It’s interesting how people bond to ancestry and certain aspects of history related to ancestors. However, how often have you heard someone talk about their slaveholding ancestor? There are all sorts of descendant organizations, but is there an organization for the descendants of slaveholders? I’d be surprised if there was, and I certainly can’t imagine anyone who would want to join.
Nonetheless, descendants of slaveholders are out there, and I’m one of them.
I don’t say this as a point of pride or a point of shame. I can find no reason to be proud for this, yet because I am of the mind that we stand on shaky ground when we dare to judge those of the past through our modern lense of morality, I do not assume shame. I have no stories passed down to me about my slaveholding ancestors, but having, through research, encountered ancestors who owned slaves, I can’t help but ask a number of unanswerable questions. I can only hope that the answers, if they could be found, would reflect favorably on the way the slaveholding ancestors treated their slaves. Though we find slaveholding repulsive today, I can’t do anything about how they thought about slaveholding back then. I can, however, reflect on this matter.
No, the one Virginia slaveholding ancestor that I know of was not a Confederate. In fact, none of my Confederate ancestors were slaveholders. If anything, it is ironic that one slaveholding ancestor, whose two sons later served in the Confederate army (33rd Va. Infantry, Stonewall Brigade), actually ceased to be a slaveholder sometime after 1850. I have no idea whether he sold or freed the slaves. I think it is also interesting that this same ancestor almost died at the hands of a rabid secessionist for expressing his feeling of Unionism in 1860 and 61.
I also have a Kentucky ancestor who owned one slave in 1850, but had not owned one in 1840, and did not continue to own any slaves as of the 1860 census. Incidentally, two of his brothers later served in the Union army (27th Kentucky Infantry).
I have another antebellum slaveholding ancestor who was a Marylander. Most significantly, I continue to carry the surname of this ancestor, so it hits home a little more than the other one mentioned above. My fourth great-grandfather was the last of the line to own any slaves, and he died in 1840; but he was descended from a long line of slaveholders who lived in eastern Maryland, mostly around what is now Washington, D.C. and Prince Georges County, Maryland (Silver Hill being the site of one of the family properties). I’ve never looked into the numbers of slaves in this line of the family, in this particular geographic region, but they were quite active in growing tobacco and contributed significant amounts of tobacco to Maryland during the American Revolution, so it would seem they may have had a number of slaves in the 1700s.
By the time of my fourth great grandfather (born in 1773), well, he had moved to the western part of Maryland and lived in Clear Spring.
In the 1820 census, he was listed as owning one male slave between 14-26 years of age and seven female slaves. There was also one free black male living at the homestead.
Two years later he sold Mary (15), Hannah, and Patty (11). This disturbs me. Were all three of them family members sold to the same person, were they all children (I do not know Hannah’s age), what happened to these people?
Then, it’s also disturbing to me to know that, in 1825, he sold Joseph (age 50), Margaret (age 47), Harriet (age 15), and Rachel (age 11) to Robert Thompson of Louisiana for $900. I can only hope that they were all a family and stayed together.
In 1830, my fourth great grandfather owned six male slaves and two female slaves.
Ten years later, he had four male slaves and one female slave.
When he died in January 1840, he did not leave the legacy of freedom to his slaves. He did, however, specify that none of his slaves be sold outside the county or state.
Incidentally, from my fourth great grandfather, the only descendant to serve in the Civil War, served in the Union army (1st Potomac Home Brigade, Cole’s Cavalry). The Union soldier, a distant first cousin of mine, was one of my fourth great grandfather’s grandsons. This Union soldier never knew his grandfather as he died before he was born, and other than stories that he may have been told, I don’t think he ever knew a time during his lifetime in which the family owned slaves.
In the end, if I take anything from being the descendant of slaveholders, I think what is important to me is, and this should be the most important thing among all of us, that we work to secure something more “forward thinking.” When thinking about my slaveholding ancestors, I prefer to think of that which was mentioned by Martin Luther King, Jr. in his “I Have a Dream” Speech; that “sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit together at the table of brotherhood.” Certainly, that is the best possible thing that can come from being a descendant of slaveholders.
Cenantua's Blog 
David Schneider
January 21, 2009
A very interesting post! Thank you.
Very few of our Southern ancestors held slaves (I don’t like to say “owned”). We’ve only found one so far that fought. The rest were family farmers. Most fought voluntarily at every opportunity. 🙂 That family era is pretty well researched.
