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to auction them off as well.
During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers.
Many people today will avoid calling the Irish slaves what they truly were: Slaves. They’ll come up with terms like “Indentured Servants” to describe what occurred to the Irish. However, in most cases from the 17th and 18th centuries, Irish slaves were nothing more than human cattle.
As an example, the African slave trade was just beginning during this same period. It is well recorded that African slaves, not tainted with the stain of the hated Catholic theology and more expensive to purchase, were often treated far better than their Irish counterparts.
African slaves were very expensive during the late 1600s (50 Sterling). Irish slaves came cheap (no more than 5 Sterling). If a planter whipped or branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than killing a more expensive African. The English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, which increased the size of the master’s free workforce. Even if an Irish woman somehow obtained her freedom, her kids would remain slaves of her master. Thus, Irish moms, even with this new found emancipation, would seldom abandon their kids and would remain in servitude.
In time, the English thought of a better way to use these women (in many cases, girls as young as 12) to increase their market share: The settlers began to breed Irish women and girls with African men to produce slaves with a distinct complexion. These new “mulatto” slaves brought a higher price than Irish livestock and, likewise, enabled the settlers to save money rather than purchase new African slaves. This practice of interbreeding Irish females with African men went on for several decades and was so widespread that, in 1681, legislation was passed “forbidding the practice of mating Irish slave women to African slave men for the purpose of producing slaves for sale.” In short, it was stopped only because it interfered with the profits of a large slave transport company.
England continued to ship tens of thousands of Irish slaves for more than a century. Records state that, after the 1798 Irish Rebellion, thousands of Irish slaves were sold to both America and Australia. There were horrible abuses of both African and Irish captives. One British ship even dumped 1,302 slaves into the Atlantic Ocean so that the crew would have plenty of food to eat.
There is little question that the Irish experienced the horrors of slavery as much (if not more in the 17th Century) as the Africans did. There is, also, very little question that those brown, tanned faces you witness in your travels to the West Indies are very likely a combination of African and Irish ancestry. In 1839, Britain finally decided on it’s own to end it’s participation in Satan’s highway to hell and stopped transporting slaves. While their decision did not stop pirates from doing what they desired, the new law slowly concluded THIS chapter of nightmarish Irish misery.
But, if anyone, black or white, believes that slavery was only an African experience, then they’ve got it completely wrong.
Irish slavery is a subject worth remembering, not erasing from our memories.
But, where are our public (and PRIVATE) schools???? Where are the history books? Why is it so seldom discussed?
Do the memories of hundreds of thousands of Irish victims merit more than a mention from an unknown writer?
Or is their story to be one that their English pirates intended: To (unlike the African book) have the Irish story utterly and completely disappear as if it never happened.
None of the Irish victims ever made it back to their homeland to describe their ordeal. These are the lost slaves; the ones that time and biased history books conveniently forgot.
Many people today will avoid calling the Irish slaves what they truly were: Slaves. They’ll come up with terms like “Indentured Servants” to describe what occurred to the Irish. However, in most cases from the 17th and 18th centuries, Irish slaves were nothing more than human cattle.
Don't forget.





  1. Jul 06, 2010 · Minister Farrakhan - Southern Slavery - COTTON - Part One ... Jewish involvement - Compromise of 1877 - Part 2 ... PT 1. The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan details stories of his relationship ...

  2. Jul 06, 2010 · Minister Farrakhan - Southern Slavery - Jewish involvement - Compromise of 1877 - Part 2 ... Southern Slavery - Jewish involvement ...

  1. Jul 06, 2010 · Minister Farrakhan - Southern Slavery - Jewish involvement - Compromise of 1877 - Part 3 RIGHTEOUSDISORDER. ... Minister Louis Farrakhan handles the Donahue audience!

  1. Fake Jews & Black Slaves (The Black Holocaust): Min ...


    Oct 24, 2012 · The Hon. Minister Louis Farrakhan smashes back with the facts regarding the Black Holocaust. Continue to support the Nation of Islam and the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan. Please subscribe to ...

  1. Farrakhan on Jewish owners and slavery - YouTube


    Minister Farrakhan - Southern Slavery - Jewish involvement - Compromise of 1877 - Part 2 ... The Shocking Jewish Role in Slavery Part I: What Jewish Historians Say

  1. 1 Compromise of 1877 - YouTube


    Jun 15, 2015 · Minister Farrakhan - Southern Slavery - Jewish involvement - Compromise of 1877 - Part 2 - Duration: 10:01. ... Jim Crow part 4 | The Gilded Age ...

  1. Favorites - YouTube


    Minister Farrakhan - Southern Slavery - Jewish involvement - Compromise of 1877 - Part 2 by RIGHTEOUSDISORDER. 10:01. ... Part 1: Master Fard Muhammad and India ...


In 1550, the term “negro” enters the English language from Spanish. (Jordan, 61).

In, 1600 The term “mulatto” enters the English language from Spanish. (Jordan, 61).



Twenty Blacks brought by a Dutch ship to Virginia. Some Blacks had arrived even earlier. (Davis, xi)



Pequot War in Massachusetts. (Jordan, 68)



First Negroes arrive in New England aboard the slave ship Desire, perhaps as slaves. (Jordan, 67)



Linkage of race and slavery in the American colonies. (Brown and Stentiford, 223)



Evidence suggests that Negroes are becoming enslaved in the tobacco colonies (Virginia, Delaware, Maryland). (Jordan, 44)



Three hundred Negroes in Virginia — about 2 percent of the population. (Jordan, 73)




Rhode Island outlaws slavery but the law remains a dead letter. (Jordan, 70)


Negroes excluded from the Massachusetts militia. (Jordan, 71)



Enslavement of Negroes starts appearing in the statute books of Virginia, Maryland and other colonies. (Jordan, 44)

Negroes excluded from the Connecticut militia. (Jordan, 71)



Maryland criminalizes intermarriage between White women and Negro men. (Brown and Stentiford, 533)



Virginia passes an anti-miscegenation law. (Jordan, 79)



Slave rebellion in Gloucester County, Virginia. (Brown and Stentiford, 223)



New England colonies begin enacting slave codes. (Brown and Stentiford, 223)

Maryland passes an anti-miscegenation law. (Jordan, 79)



Bacon’s Rebellion in Virginia. (Klinker and Smith, 10)



Slaves increase in population from 4.6% in 1680 to over 20% in 1750; in the South from 5.7% to nearly 40%. (Klinker and Smith, 12)



Relatively few Negroes in New England, not more than a few hundred in 1680 and not more than 3 percent of the workforce. (Jordan, 66)



Maryland passes another anti-miscegenation law. (Jordan, 79)



Four Quakers sign antislavery petition in Germantown, Pennsylvania. (Davis, xii)

Virginia Assembly declares that free Negroes “ought not in all respects to be admitted to a full fruition of the exemptions and impunities of the English.” Variations of this guideline are accepted in every colony. (Jordan, 123)



Glorious Revolution in Britain. (Jordan, 289)



First laws appears in New England regulating the conduct of Negroes. (Jordan, 71)



Virginia passes an anti-miscegenation law that prohibits all interracial liasons. (Jordan, 80)

Virginia requires manumitted Negroes to leave the state. (Jordan, 124)



Maryland passes an anti-miscegenation law.



