Posted on 02/01/2011 10:14:11 AM PST by ExGeeEye
In April of 1790, a black male slave child was born into the ownership of William Ellison of South Caroline. In keeping with the custom of the time, he was registered in the Ellison stock-book by the name of "April" (for the month of his birth) "Ellison" for his owner.
Apprenticed at 12, he was taught the trades of carpentry, blacksmithing and machining, as well as how to read, write, cipher and do basic bookkeeping. On June 8, 1816, his owner appeared before a magistrate (with five local freeholders as supporting witnesses) to gain permission to free April, now 26 years of age.
April Ellison set up shop and began manufacturing, among other things, cotton gins. In 1820 he petitioned to change his name to "William Ellison, Jr." for business purposes. His request was granted.
In time the black Ellison family joined the predominantly white Episcopalian church. On August 6, 1824 he was allowed to put a family bench on the first floor, among those of the wealthy white families. Other blacks, free and slave, and poor whites sat in the balcony. Another wealthy Negro family would later join the first floor worshippers.
He became one of South Carolina's major cotton gin manufacturers, selling his machines as far away as Mississippi. From February 1817 until the War Between the States commenced, his business advertisements appeared regularly in newspapers across the state. These included the Camden Gazette, the Sumter Southern Whig and the Black River Watchman.
In 1838 Ellison purchased on time 54.5 acres adjoining his original acreage from one Stephen D. Miller. He moved into a large home on the property. What made the acquisition notable was that Miller had served in the South Carolina legislature, both in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate, and while a resident of Stateburg had been governor of the state. Ellison's next door neighbor was Dr. W.W. Anderson, master of "Borough House, a magnificent 18th Century mansion. Anderson's son would win fame in the War Between the States as General "Fighting Dick" Anderson.
By 1847 Ellison owned over 350 acres, and more than 900 by 1860. He raised mostly cotton, with a small acreage set aside for cultivating foodstuffs to feed his family.
William Ellison died December 5, 1861.
You likely did not learn this in school.
Ellison's success was due in no small part to his use of slave labor. At first he rented the slaves of others, then began buying, and even (illegally) breeding slaves for sale. In 1840 he owned 30 slaves, and by 1860 he owned 63. His sons, who lived in homes on the property, owned an additional nine slaves.
Ellison and family were by no means unique. According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city. In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000. That year, the mean wealth of southern white men was $3,978 (4).
The Ellison family actively supported the Confederacy throughout the war. They converted nearly their entire plantation to the production of corn, fodder, bacon, corn shucks and cotton for the Confederate armies. They paid $5,000 in taxes during the war. They also invested more than $9,000 in Confederate bonds, treasury notes and certificates in addition to the Confederate currency they held. At the end, all this valuable paper became worthless.
As worthless, may I say, as the perpetual whinging of the professional victim class today.
Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ellison , http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm
No "Shaft"?
Best tell him them.
At the moment I’ll accept his report as accurate, given his credentials and the liklihood that, if he had let a personal race-based bias bend his conclusions, they should have gone the other way.
http://jhfc.duke.edu/johnhopefranklin/
Oops, he’s dead. So go ahead and attack his research and conclusions, since he can’t rise up and defend them.
Then by all means check out the figures for yourself and then tell me that they make sense to you. 1860 Census
If this same professor stated that 78% of all black men today suffer from the effects of slavery on their ancestors would you be so quick to accept his statement? Or would you say, "Whoa, that can't be right" and dig into it yourself?
At the same time, Mr. Ellison had no rights that a white man was bound to respect. He was not, and could never be a citizen of the U.S., or of the Confederacy had they won their independence. Being a wealthy slave owner didn't change that.
bttt
Given what I've been learning on the subject, I chouldn't be at all surprised to find that, in as cosmopolitan a town an New Orleans, every free household had at least one domestic slave, and anyone with a business two or more (being much cheaper than hired help).
Yes, I looked at the census link you provided. Doesn't contradict Dr. Franklin, by me.
Thank you for your participation. I will ask, but not demand, that you at least acknowledge that Black agriculture, Black business, Black enterprise of all kinds existed and throve during the slavery era, in part at least because they participated in the institution, and that they voluntarily lent material and personnel support, for pay, to the CSA and its armed forces.
I should be surprised that wasn't closer to 100%, at least to some degree. There are things in my family history that color my attitudes about things in my own life; why should that be not true of anyone else? The only question is one of degree, and whether there is anyone currently living who is justly to blame.
I will not presently dispute any part of your statement as to accuracy, although I have some cause to question it. Regardless, the absence of rights or citizenship do not seem to have been any impediment to his success.
Except the white households you mean. After all if 72% of all slaveholders in New Orleans were slaveholders then that would mean only 1100 of the 28,000 or so white families owned slaves, maybe 2 or 3 or 4 percent. Again, does that make sense to you?
Yes, I looked at the census link you provided. Doesn't contradict Dr. Franklin, by me.
If you accept that almost all black families in New Orleans owned slaves and almost none of the white ones did. Personally I find it hard to believe.
I will ask, but not demand, that you at least acknowledge that Black agriculture, Black business, Black enterprise of all kinds existed and throve during the slavery era, in part at least because they participated in the institution, and that they voluntarily lent material and personnel support, for pay, to the CSA and its armed forces.
I will say that there is a grain of truth in what you say, but not to the extent that you apparently believe. I will also say that I expect Black History Month will also me marked with myths and partial truths from both sides of the equation.
No I don't. Since you are using that tactic, good-bye.
BFL
Sorry. No racial bias was implied, certainly not on your part, just simple statistics. There were 4169 slaveholders in Orleans Parish in 1860. According to you about 3000 of them were black. That means 72% of all slave owners in New Orleans were black. There were 149,063 free white people in Orleans Parish compared with fewer than 11,000 free black people. That means fewer than 7% of all free people were black. If there were 32,500 families in Orleans Parish, roughly 4000 of which were black, and if there were 1170 white slave owners, and assuming almost all were family men then, that means according to the statistics you quoted fewer than 4% of all white families owned slaves as opposed to three quarters of all black families. So again I would ask, does that make any sense to you?
.
Sorry. No racial bias was implied,
_____________
SUREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.