We think we might be related to Robert “King” Carter of Virginia. It is no coincidence that many whites and African Americans of Virginia’s Northern Neck have the last name “Carter.”
I think most white folks are simply uncertain *how* to talk about it. The past 100 years has ingrained in many African Americans a deep mistrust. I would be the same way. It takes some convincing that you really do value their family history and stories.
It is the open, dispassionate dialogue that can help people value that facet of American history. (I like your cube metaphor) The same is true for the recent removal of Confederate symbols from campuses. I think that is a huge mistake- it reinforces stereotypes about Southern history and promotes an amateurish “good versus evil” image of the Civil War. But that’s just my opinion.
That’s one thing I miss about my campus years. There was more freedom to discuss it in mixed company and more freedom for people to tell about how it affected their families.
Heck, the next time I’m looking up cemeteries in Abingdon, I need to just drive up your way and say hi.
cenantua
January 21, 2009
David, Speaking of early Virginians, one of my family lines actually came into Virginia as… an indentured servant to the Lee family. I have a distant grandfather (don’t ask me how far back because I can’t tell without looking at my database) who was a Scot and was with the Lee family (gosh, I think it was R.E. Lee’s second great grandfather or something like that, so it’s quite a way back) well before Stratford Hall was probably even thought about. Story goes that his handwriting was so good (I definately didn’t inherit any of that!) that he kept the records for the plantation. Interestingly, I’m also related to the Lee family through a line that married into that same line, but the connection to REL is rather distant.
I enjoy deep discussion of history and definately find flexibility in viewpoints when discussing this in the college setting. Personally, I like to consider an argument and figure out what holes may exist in it. Perhaps its a bit Quixotic, but always in pursuit of the iron-clad argument. I can understand how you miss the campus years. I think I will miss them even more after this program because of the regular discussions that I have with professors beyond the classroom. I find it interesting to engage professors who are not historians about historical subject matter. The discourse is extremely stimulating and again, flexible. Because of this, I have no doubt that I will look for a way to go after my PhD. It won’t, however, be in history. I’m rather impressed with hypertext theory, Web 2.0, and all the related things that go with that. It makes my head hurt sometimes (ha ha), but I definately see the long-range impact it will have in society (and most certainly, the way it has the potential to alter historical practice in the future).
Abingdon isn’t too terribly far from me. Let me know when you are up this way and we’ll see if we can work something out.
Oh, and noting your comment, don’t forget to “look at the cube”… from within the cube. If that degree of abstract thinking makes your head hurt, don’t feel bad… it makes my head hurt too.
Sherree Tannen
January 22, 2009
“In the end, if I take anything from being the descendant of slaveholders, I think what is important to me is, and this should be the most important thing among all of us, that we work to secure something more ‘forward thinking.’ When thinking about my slaveholding ancestors, I prefer to think of that which was mentioned by Martin Luther King, Jr. in his ‘I Have a Dream’ Speech; that ‘sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit together at the table of brotherhood.’ Certainly, that is the best possible thing that can come from being a descendant of slaveholders.”
Good Morning, Robert, and Happy 2009 to you!
As always, in a quiet and thoughtful way, you have gone to the heart of this subject. There is only one thing that I regret about your post–your declaration that when you pursue your Phd that you will most likely not pursue it in history. Of course that is your decision and we, your readers, will respect it. It is our loss, however.
In this country, we are all the descendants of former slave owners, for we are living with the legacy that our founders bequeathed to us–a legacy that included a profound wrong that our founders, themselves, recognized and could not resolve. Now we have the opportunity to finally make this right, and I think that the only way to do that is to look at our history, with the best of our ability, from within the hearts and minds of our fellow Americans whose own history in this land included their forcible removal from their own land, and the subsequent loss of freedom and brutalization that was slavery. Then, and only then, will we find our own hearts again. You cannot change the fact that some of your ancestors owned slaves, anymore than the descendant of a slave can change the fact that his or her ancestor was a slave. What we can change is what we do with this knowledge now. I wonder where the descendants of the slaves you mention live now. Have you ever thought of contacting them? I guess that, in a way, I am lucky–in this sense: even though my ancestors did not own slaves, they fought in the Civil War on the side of the South, yet subsequently interacted with the black community that was founded by a group of freed slaves who settled along the banks of a river in the valley. Thus, through the generations, a mutual respect developed and history ensued that resulted in my family fighting Jim Crow and being involved in the civil rights movement. I don’t say this to claim that my family was superior to anyone’s else’s family, or that they were on the right side of history, to borrow one of our new President’s ideas and put it to use, because they were not. I am saying it to offer an example of what can be accomplished when we walk in someone else’s shoes, see through someone else’s eyes, and feel with another’s heart. Somewhere in the life experience of my great great grandfather–a Confederate veteran who one day shocked everyone by insisting that a black man who had been working in the fields with him sit at the table with him because the man was “as good as he was”, my great great grandfather realized the truth; the color of his skin did not make him superior to another human being whose skin was a different color. The color of his skin did not make his culture superior to the culture of another human being whose skin was a different color. The color of his skin did not make the religion that he practiced superior to the religion of another human being. This may have been because he married a woman who had Cherokee ancestors, or it may have been because the war taught this to him. I have no idea. I just know that it was.