Negroes are now commonly being treated as chattel slaves. (Jordan, 44)

Negroes flooding into Virginia and Maryland. (Jordan, 73)

In the Southern colonies, free Negroes are unable by law to testify against White persons. In New England, free Negroes can testify against anyone. (Jordan, 123)



Southern colonies begin enacting slave codes. (Brown and Stentiford, 223)

Virginia Assembly declares Negroes ineligible to hold public office. (Jordan, 126)

Virginia writes its slave code. Free Negroes from raising their hand against Whites. (Jordan, 73) Slaves forbidden to carry firearms, teaching slaves to read a crime. (Brown and Stentiford, 223)

Massachusetts adopts an anti-miscegenation law. (Jordan, 139)



Slave uprising in New York City. (Davis, xii)



North Carolina and South Carolina bar Negroes from the polls; North Carolina does not continue the prohibition after the 1730s. (Jordan, 126)

North Carolina adopts an anti-miscegenation law. (Jordan, 139)



South Carolina adopts an anti-miscegenation law. (Jordan, 139)



South Carolina requires free Negroes to leave the colony unless permitted to do so by special act of the assembly.



Virginia bars Negroes from the polls. (Jordan, 126)

Virginia prohibits manumission of Negroes. (Jordan, 124)



Pennsylvania adopts an anti-miscegenation law.



Stono slave rebellion in South Carolina. (Davis, xii)



Slave conspiracy uncovered in New York City. Many hanged and burned at the stake. (Davis, xii)



Massachusetts prohibits Negroes from participating in a government lottery. (Jordan, 130)



British government sanctions slavery in Georgia, prohibited in 1735. (Davis, xii)

Georgia adopts an anti-miscegenation law after Negroes are admitted into the colony. (Jordan, 139)



Quakers begin pre-Revolution antislavery agitation. (Jordan, 271)



Carl Linnaeus develops a simple classificatory system of races — Caucasian, Ethiopian, Mongolian, and American — based largely on external, visible factors. (Brown and Stentiford, 528)



The word and concept of “prejudice” comes into circulation in the years after 1760. (Jordan, 276)



Georgia restricts suffrage to White men. (Jordan, 126)



Virginia disenfranchises Negroes. (Keyssar, 354)



Treaty of Paris ends the Seven Years War between Britain and France. (Nugent, 7)

Proclamation Line issued which prohibits American settlement in Transappalachia. (Nugent, 7)

The first known Asians arrive in the United States when a group of Filipinos known as the Louisiana Manila Men developed settlements in Louisiana. These individuals fail to attain U.S. citizenship, as the Naturalization Act of 1790 only granted citizenship to free Whites. (Brown and Stentiford, 48)



Virginia establishes castration as the penalty for convicted Black rapists of White women. (Jordan, 473)



Denial of Negro mental inferiority becoming common place in antislavery circles. Benjamin Franklin thought Negroes “not deficient in natural Understanding,” though Alexander Hamilton seemed less certain when he remakred that “their natural faculties are perhaps probably as good as ours.” (Jordan, 282)



Delaware forbids Negroes from administering corporal punishment to Whites. (Jordan,131)



New England slaves petition legislatures for freedom. Increasing numbers of antislavery tracts are published in America. (Davis, xii)



Rhode Island prohibits slave trade. (Jordan, 291)

Rhode Island raises a separate battalion of Negroes to fight in the American Revolution; Georgia and South Carolina hold out to the end. (Jordan, 302)

Quebec Act infuriates American colonials which extends the southern border of Quebec to the Ohio River. (Nugent, 7)


1775-1783, American Revolution

Negro soldiers participate in virtually every major military action of the American Revolution. (Litwack, 12)

George Washington orders recruiting officers not to enlist “any deserter from within the Ministerial army, nor any stroller, Negro, or vagabond.” (Klinker and Smith, 17)

5,000 Negro soldiers participate in the American Revolution. (Brown and Stentiford, 281)



Johann Friedrich Blumenbach adds “Malayans” to Linnaeus’s racial classification system. (Brown and Stentiford, 528)

Battles of Lexington and Concord inaugurate the American Revolution. (Nugent, 14)

Lord Dunmore, royal governor of Virginia, promises freedom to any slaves who desert rebellious masters and serve in the king’s forces, an offer taken up by some eight hundred Blacks. (Davis, xii)

The first secular antislavery organization is founded, The Society for the Relief of Free Negroes. (Jordan, 343)

Maryland and the Northern colonies do not officially bar Negroes from the polls until the Revolution. (Jordan, 126)



Declaration of Independence describes Indians as “merciless Indian Savages.” (Nugent, 4)

Thomas Jefferson’s indictment of slavery is removed from the Declaration of Independence out of fear that the Southern colonies, especially South Carolina and Georgia, would refuse to sign. (Brown and Stentiford, 462)

Thomas Paine publishes incendiary pamphlet Common Sense. (Nugent, 7)



Vermont’s constitution outlaws slavery. (Davis, xii, Jordan, 345)

Americans defeat British at Saratoga. (Nugent, 17)

Georgia disenfranchises Negroes. (Keyssar, 354)



The French forge an alliance with the Americans. (Nugent, 17)



As the American Revolution shifts to the Deep South, John Laurens of South Carolina proposes arming three thousand slaves with promise of freedom. The Continental Congress approves, but the South Carolina legislature rejects the proposal. (Davis, xii)

Thomas Jefferson’s revisal of the laws of Virginia calls for banishment of White women who have mulatto children: “If any white woman shall have a child by a Negro or mulatto, she and her child shall depart the commonwealth within one year thereafter. If they shall fail so to do, the woman shall be out of the protection of the laws, and the child shall be bound out by the Aldermen of the county, in like manner as poor orphans are by law directed to be, and within one year after its term of service expired shall depart the commonwealth, or on failure so to do, shall be out of the protection of the laws.” (Jordan, 472)

South Carolina disenfranchises Negroes. (Keyssar, 354)



Adoption of the Articles of Confederation. (Nugent, 7)



Pennsylvania adopts a gradual emancipation law. (Davis, xii, Jordan, 345)

Revolutionary era constitutions of Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia exclude Negroes from the franchise. (Jordan, 412)

An estimated 200,000 to 250,000 Indians are living east of the Misssissippi. By 1780, almost all Indians have been pushed west of the Appalachians. (Nugent, 10)



Thomas Jefferson writes his Notes on the State of Virginia.



Defeat of the British and Yorktown and surrender of Lord Cornwallis. (Nugent, 4)



Virginia legislature authorizes private manumission of slaves. (Jordan, 574)

British and Americans sign preliminary peace treaty. (Nugent, 4)



Treaty of Paris extends recognition to the United States as an independent nation. Acquisition of Transappalachia. (Nugent, 4)

In Massachusetts, the case of Commonwealth v. Jennison is interpreted as removing any judicial sanctions for slavery. (Davis, xii)

Kentucky and Tennessee no longer seriously contested between Whites and Indians. (Nugent, 48)



The Pennsylvania Abolition Society is formed. (Davis, xii)

Connecticut and Rhode Island enact gradual emancipation laws. Congress narrowly rejects Jefferson’s proposal to exclude slavery from all Western territories after the year 1800. The New York Manumission Society is organized. (Davis, xii)



The New York assembly passes a gradual emancipation bill which would have barred Negroes from the polls and from marrying Whites, but the state senate objected to the intermarriage clause because “in so important a connection they thought the free subjects of this State ought to be left to their free choice.” The New York assembly voted again to keep the anti-miscegenation clause, but ultimately receded on it. (Jordan, 741-472)

John Jay and Alexander Hamilton chair the New York Manumission Society. (Litwack, 14)



In Massachusetts, an act of 1786 voids marriages between Whites and Negroes. (Jordan, 472)

Massachusetts legislature votes to expel all Negroes who are not citizens of one of the states. (Litwack, 16)



Thomas Jefferson publishes Notes on State of Virginia, endorses racialism, Negro intellectual inferiority, and calls for the colonization of free Blacks to their native climate. (Jordan, 547)

The Constitution Convention agrees to count three-fifths of a state’s slave population in apportioning representation; to forbid Congress from ending the slave trade until 1808; and to require that fugitive slaves who cross state lines be surrendered to their owners. The Continental Congress enacts the Northwest Ordinance, prohibiting slavery in the territories north of the Ohio and east of the Mississippi rivers. (Davis, xiii)

The U.S. Constitution specifically excludes Indian nations from inclusion in the American political system. Classified as foreign nations and “Indians not taxed,” the Constitution gave Congress exclusive jurisdiction for dealing with Indian tribes. (Brown and Stentiford, 579)

U.S. antislavery movement becomes interested in vindicating Negro mental equality in reponse to Jefferson’s racial theories in his Notes on the State of Virginia. Equalitarianism will become a standard theme of abolitionist literature during the 1790s. (Jordan, 445-446)

South Carolina bans slave importations. (Jordan, 318)

All the states have by now banned the slave trade. (Jordan, 342)

Northwest Ordinance prohibits slavery in the Northwest Territory. (Jordan, 322)

Delaware legislature authorizes private manumission of slaves. (Jordan, 347)


1789-1797, George Washington Adminstration



An “Address to the Public” by the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, signed by its president, Benjamin Franklin, declared that the chains which bound the slave’s body “do also fetter his intellectual faculties; and impair the social affections of his heart.” (Jordan, 447)

William Pinkney, a famous Maryland state legislator, attacks slavery by arguing that Negroes and Whites were “endued with equal faculties of mind and body.” He goes on to state that Negroes are “in all respects our equals by nature; and he who thinks otherwise has never reflected, that talents, however great, may perish unnoticed and unknown, unless auspicious circumstances conspire to draw them forth, and animate their exertions in the round of knowledge.” (Jordan, 447)



National campaign waged to racially cleanse America of Blacks, Virginia in particular, which contains 40% of America’s black population. (Jordan, 542)


New Jersey passes a law that allows all “qualified” inhabitants to vote. (Keyssar, 54)

Quakers and the Pennsylvania Abolition Society petition Congress to use its fullest constitutional powers to discourage slavery and slave trade; the petitions evoke angry debate and attacks on petitioners by congressmen from the Deep South. (Davis, xiii)

Charles Crawford attacks Jefferson’s racialism in his Observations Upon Negro Slavery.

The first federal naturalization law, the Naturalization Act of 1790, restricts American citizenship to “free white persons.” (Jordan, 341)

An estimated 61 to 66 percent of Americans are of English origin and between 80 and 84 percent of English-speaking origin. (Jordan, 339)

Maryland legislature authorizes private manumission of slaves. (Jordan, 347)

Proportion of Free Negroes:

Delaware: 30.5%
Maryland: 7.2%
Virginia: 4.2%
North Carolina: 4.8%
South Carolina: 1.7%
Georgia: 1.3% (Jordan, 407)



Haitian Revolution. (Nugent, 58)



Vermont admitted to the Union. (Keyssar, 352)



Kentucky admitted to the Union. (Nugent, 44)

Virginia legislature specifically declares castration to be a permissible punishment for any slave “convicted of an attempt to ravish a white woman.” (Jordan, 473)

Gilbert Imlay attacks Jeffersonian racialism in his A Topographical Descritpion of the Western Territory of North America. (Jordan, 441-442)

Eli Whitney’s invention of the cotton gin strengthens slavery. (Jordan, 316-317)

Virginia slave code restricts the right of free Negroes to purchase servants only of their own complexion. (Jordan, 407)

Congress passes a federal militia law which includes only “white” men. (Jordan, 412)

Delaware disenfranchies Negroes. (Keyssar, 354)



Congress enacts a fugitive slave law. (Jordan, 327)

Virginia prohibits immigration of free Negroes. (Farnam, 199-200)



Congress passes a law forbidding Americans from participating in the international slave trade. (Jordan, 327)



Before the mid-1790s many states extended to Negro slaves the right of trial by jury in capital cases. Racial attitudes begin to harden again about ten years after the American Revolution. (Jordan, 403)

Treaty of Greenville. Indians cede title to 3/4ths of the future state of Ohio. (Nugent, 44)

Treaty of San Lorenzo. Acquisition of the Yazoo Strip (Southern Mississippi and Southern Alabama) from Spain. (Nugent, 100)