Slavery and its legacy were never abstract to me, because I saw firsthand and up close what happened to those whose ancestors were slaves. There is no angle on that cube that has a bright spot in it, other than the one that you referenced. We have to fix this. Maybe we, in the South, can lead the way this time.
Sherree
PS. I truly enjoy your blog and consider you one of my “cyber friends”, lol, as a friend of mine described
those with whom we form a connection over these megabytes and airwaves, or whatever they are. I hope that you consider me the same. Have a wonderful day, Robert, and please keep writing!
cenantua
January 22, 2009
Sherree, Always so good to hear from you, and thank you very much for your comments. I have to say that the blogosphere gives us an opportunity to do something that we might not do in any other forum; truly open up and discuss things that are so deep in our souls. While good things do not always come from thinking out loud, I think only good things came come from what we discuss here, at least I hope that is the case… the formation of cyberfriends is very much a part of that! 🙂 I’m glad that you are among them!
This is truly a stimulating flow of thought. I look forward to expanding my focus on slavery in the coming months (at least that is my hope). As painful as it is, I think we have to discuss it and understand the implications it has on our memory and reflections of the past.
Thanks also for the expression of concern for my expressing interest in seeking a PhD in something other than history. I’m flattered. However, while I look toward the dynamics of the Web as an advanced course of study, I remain very much grounded in history. Throughout the Technical Communication graduate program, I have focused on the practice of digital history in every project that I have completed. I’m always (I can’t put enough emphasis on that word) thinking about how the delivery of history on the Web is (and can be) different from the delivery of history in a book, article, or classroom. I’m weary of calling it an obsession, but that comes pretty close to summing it up at this point. I still believe that the practice is still in the very early stages as I don’t believe that all that is possible in the environment of the Web is being considered in many of the writings focused on the practice. Ultimately, my hope is that I can apply all of my Web-focused education to history as a practice in a future occupation. I have my eye on one position in particular right now. We’ll see what happens with that later in the year.
Thanks so much for continuing to read, and more importantly, contributing your thoughts in comments. I hope to hear more from you in the months to come.
Sherree Tannen
January 22, 2009
Thank you, too, Robert, Actually, from what you have said, I can see why you would want to pursue the career you have outlined. I really do not think that it is hyperbole to state that computers and the Internet are going to prove to be the inventions that lead to the most major transformations in society since the invention of the printing press.
Talk to you soon.
Sherree
cenantua
January 22, 2009
Sherree, What you said here is interesting and may lead to a digital history focused post. You said, “I really do not think that it is hyperbole to state that computers and the Internet are going to prove to be the inventions that lead to the most major transformations in society since the invention of the printing press.” I’m very interested in more of your thoughts on this. Can you expand on what you said?
Sherree Tannen
January 22, 2009
Hi Robert,
Yes.