Decline of the first antislavery movement. (Jordan, 348)



Tennessee admitted to the Union. (Nugent, 44)

Maryland legislature authorizes private manumission of slaves. (Jordan, 347)


1797-1801, John Adams Adminstration


Connecticut adopts another gradual emancipation law. (Litwack, 3)



The Secretaries of War and Navy issue separate directives forbidding Negro enlistment in the Marine Corps and on naval warships. (Litwack, 32)

Rhode Island passes a law that bans interracial marriage between Blacks and Whites. (Jordan, 472)

Kentucky legislature authorizes private manumission of slaves. (Jordan, 347)



New York adopts a law for gradual emancipation. (Davis, xiv)

Kentucky disenfranchises Negroes. (Keyssar, 354))



Until the post Civil War-era, Northerners draw a sharp distinction between Negro civic equality, of which they approved, and political and society equality, which they did not. (Litwack, 15)



41,085 Negroes in Kentucky. (Brown and Stentiford, 437)

A slave conspiracy known as Gabriel’s Rebellion is foiled in Richmond, Virginia. (Hinks and McKivigan, xxxix)

Rhode Island legislature declares no paternity suits could be brought by Negro women against white men. (Jordan, 472)

South Carolina outlaws residence of free Negroes. (Jordan, 399)


1801-1809, Thomas Jefferson Administration


Tennessee legislature authorizes private manumission of slaves. (Jordan, 347)

Maryland statute disenfranchises Negroes. (Keyssar, 354)



James T. Callender makes his famous charge in the Richmond Recorder that it was “well known” that Thomas Jefferson kept Sally Hemmings, one of his slaves, as a concubine and had fathered children by her. (Jordan, 465)



Georgia relinquishes claim to Alabama and Mississippi in exchange for a promise by the Jefferson administration that the federal government would seek voluntary removal of Indian tribes within her boundries. (Howe, 256)

Negroes excluded from suffrage in the District of Columbia. (Jordan, 412)

Ohio disenfranchises Negroes. (Jordan, 412) (Keyssar, 354)

Maryland disenfranchises Negroes. (Jordan, 412)

Ohio abolishes slavery. (Litwack, 3)



The Louisiana Purchase doubles the territory of the United States and ultimately leads to an intense debate over the expansion of slavery into regions like Missouri; South Carolina responds by opening the way to importation of thirty-eight thousand slaves before 1808. (Davis, xiv)

South Carolina reopens the slave trade. (Jordan, 318)

Ohio admitted to the Union.



New Jersey adopts a law for gradual emancipation. (Davis, xiv)

Both houses of the Virginia legislature adopt resolutions calling for removal of free Negroes. (Jordan, 565)

Clement Clarke Moore, a New York scholar of Hebrew with Federalist sympathies, attacks Jefferson’s racial views in his Observations upon Certain Passages in Mr. Jefferson’s Notes on Virginia, Which Appear to Have a Tendency to Subvert Religion. (Jordan, 442)

Ohio restricts immigration of free Negroes. (Farnam, 220)



Yet again, both houses of the Virginia legislature adopt resolutions calling for the removal of free Negroes. The resolution of 1805 instructed Virginia congressmen to press for a portion of the Louisiana Territory for settlement of free Negroes. (Jordan, 565)

Virginia revises penal code and abolishes castration. (Jordan, 473)



Hudgins v. Wright, the court decides that three generations of women with straight black hair were Indian, not black, and therefore free. (Brown and Stentiford, 535)

Virginia restricts the right of masters to manumit their slaves; free Blacks must leave the state within one year. (Jordan, 574)

Ohio already prohibiting permanent residence of Negroes. (Jordan, 575)

Georgia enacts a mandatory death penalty for any Negro raping or attempting to rape a white woman. (Jordan, 473)

Waning of colonization movement. (Jordan, 565)



Slave trade abolished in the United States. (Hinks and McKivigan, xxxix)

Maryland prohibits permanent residence of free Negroes. (Jordan, 575)

Louisiana prohibits immigration of free Negroes. (Farnam, 199-200)

Delaware bans racial intermarriage. (Jordan, 472)

Delaware prohibits immigration of free Negroes. (Farnam, 220)

New Jersey disenfranchises Negroes. “No person shall vote in any state or county election for officers in the government of the United States or of this state, unless such person be a free, white male citizen.” (Keysser, 54)

Ohio restricts immigration of free Negroes. (Farnam, 220)



U.S. Congress outlaws participation in the African slave trade. (Davis, xiv)

Delaware rescinds ban on racial intermarriage owing to confusion in other matters of the law. (Jordan, 427)

Negroes excluded from suffrage in the Mississippi and Indiana territories. (Jordan, 412)

Kentucky prohibits immigration of free Negroes. (Farnam, 199-200)


1809-1817, James Madison Administration


Maryland constitution disenfranchises Negroes (Keyssar, 354)

South Carolina disenfranchises Negroes. (Keyssar, 354)

Reverend Samuel Stanhope Smith attacks Jefferson’s racialism in his An Essay on the Causes of the Variety of Complexion and Figure in the Human Species. He argues in a Boasian vein that the Negro skull and intellect has been deformed by his harsh environment. (Jordan, 443)

West Florida west of the Pearl River taken from Spain after uprising by American settlers. (Nugent, 100)

No slaves reported in New Hampshire. (Jordan, 345)

Proportion of Free Negroes:

Delaware: 75.9%
Maryland: 23.3%
Virginia: 7.2%
North Carolina: 5.7%
South Carolina: 2.3%
Georgia: 1.7% (Jordan, 407)

All Southern and two Northern states pass laws either restricting immigration of free Negroes, banning it altogether, or requiring emigration of emancipated slaves. (Jordan, 410)

Congress bans Negroes from carrying U.S. mails. (Litwack, 31)



The German Coast Slave Insurrection erupts in Louisiana. (Hinks and McKivigan, xxxix)

Tecumseh attempts to rally the Indians of the Old Northwest and Old Southwest against the American advance. (Nugent, 47)

Delaware prohibits immigration of free Negroes. (Farnam, 220)



Louisiana admitted to the Union. (Nugent, 70)

Louisiana disenfranchises Negroes. (Keyssar, 354)

James Madison’s war message references Indian attacks along the Northwestern frontier, “the warfare just renewed by the savages on one of our extensive frontiers – a warfare which is known to spare neither age nor sex and to be distinguished by features peculiarly shocking to humanity.” (Nugent, 82)


1812-1814, War of 1812

Negro soldiers participate in the War of 1812. (Brown and Stentiford, 281)



The rest of West Florida is taken from Spain in the “patriot war.” (Nugent, 100)



Creek War. (Nugent, 117)



Treaty of Fort Jackson. Creeks are forced to cede much of their land in Alabama and Georgia. (Nugent, 227)



Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, North Carolina and Pennsylvania prohibit or drastically restrict voting by Negroes. (Jordan, 414)



Andrew Jackson defeats the British at the Battle of New Orleans. (Nugent, 74)



Bishop Richard Allen founds the African Methodist Episcopal Church. (Brown and Stentiford, 252)

Indiana admitted to the Union.

Indiana abolishes slavery. (Litwack, 3)

Indiana disenfranchises Negroes. (Keyssar, 354)

Virginia state legislature overwhelmingly endorses colonization of free Blacks in West Africa. In the next few years, the legislatures of Maryland, Kentucky, Tennessee, and six northern states follow Virginia’s example in endorsing colonization; so did the national governing bodies of the Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, and Episcopal denominations. (Howe, 261-262)

20% of free Blacks remain favorably disposed to emigration during the years from 1817 to the Civil War. (Howe, 263)

Choctaw cession in West Alabama. Creek cession in North Alabama. Chickasaw cession in West Alabama. (Howe, 354)

American Colonization Society formed to promote the colonization of free Blacks in Africa. (Davis, xiv)

The legislatures of fourteen states endorse Negro colonization. (Litwack, 24)

The Virginia House of Delegates resolves (137 to 9) that the governor correspond with the U.S. president concerning a suitable territory for the colonization and removal of free Negroes. (Jordan, 565)


1817-1825, James Monroe Administration

Under the Monroe administration, Secretary of War John C. Calhoun encourages gradual resettlement of Southern Indian tribes across the Mississippi. (Howe, 255)



New York adopts a law that frees all remaining slaves in 1827. (Davis, xiv)

Mississippi admitted to the Union. (Nugent, 225)

Mississippi disenfranchises Negroes. (Keyssar, 354)

Indiana passes an anti-miscegenation law. (Farnam, 216)



Creek cession in Georgia. Chickasaw cession in Tennessee and Kentucky. (Howe, 354)

Black males lose the right to vote in Connecticut. (Howe, 497)

First Seminole War. (Nugent, 122)

Illinois abolishes slavery. (Litwack, 3)

Connecticut disenfranchises Negroes. (Keyssar, 354)

Illinois disenfranchises Negroes (Keyssar, 354)

Georgia prohibits immigration of free Negroes. (Farnam, 199-200)



Maine admitted to the Union. (Litwack, 31)

Alabama admitted to the Union.

Alabama disenfranchises Negroes (Keyssar, 354)



The Missouri Crisis, followed by the Compromise of 1820 and further debate over Missouri’s constitution, which restricts entry of free Blacks and mulattos. (Davis, xiv)



Adams-Onís Treaty. Acquisition of Florida by the United States. (Nugent, 96)

Appropriation from the Monroe administration supports the American Colonization Society.

Alabama admitted to the Union. (Nugent, 225)

Cherokee cession in North Carolina (Howe, 354)

In the states admitted after 1819, every one but Maine disenfranchised Blacks. (Howe, 497)



Maine admitted to the Union.

By 1820, free Negroes could not exercise certain rights and privileges guaranteed to American citizens and aliens. (Litwack, 33)

Congress authorizes the citizens of Washington, D.C. to elect “white” city officials and to adopt a code governing free Negroes and slaves. (Litwack, 31)

New Jersey, Maryland, and Connecticut had allowed free Negroes to vote during the first years of independence, but restrict suffrage to Whites before 1820. (Keyssar, 55)

Missouri forbids “free Negroes and mulattoes from coming to and settling in this State.” Provokes controversy in Congress. Several northern states had accorded citizenship to their black residents. (Howe, 155-156)

Choctaw cession in Mississippi. (Howe, 354)

South Carolina prohibits immigration of free Negroes. (Farnam, 199-200)

Congress passes the Missouri Compromise prohibiting slavery north of the southern border of the new state of Missouri. (Hinks and McKivigan, xl)

American Colonization Society makes its first attempt at African colonization by setling 86 Negroes and their families on Sherbro Island off the west coast of Africa. (Brown and Stentiford, 59)

The U.S. government announces that “No Negro or mulatto will be received as a recruit of the Army.” (Brown and Stentiford, 281)



Missouri admitted to the Union. (Nugent, 128)

Missouri disenfranchies Negroes. (Keyssar, 354)

New York eliminates property qualification for white men; black men are required to have a net worth of $250 to vote, Negroes effectively disenfranchised. (Howe, 239)

The U.S. Navy helps the American Colonization Society purchase land from indigenous Africans adjacent to Sierra Leone to found Liberia. The capital, Monrovia, is named in honor of President James Monroe. (Howe, 262)

Creek cession in Georgia. (Howe, 354)

Maine passes an anti-miscegenation law. (Farnam, 216)

American Colonization Society establishes the colony of Liberia on the west coast of Africa. (Brown and Stentiford, 59)



Slave conspiracy of Denmark Vesey, perhaps the largest in U.S. history, is foiled in Charleston, South Carolina. (Hinks and McKivigan, xliv) Vesey plots to kill all the Whites of Charleston. (Howe, 162)

The American Colonization Society, acting with federal assistance, establishes the colony of Liberia on the west coast of Africa for the resettlement on that continent of the American Negro. (Hinks and McKivigan, xl)

Black males lose the right to vote in Rhode Island. (Howe, 497)

Mississippi prohibits immigration of free Negroes. (Farnam, 199-200)



Seminole cession in North Florida. (Howe, 354)



Ohio state legislature passes a resolution proposing African colonization linked with gradual emancipation. The resolution is soon seconded by seven other free states and Delaware. (Howe, 265)

Elizabeth Heyrick anonymously publishes the pamphlet Immediate, not Gradual Emancipation. (Hinks and McKivigan, xl)


1825-1829, John Quincy Adams Administration


Indian Removal in the Old Southwest (Five Civilized Tribes) and Old Northwest (Shawnees, Sac and Fox, Potawatomies, Miamis). In 1825, the War Department estimated that more than 50,000 Indians were in Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi. By 1838, more than 80,000 Indians had been removed to Oklahoma, Kansas, and Nebraska. As of 1855, only 8,500 Indians lived east of the Mississippi. The Old Southwest together with Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana were basically Indian free by 1842. (Nugent, 229)