What I mean is that since most anyone can turn a computer on, click on Internet Explorer, and have instant access to volumes of information–even someone like me who thought until very recently that a blackberry was a fruit that you eat (no kidding!)–it is going to be increasingly difficult to keep information from the public, and knowledge is power. I understand that simply because information is available, that that does not mean that the person collecting or perusing the information automatically becomes knowledgeable. Yet, the opportunity to become knowledgeable is there. If my memory is correct, and without doing a search to see if it is correct or if recent evidence has debunked that theory (see what I mean?) much of the Protestant Reformation got underway because Martin Luther translated the Bible into German and was able to print the Bible and let the common man read it for himself, rather than have the Bible interpreted for him. Likewise, a quick Google search several months ago revealed to me some writings of Luther that I had never read, nor even heard of, and they were writings that changed the way I think and feel about Luther’s legacy. I did not need anyone to interpret this information for me. The information spoke for itself. President Obama seems to understand the power of the Internet as well, and his staff continues to send emails to people who supported him during the campaign. The Internet takes out the middle man, in other words. In fact, as a person who has been following blogs on the Civil War, it would be helpful to me if someone like you, say, just listed the facts on an issue and let me decide for myself what I think about those facts. I had the same problem during the election. I tried to actually hear the candidates themselves speak, schedule permitting, rather than rely on what the media had to say. And finally, let’s take a “what if”: What if President Obama set up a Roosevelt “fireside chat” sort of outreach, and spoke directly to men and women in the Muslim world on a regular basis? That is what he did in his inaugural address–he said listen to me, not to what anyone is telling you that I am saying. Talk about potential to transform the world–there it is.
cenantua
January 22, 2009
Sherree,
While all of what you say is interesting, I’m especially drawn to your comment about the “facts on an issue.”
Of course, with so many issues in the Civil War, I think the input time would be immense, but that’s just a problem with time. More importantly, because the assembly of facts is a matter of putting things into perspective or “context,” the final assembly might be construed by some as indicative of bias. That, in itself is interesting, considering it is the user who ends up interpreting the meaning from the author’s (in this case compiler) assembly of facts…
…. ouch, my head hurts! My digital rhetoric course is making me think a great deal about this, especially in terms of presentation, “truths,” and what I consider is worthy in an historian in his/her pursuit of objectivity in presenting history.
My view on the problems with historians moving to the Web is that (at least I think this to be the case) they are looking at it in terms of the Web being a place for mild remediation of print. It is, but that only taps into a fraction of the potential of the Web as a learning tool, and gives little consideration to the theory that goes along with the Web. It’s more complext than I explain it here and is going to be the focus of my thesis, so I expect my head to be hurting a great deal more as the semester progresses… LOL!
Sherree Tannen
January 23, 2009
Hi Robert!
Good Morning!
This is one of the things that drives me crazy about starting a conversation on the Web–it is hard to follow up and respond in a timely and respectful manner when life outside of the blogosphere calls. That is a long, roundabout way of saying I am sorry it took a while to get back to you.
I thought about this some more, and I think I know what you mean. We all do operate with a set of basic assumptions and with a philosophy–from within a worldview, as I like to call it–and therefore, the very information we select will reflect that, whether we are aware of it or not. I think that the way out of this may be to challenge ourselves in significant ways. Specifically, if you are presenting an interpretation of history or promoting a theory and you find that the theory requires that you dismiss information that does not fit the theory; then you need to question the theory itself. This could be said of the entire history of the United States as written from day one–day one as interpreted by European descended men and women. We have to retell our history. We have to reexamine our history. We have to understand our history. We have to come to terms with our history. In short, we have to start over in a way, and this is not negative at all, nor is it a cause for fear of recrimination. The men and women of different races who helped shape our history in enormous ways–and who were also victims of our history–only become angry at us when we refuse to acknowledge the past. I always thought that our Canadian neighbors were more tolerant than we in the US are, and this basic assumption made me unable to believe that the abuse of Indigenous men and women went on in Canada. Well, I was wrong, as a Cree woman who is not only my friend but my sister has shown me, and I am now working with her to address this in any small way that I can. In the year 2009 with Barack Obama as our President, it is time to face our past as a nation, and it is particularly time to face our past in the South, not time to promote theories that distort it. Well, I am off topic, Robert. You and Kevin are both very gracious in engaging in dialogue and I appreciate the conversation with both of you. As bloggers, you have the capacity to unearth information, and to present information, that can help change the way we think. The major yardstick for excellence would seem to be that you challenge yourselves to tell the truth to the best of your ability. Now, I have given myself a headache. Lol. Talk to you soon, Robert. Have a good day.
cenantua
January 23, 2009
Oh, don’t feel bad about that Sherree. I sometimes feel awful about the time that I take to respond to comments. How the culture of social networking can come to “inhabit” our thoughts while off the Web is an interesting study in itself.