The first minstrel shows appear. (Howe, 639)



Senator Rufus King of New York proposes an African colonization program to be funded by Western land sales. (Howe, 264)



Creek cession in Georgia. (Howe, 354)

North Carolina prohibits immigration of free Negroes. (Farnam, 199-200)

Florida Territory prohibits immigration of free Negroes. (Farnam, 199-200)



Gradual emancipation comes to an end in New York. Slavery abolished. (Howe, 174)

Michigan Territory restricts immigration of free Negroes. (Farnam, 220)

Fouding of America’s first Negro newspaper, Freedom’s Journal. (Hinks and McKivigan, xl)

Several slave states begin to invest in Liberia. They organize themselves independently of the ACS and established colonies in an effort to transport free Negroes to Liberia. Approximately 11,000 Negroes relocated before the movement ended. (Brown and Stentiford, 59)



Moses Elias Levy, the most prominent Jewish abolitionist in the United States, publishes his Plan for the Abolition of Slavery. (Hinks and McKivigan, xl)

Abolitionist Benjamin Lundy begins publication of his newspaper, The Genius of Universal Emanicpation. (Hinks and McKivigan, xl)


1829-1837, Andrew Jackson Administration



Illinois passes an anti-miscegenation law. (Farnam, 216)



170,130 Negroes in Kentucky. (Brown and Stentiford, 438)

By 1830, whether by legislative, judicial, or constitutional action, Negro slavery had been virtually abolished in the North. Of the 3,568 Negro remaining in bondage, two-thirds resided in New Jersey. (Litwack, 14)

Indian Removal Act passes Congress. The Senate approved it by a vote of 28-19. Nearly every New England senator voted against, nearly every southern one voted for. (Nugent, 225)

Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek. Choctaw cession in Mississippi. (Howe, 354)

Georgia extends state law over the Cherokee Nation. (Howe, 414)

Mexico suspends immigration from the United States. Anglos outnumber Hispanics in Texas two to one. (Howe, 659-660)

Virginia constitution disenfranchises Negroes. (Keyssar, 354)



Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, John Marshall rules that the Cherokees are a “domestic dependent nation,” not a sovereign state. (Howe, 355)

William Lloyd Garrison begins publishing The Liberator, an abolitionist newspaper, in Boston. (Hinks and McKivigan, xl)

After 1831, abolitionists would vigorously denounce colonization. (Litwack, 27)

Before it is crushed, Nat Turner’s Rebellion leads to the death of sixty Whites in Southampton County, Virginia. (Hinks and McKivigan, xl)

Tennessee prohibits immigration of free Negroes. (Farnam, 199-200)



Worcester v. Georgia, U.S. Supreme Court strikes down anti-Cherokee statutes, but Georgia is supported by Andrew Jackson and the Democratic majority in Congress. (Nugent, 225)

Following the Nat Turner slave rebellion, Virginia debates colonization of slaves and free Blacks abroad. Both sides in the debate agree that Virginia should be a “white man’s country.” (Howe, 326)

Seminole cession in South Florida. (Howe, 354)

Creek cession in East Alabama; given land in Oklahoma. (Howe, 354)

Chickasaw cession in North Mississippi. (Howe, 354)

Georgia holds a lottery that raffles off unoccupied Cherokee lands to white ticket holders. (Howe, 415)

Founding of the New England Anti-Slavery Society (NEASS) in Boston. (Hinks and McKivigan, xl)

Alabama prohibits immigration of free Negroes. (Farnam, 199-200)

Formation of racially integrated Boston Female Anti-Slavery Society. (Hinks and McKivigan, xl)



Kentucky legislature passes a law banning slave imports. (Brown and Stentiford, 437)

American writer Lydia Maria Childs publishes An Appeal in Favor of That Class of Americans Called Africans. (Hinks and McKivigan, xl)

Lucretia Mott and other women, both Negro and White, form the Philadelphia Female Anti-Slavery Society. (Hinks and McKivigan, xl)

The American Anti-Slavery Society (AASS) is founded in Philadelphia; the group favors the immediate emancipation of American slaves. (Hinks and McKivigan, xl)



Tennessee disenfranchises Negroes. (Keyssar, 354)

Massachusetts repeals its anti-miscegenation law. (Farnam, 216)



Second Seminole War. (Howe, 516)



Treaty of New Echota. Cherokee cession in Northwest Georgia, South Tennessee, Northeast Alabama. Cherokees trade their ancestral homeland for $5 million dollars and land in Oklahoma. (Howe, 415)

Black males lose the right to vote in North Carolina. (Howe, 497) The word “white” is added to North Carolina’s constitutional requirement. (Keyssar, 55)

Texas Revolution begins. In the U.S., supported by the South and West, criticized in the Northeast. (Howe, 661-662)

Texas legalizes slavery and declares free Blacks have no rights. (Nugent, 152)

An extensive postal campaign by the American Anti-Slavery Society uses the postal system to send abolitionist literature throughout the country and especially into the south. (Hinks and McKivigan, xl)

Alexis de Tocqueville, a French traveller in the United States of the 1830s, publishes his Democracy in America, in which he calls slavery “evil.”



Arkansas admitted to the Union. (Keyssar, 342)

Arkansas disenfranchises Negroes. (Keyssar, 354)

Second Creek War. U.S. Army used to deport Creeks to Oklahoma. (Howe, 417)

Anglos outnumber Hispanics ten to one in Texas. (Howe, 660)

Battle of the Alamo. (Howe, 665)

Goliad Massacre. (Howe, 665)

Texas independence declared. Anglo-Texans almost exclusively Southerners and wage race war against mestizos. Northerners regard Texas as an outpost of slavery. Their opposition prevents the annexation of Texas under the Van Buren administration. (Howe, 665-666, 670)

Southern members of the House of Representatives force passage of the Gag Rule; barring petitions relating to slavery to be read in the House. (Hinks and McKivigan, xl)

Founding of the New York Committee of Vigilance, one of the most radical Negro abolition societies in the United States. (Hinks and McKivigan, xl)

In its decision on Commonwealth v. Aves, the Massachusetts Supreme Court sets an important precedent by declaring that slavery cannot exist in Massachusetts except as it is regarded by the U.S. Constitution; thus, any slave brought to the state was immediately freed and the only slaves that could exist in Massachusetts were fugitive slaves whose return was mandated by the federal Fugitive Slave Act. (Hinks and McKivigan, xl)


1837-1841, Martin Van Buren Administration



Michigan admitted to the Union.

Michigan disenfranchises Negroes. (Keyssar, 354)

The Anti-Slavery Convention of American Women holds its first meeting in New York. (Hinks and McKivigan, xli)

An angry mob in Illinois murders abolitionist publisher Elijah P. Lovejoy as he attempts to prevent destruction of his press. (Hinks and McKivigan, xli)



Trail of Tears. Deporation of Cherokees to Oklahoma. (Howe, 416)



Pennsylvania restricts voting rights to Whites. (Keyssar, 55)

David Ruggles publishes the first Negro magazine in the U.S., the Mirror of Liberty. (Hinks and McKivigan, xli)



Texas ethnically cleanses Creeks, Cherokees, and other Indians from east Texas. (Nugent, 155)

Formation in the United States of the antislavery Liberty Party. (Hinks and McKivigan, xli)

Abolitionists Theodore Dwight Weld, Angelina Grimke Weld, and Sarah Grimke publish their antislavery pamphlet, American Slavery As It Is: Testimony of a Thousand Witnesses. (Hinks and McKivigan, xli)

Led by Joseph Cinque, one of their numbers, the Africans being carried to slavery aboard the Spanish ship Amistad, rise against their captors and seize control of the vessel; the ship is intercepted by the American navy and taken to New London, Connecticut, in August. (Hinks and McKivigan, xli)



Minstrel shows explode in popularity. (Howe, 639)



Iowa constitution includes anti-miscegenation clause. (Farnam, 216)

Texas prohibits immigration of free Negroes. (Farnam, 199-200)

Brothers Lewis and Arthur Tarpan found the American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society. (Hinks and McKivigan, xlii)

The New York Legislature enacts a law requiring jury trials for Negroes accused of being fugitives from slavery. (Hinks and McKivigan, xlii)

U.S. Circuit Court Judge Andrew T. Judson rules that the Amistad mutineers are not slaves. (Hinks and McKivigan, xlii)


1841, William Henry Harrison Administration


1841-1845, John Tyler Administration



U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments in the Amistad case. (Howe, 521)

In the wake of the Dorr Rebellion, Rhode Island adopts a “Law and Order” constitution that enfranchises taxpaying Negro males. (Howe, 602)

Former president John Quincy Adams delivers final arguments before the Supreme Court in defense of the thirty-four Negro captives from the Amistad. The U.S. Supreme Court rules that the Amistad captives were never legally slaves and thus are free to return to Africa. (Hinks and McKivigan, xlii)

A slave insurrection erupts aboard the Creole, an American trading vessel carrying tobacoo and slaves to New Orleans. (Hinks and McKivigan, xlii)



The Anglo-American Webster-Ashburton Treaty establishes the Africa Squadron, an American naval squadron charged with patrolling the west coast of Africa to intercept any American vessels illegally engaged in the slave trade. (Hinks and McKivigan, xlii)



4,291 American Negroes have settled in Liberia; over ten thousand more would come before the Civil War. (Howe, 262)

Arkansas prohibits immigration of free Negroes. (Farnam, 199-200)

Missouri prohibits immigration of free Negroes. (Farnam, 199-200)

Reverend Stephen Symonds Foster publishes The Brotherhood of Thieves, or a True Picture of the American Church, a searing indictment of American evangelical Christians for their complicity in the sin of slavery. (Hinks and McKivigan, xlii)



The continuous efforts of Congressman John Quincy Adams, a former president of the United States lead to the repeal of the Gag Rule. (Hinks and McKivigan, xlii)

Ralph Waldo Emerson gives an important speech (commemorating the tenth anniversary of emancipation in the British West Indies) affirming the human dignity of Negroes. (Howe, 625)

Secretary of State John C. Calhoun signs a treaty of annexation with Texas. It is later defeated in the Senate by Northern Whigs, 35-16. (Howe, 679)

Oregon bans free black settlers. (Nugent, 175)

Rhode Island passes an anti-miscegenation law. (Farnam, 216)



New York, Ohio, Indiana, and Wisconsin reaffirm racial exclusion of Negroes from the polls in constitutional conventions or popular referenda. (Keyssar, 55)



Florida admitted to the Union. (Keyssar, 342)

Florida disenfranchises Negroes. (Keyssar, 354)

Annexation of Texas, a large slave state, under John Tyler. (Davis, xiv, Howe, 699)

Texas admitted to the Union. (Nugent, 155)

Texas disenfranchises Negroes. (Keyssar, 354)

Former slave Frederick Douglass publishes his influential Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave, Written by Himself. (Hinks and McKivigan, xlii)

Abolitionist Lysander Spooner publishes the first part of his famous work, The Unconstitutionality of Slavery; the second part of the work appears in 1847.


1845-1849, James K. Polk Administration


1846-48, Mexican War

The Mexican War leads to the annexation of much Western territory, including California, thereby igniting much controversy over the expansion of slavery. (Davis, xiv)

Negro soldiers do not participate in the Mexican War. (Brown and Stentiford, 281)



Wilmot Proviso passed repeatedly by the House of Representatives. Called the “White Man’s Proviso,” Wilmot’s declared purpose was to “preserve free white labor a fair country, a rich inheritance, where the sons of toil, of my own race and own color, can live without the disgrace which association with Negro slavery brings free labor.” Endorsed by ten Northern state legislatures. (Howe, 767-768)



War breaks out between the United States and Mexico. (Hinks and McKivigan, xlii)

The American Missionary Association (AMA) is organized to provide benevolent and educational assistance to Negroes and Indians. (Hinks and McKivigan, xlii)

Iowa admitted to the Union.

Iowa disenfranchises Negroes (Keyssar, 354)

Michigan passes an anti-miscegenation law. (Farnam, 216)



Missouri bans all free black settlers. (Howe, 157)

Former slave Frederick Douglass publishes the first issue of his abolitionist newspaper, North Star. (Hinks and McKivigan, xlii)

Liberia, the West African colony of resettled Negroes, becomes independent. (Hinks and McKivigan, xlii)



Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo is signed, ending the Mexican-American War and transferring large tracts of territory from Mexico to the United States. (Hinks and McKivigan, xliii) Mexican Cession of the American Southwest. (Nugent, 187)

Wisconsin admitted to the Union.