Between your comment, a post made by Chris Wehner on his Blog 4 History site, and some of the theory of rhetoric that I am just now learning, I am trying to figure out just how complicated conveying “un-influenced” history really is. For example, while we might be shocked at the notion that a slave would have any interest in fighting for the Confederacy, I can believe that it could well have been the case (though I argue that the scale to which that participation is portrayed is grossly exagerated by those who engage in that practice). Does the inability to see this as possible challenge the facts of history, or actually is the greater challenge because of the way we look at history through the lenses of our own time? I would argue that we look at the past through some very tainted glasses. To me, this is becoming more interesting the more that I consider it. How can historians educate without interjecting personal beliefs tainted by the “modern lense?” If it is not possible, then how can historians provide a fair (equal) division of perspectives from history (those who lived it) and thereby information for the student to consider without the student interjecting modern thought into the personal processing machine of what might otherwise be considered “neutral” or objective presentation? I’m most interested in the presentation of history, in the Web environment, to convey history, but more importantly successfully instill an understanding in students that a broad range of possibilities exist and not that one argument is better than the other because of the rhetoric of the presentation.
Sherree Tannen
January 23, 2009
Thanks for the link to the post by Chris Wehner, Robert. There is a lot to think about in what Chris said, and in your comments as well.
Can anyone be truly objective? I am not sure, and I don’t think that anyone else is either. I just know that there are many sides to a story, as you have indicated, and that in many respects history is a story. When an historian pursues the truth for the sake of truth, then his or her job as an historian is done, I believe. Yes, a point of view will enter the work, but truth will win out. It is when the theory becomes more powerful than the presentation of the actual history, that the truth is lost. I understand that this applies to everyone and to all theories. It is when a theory begins to hurt those who live in the present, however, that the true damage is done. We have witnessed this in our country and we are still witnessing it. There is not equality of the races in our nation, not really. As I said before, we have to fix this. How we tell the history of our nation will help to fix this. That is truly a tall order for this generation of historians, but it is the task before them. Sherree
cenantua
January 23, 2009
I think Chris makes an excellent point; “show me someone who says he is 100% objective and I’ll show you a liar.” We can only strive to be objective, or at least I would hope that historians would use that as a major guiding light in their work. There are many sides to a story. I was talking to a professor (not a history professor) just the other day about primary sources and perspectives. Take for example, the battle of Waterloo. Was there one battle of Waterloo or were there many. Honestly, considering individual perspectives, there were many. However, we are left with but a fraction of the perspectives in written accounts, so we assemble these to form the overview of the battle, and we are back to one battle. As far as things go with our ability to evaluate evidence and turn it into something in the form of presentation, how do we keep ourselves in check. When does passion take over and we lose sight of our need to strive for objectiveness. I think this is what might be a key in that which divides historians from those who present not so much to tell the truth but to pursuade with an upper case “P.”
I also think you bring up another good point. When does our passion for the past infringe on modern sensitivites? Sometimes history hurts. It shouldn’t because engaging in the practice is to search for the truth (now that’s another issue, “what is truth?” Ugghhhh!). The truth is not always that which we expect, nor is it always a comfort. Truths are hurtful to a lot of people and the range of people it hurts is great. Can we ever really separate ourselves from emotion in order to be able to fully appreciate and understand the past?
Sherree Tannen
January 24, 2009
“Can we ever really separate ourselves from emotion in order to be able to fully appreciate and understand the past?”
Yes, would be my answer–when the injustices of the past are finally eradicated in the present. That hasn’t happened yet, but we have a good start on it, and that good start includes this post. Thank you Robert.
julia henshaw
January 25, 2009
this is the first time i’ve visited your blog; got to it thru kevin levin’s.
there were so many slaveholders on both sides of my family in virginia and louisiana that it is indeed something i don’t talk about. i do have a little evidence in letters that the ones in virginia were at least aware of the evils of slavery. i have been able to locate one elderly black woman who is a descendant of slaves my family held. perhaps it is not surprising that, while she was polite, she had no interest in hearing about what i had found out about the past. but she is only one individual.
i’d say i don’t feel guilty about my 19th century ancestors owning slaves, but i am obviously at least embarrassed by this. i am thrilled about barack obama’s election to the presidency; maybe it is time to open a discussion among descendants of slave holders.
thanks and all the best, julia
cenantua
January 25, 2009
Sherree, I have just realized something that I think we might all be unaware of in the Civil War blogosphere, and to that end, you have just inspired a post! I hope to work on it first thing in the morning. Thanks for the inspiration!
cenantua
January 25, 2009
Julia,
Thanks so much for stopping by and commenting.