The first women’s rights convention held in the United States, the Seneca Falls Convention, meets in Seneca Falls, New York. (Hinks and McKivigan, xliii)

The Free Soil Party is established in Buffalo, New York, by antislavery members of the Whig and Liberty parties. (Hinks and McKivigan, xliii)

Congressman David Wilmot of Pennsylvania introduces into Congress a measure to ban slavery in all territories gained from Mexico. (Hinks and McKivigan, xliii)

Wisconsin disenfranchises Negroes. (Keyssar, 354)

Illinois prohibits immigration of free Negroes. (Farnam, 220)

The discovery of gold in California leads to the first large-scale arrival of Asians in the United States. (Brown and Stentiford, 48)


1849-1850, Zachary Taylor Administration



Oregon Territory prohibits immigration of free Negroes. (Farnam, 220)



Martin R. Delany leads a “Back to Africa” movement.

Acquisition of the Guano Islands. (Nugent, 240)



The federal census first begins taking note of mulattoes. (Brown and Stentiford, 534)

Origin of “separate but equal” doctrine in Robert v. the City of Boston. (Brown and Stentiford, 106)

Former slave Harriet Tubman becomes a conductor on the Underground Railroad in Maryland. (Hinks and McKivigan, xliii)

With assistance from other abolitionists, illiterate former slave Sojournor Truth publishes her memoirs, The Narrative of Sojournor Truth: A Northern Slave. (Hinks and McKivigan, xliii)

In a speech delivered on a debate on the Compromise of 1850, Senator William H. Seward speaks of a “higher law” beyond the Constitution, i.e., God’s law, that demands no compromise with slavery. (Hinks and McKivigan, xliii)

Congress passes the Compromise of 1850, a series of measures designed to compose differences between the North and South over the disposition of the new Western territories won from Mexico; the Compromise features passage of a new, more stringent Fugitive Slave Law, replacing the act of 1793. (Hinks and McKivigan, xliii) Creates the territories of Utah and New Mexico. (Nugent, 218) The Compromise of 1850 denies Negroes the right to jury trials and banned them from testifying in legal proceedings. (Brown and Stentiford, 463)

California admitted to the Union. (Nugent, 218)

California disenfranchises Negroes. (Keyssar, 354)

California passes an anti-miscegenation law. (Farnam, 216)

Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 creates a federal bureaucracy to the facilitate the capture and return of escaped slaves. (Howe, 654)

Congress appoints three commissioners “to free the land west of the Cascades entirely of Indian title and to move all the Indians to some spot to the east.” (Nugent, 186)

Virginia constitution disenfranchises Negroes. (Keyssar, 354)

Kentucky legislature legalizes slave importation. (Brown and Stentiford, 437)



New Iowa constitution omits its anti-miscegenation clause. (Farnam, 216)

Indiana prohibits immigration of free Negroes. (Farnam, 220)

Iowa Territory prohibits immigration of free Negroes. (Farnam, 220)

Former slave Sojournor Truth delivers her famous speech, “Ar’nt I a Woman?,” at the women’s convention in Ohio. (Hinks and McKivigan, xliii)

Ontario becomes the first terminus of the Underground Railroad in the 1850s. (Hinks and McKivigan, xliii)

The so-called Jerry Rescue, involving the forcible rescue by northern abolitionists of an escaped slave being returned to the South, occurs in Syracuse, New York. (Hinks and McKivigan, xliii)



Indiana passes an anti-miscegenation law. (Farnam, 216)

Utah Territory passes an anti-miscegenation law. (Farnam, 216)

Harriet Beecher Stowe publishes her controversial novel, Uncle Tom’s Cabin. (Hinks and McKivigan, xliii)



Gadsden Purchase, acquistion of Southern Arizona and New Mexico. (Nugent,236)



George Fitzhugh publishes his first proslavery book, Sociology for the South, or the Failure of Free Society. (Hinks and McKivigan, xliii)

Founding of the Republican Party. (Brown and Stentiford, 678)

Congress passes the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which organized the two territories by applying the principle of popular sovereignty to determine if a state was to be free or slave; the measure effectively repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820. (Hinks and McKivigan, xliii)

Escaped slave Anthony Burns is arrested in Boston under the provisions of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850; despite demonstrations on his behalf, Burns is returned under guard to Virginia, although Boston abolitionists later purchase his freedom. (Hinks and McKivigan, xliii)



Only five states do not discriminate against Negroes in voting rights: Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire. These states contain only 4% of America’s free black population. Negroes also prohibited from voting in U.S. territories. (Keyssar, 55)

Kansas Territory passes an anti-miscegenation law. (Farnam, 216)

Washington Territory passes an anti-miscegenation law. (Farnam, 216)

Spurred by the arrest in Boston and return to captivity of escaped slave Anthony Burns, the Massachusetts Legislature passes a state personal liberty law to thwart future efforts to return escaped slaves in Massachusetts to bondage. (Hinks and McKivigan, xliii)

Two years of violence, known as “Bleeding Kansas,” erupts in Kansas Territory as pro- and anti-slave forces fight one another for control of the territorial legislature and thus the right to determine the status of slavery in the territory. (Hinks and McKivigan, xliv)



American pacifist Elihu Burritt publishes A Plan for Brotherly Co-Partnership of the North and South for the Peaceful Extinction of Slavery. (Hinks and McKivigan, xliv)

Proslavery Missourians destroy the free-soil town of Lawrence, Kansas, in an episode that becomes known as the “sack of Lawrence.” (Hinks and McKivigan, xliv)

Abolitionist John Brown and his sons murder five proslavery settlers at Pottawatomie Creek in Kansas in retaliation for the sack of Lawrence. (Hinks and McKivigan, xliv)



George Fitzhugh publishes his most famous proslavery volume, Cannibals All! or Slaves Without Masters. (Hinks and McKivigan, xliv)

Hinton Rowan Helper publishes his controversial book, The Impending Crisis of the South and How to Meet It, which decries the economic effects of slavery on the South and vehemently attacks the region, the Democratic Party, and Negroes. (Hinks and McKivigan, xliv)

Dred Scott decision denies citizenship to Blacks and denies Congress the right to legislate regarding slavery in the territories. (Davis, xv)

Oregon Territory prohibits immigration of free Negroes. (Farnam, 220)



Lincoln-Douglas debates in Illinois. (Davis, xv)

Minnesota admitted to the Union.

Segregation in baseball begins when the National Association of Baseball Players includes in its constitution a clause excluding “persons of color” from playing. (Brown and Stentiford, 585)



Oregon admitted to the Union. (Nugent, 186)

New Mexico Territory passes an anti-miscegenation law. (Farnam, 216)

Charles Darwin publishes On the Origin of Species. (Howe, 466)

John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry, Virginia, followed by his execution. (Davis, xv)





“I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political

equality of the White and Black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters

or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with White people;

and 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 from living together on terms of social

and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there

must be a 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.” ~ Abraham Lincoln, 1858