I don’t think we should feel guilty and I am not sure if we should feel embarrased. However, I do believe that it might serve as a form of inspiration (as strange as that may sound). What I mean is, perhaps the fact that our ancestors owned slaves could serve as a sort of benchmark for ourselves. When we look at the past, and then look at ourselves, are we able to recognize how far we have come as people? Do we show proof of how far we have come through our interaction and personal dealings with all people, no matter the race?
Thanks again Julia. I hope you continue to stop by and comment on posts of interests.
Sherree Tannen
January 26, 2009
Hi Robert,
You’re welcome. Glad I could be of help. This conversation has inspired me as well. It truly is a first step, in this corner of the blogosphere, in starting the conversation about race that President Obama suggested that we have as a nation.
I have been trying to think of the best way to convey to you what I mean on this topic for a couple of days now, and I have decided that the best way is to simply tell you of my own experience.
My daily interactions are with Cherokee, Cree, Seminole, and Ojibway men and women in their world on their terms. This is very different than operating within white society in a tolerant manner toward other races, and the difference is difficult to articulate. It is a critical difference, though, and a difference that might be instructive for others. I also believe that it is a difference that will prove, in time, as our nation continues to grow, to be our next step in forging a national identity that truly reflects and embraces our entire history, and that is inspirational, since our history is a history to be proud of and to be humble before. Before we get there, however, we need to understand where we have been.
Every once in a while my friends and colleagues will go through a period in which something snaps and nothing about the lives they are living makes sense or works anymore. Then they become angry, and their anger cannot be overcome or remedied by simply asking that we all work together. Before we can work together, we have to understand the origin of the anger, and that involves stepping outside of our world and into their world, and here is a snapshot of what that world looks like : as many Americans worry about losing their homes or about their 401ks.; Indigenous men and women worry about whether or not their children will have heat in their schools or live long enough to have children of their own–worry just as they have worried for decades now–and this situation is a direct result of the unwanted imposition of the history of white men and women onto the history of Indigenous men and women, and all that that entails. I enjoyed it very much when Pete Seeger sang “this land is my land, this land is your land” at the inauguration. The only problem is, that that is not true. This land is the land of the five hundred nations who lived here tens of thousands of years before the Europeans arrived. Now it is time for us to listen to the descendants of those who knew this land longest and best. We have much to learn from them.
The legacies of colonialism, of racism, of the slave trade, and of the institution of slavery are still with us, and men and women are still suffering because of those legacies. We think we know this. But we don’t. Embarrassment and guilt are not emotions that descendants of slave owners should take upon themselves the burden of assuming for the entire nation, however. Embarrassment and guilt, if they are emotions to be assumed, belong to every citizen of the United States, Canada, Australia, and Europe, since we have all benefited from colonialism and all that ensued because of it, and even then, embarrassment and guilt are still emotions that are about white society. What we need is to confront the reality of our history, deal with our reactions to that reality, and then truly try to walk a mile in the shoes of our fellow Americans, and maybe then we will understand what Michelle Obama meant when she said that for the first time in her life she was proud of her country. One hundred fifty plus years ago when our new First Lady’s great great grandfather was a slave and our great great grandparents were soon to fight in the Civil War, had Michelle Obama been alive, she could have been sold as property and her children sold as well. Yes, that is painful. And yes, we have to face this. Perhaps the descendants of former slaveholders and of former Confederate veterans could start an organization known as The Descendants of Confederate Veterans for Justice and Racial Equality. Now, that would be progress! These are just a few of the reasons that emotions run high when these topics are discussed. Thank you Robert, and thank you, Julia, for being honest and brave. Sherree
David Pettee
March 31, 2009
So. here’s my question. I am a descendant of Rhode Island and Massachusetts slaveholders and a slave trader. Yankee all the way. I’m wondering how the descendants of families who held slaves, down the family tree to today, carry the invisible wounds of trauma and damage from being oppressors. Beyond guilt and embarrassment. I meet regularly with a group of these kinds of descendants and we know something. But what is it that we know?
cenantua
April 1, 2009
Hi David, Hmmm, good comment. I’m not sure that the wounds of trauma and damage of which you speak funneled down the line through the ages. Historical memory fades and/or is recast in other forms. You mention guilt and embarrassment, but I think those are learned. For example, as you grew up, did you hear of stories related to your family’s role as slaveholders and traders? Or, was it that you learned about these things later in life, and that what you had learned apart from that, about slavery and all that went along with it, actually define your feelings now? What were the building blocks of your knowledge as tied to this role of your family? You ask, “What is it that we know?” I would say that we only know what we learn, at this point in time, and considering the distance to that point in time, it isn’t a matter of really knowing in the sense of one or even two generations separated from the reality of really “knowing” as in having experienced those times. Thanks for the comment, it really makes me think more about this.
David Pettee
December 23, 2009
Robert-
I emailed you back in March and appreciated your reply. I’m on sabbatical now and I’m working on a book with a friend, and we are interested in speaking with other folks who had ancestors who were slaveholders. For the last two years, we’ve been connected with a group based out of Eastern Mennonite University in Harrisonburg, VA. The “Coming to the Table” initiative is an effort to involve direct descendants of slavery, black and white, in exploring their unique role in addressing the legacy of slavery, on a personal and societal level. Coming to the Table has brought together African American and white descendants whose ancestors were linked by a “slave/slave owner” relationship. The initiative is looking at the history of slavery and its legacy through the stories of those whose ancestors were directly involved in the institution of slavery.
I live in the Boston area and my family has long connections to slavery in New England, beginning in 1638 through 1858. I had ancestors on both sides of my family who were slaveholders in Rhode Island and Massachusetts, and an ancestor who was a ship’s captain in the transatlantic slave trade. My journey of reckoning has taken me to Cape Coast Castle in Ghana to follow in the footsteps of my ancestor who sailed in the slave trade and then to meet and get to know a family in Queens, NY whose descendant was enslaved by my ancestor in Newport, RI. Most recently, I took a DNA test that revealed (not surprisingly) that I have a multiracial heritage.
Susan is from Louisian and is a descendant of Thomas and Martha Jefferson. She and a handful of other white Jefferson descendants have been building relationships with some of their Hemings cousins for several years. She also has ancestors from Alabama and Mississippi and Massachusetts who were slaveholders and has made contact with number of descendants of those her family enslaved.
We want to learn what people know and feel about having ancestors who were slaveholders. We are listening to people’s stories because we are interested in how the stories and the messages about our family connections to slavery did (or didn’t) get passed forward, and to begin to identify the patterns and dynamics which we believe are remarkably common or typical. The interviews typically take about an hour and are digitally recorded. We may follow up with a shorter second interview given our experience that thoughts, insights and stories evolve and surface over time. We are agreeing not to publish anything without first gaining permission.
Have any interest?
David Pettee
Robert Moore
December 24, 2009
Hi David,
Yes, I’m interested. I’ll contact you off-blog
Sherree Tannen
January 2, 2010
Hi Robert,
Happy New Year!
I spent some time home in Virginia, and truly enjoyed it. I hope that your holiday was enjoyable as well.
I am forwarding a link for David Pettee. The link is to an article written by Katrina Browne. Browne is a descendant of the DeWolf family. The Dewolf family were heavily involved in the slave trade in the “deep North”, as Browne phrases it. The article may be of interest to David.
Browne, along with her siblings and cousins, documented her search for her family’s slave trading past. The story she tells is both fascinating and poignant, for all concerned. Best, Sherree
Here is the link:
http://www.theroot.com/views/confronting-slavery-deep-north
Robert Moore
January 2, 2010
Hi Sherree,
Good to hear from you again! It’s been a rather cold December up this way and, from what I see in the forecast for the week, it isn’t getting warmer anytime soon. We’re at 16 right now, and that doesn’t count the wind chill.
Thanks for the link. I think David will appreciate it, especially with his ties to slavery from the Northern perspective. Are you aware of his story? If not, you can find it here.
Happy New Year to you as well!
Sherree Tannen
January 3, 2010
Thanks for the link to David’s story, Robert. And thanks to David for his comments and insight. Stay warm!
Jeff Keith
September 23, 2014
I have been thinking about this subject for years, and may be ready to dig more now that I am retired. My father was a Southerner and my mom was (is) from the North. I knew my father’s ancestors, the Confederates, owned slaves in Arkansas and Alabama. The surprise recently was to find out that some of my mom’s ancestors lived in the South and owned slaves. Myself, I went through the integration of the schools in Louisville 60 years ago and was amazed to learn about the evils of Jim Crow, which contradicted all of the Christian values that I had supposedly been taught in Presbyterian Sunday school.