"In Search of Isaac's Children"
Part 10 of 32
By Willie Martin

Chapter Five Continued:

The Norsemen: The Columbus mystique has been so impressed on the American people that we are blinded to facts. Such again is the case of the colonists from Norway. When Thormod Torfason wrote his authenticated works titled Historia Vinlandae Antiquae in 1705, very few historians and other scholars knew anything of the many trips to America by the Norse mariners and colonists.

For over two more centuries, nearly everyone continued to disbelieve Torfason's studies. The American's minds were made up, don't confuse us with facts! We will understand why we have been misled by the conclusion of the next lesson in history.

On May 24, 1934, a mining prospector named James Edward Dodd was blasting in the Great Lakes region of Canada and his dynamite uncovered a sword and a shield. These artifacts were taken to the royal Ontario Museum and they were accurately dated to the first quarter of the eleventh century, about 1025 A.D.

It was at this time that Leif Eriksson began his first ventures to the land that he called Vinland. The name itself was given to the St. Lawrence River area because of the abundance of wild grapes that the Norsemen found to make a very good grade of wine. Because of the find of the sword and shield, along with much other evidence, we Americans began to believe that the Norsemen did, indeed, predate Columbus' discovery.

In the 1930's, we began to learn about the tremendous amount of European travel and commerce predating Eriksson by many centuries. Then in 1940, we were reconvinced that Eriksson didn't exist and that there was absolutely nobody who proceeded Columbus. Admiral Samuel Eliot Morison was an author who appeared to be "puffed" by the establishment. His style of writing was light and airy and he was very capable of mixing legends in with archaeological and historical facts in such a way that it became easy to question the technical analysis.

In 1940, from his Harvard position, he was adamant in his position that Columbus was the first and in 1942 he wrote Admiral of the Ocean Sea: A Life of Christopher Columbus to prove his point. By 1961 the Royal Ontario Museum was obliged to re-evaluate their analysis of the sword and shield by stating that it "was not possible to authenticate the story of the alleged discovery."

In Admiral Morison's book The European Discovery of America, he refutes the Vinland story by stating that nearly all of the seacoast towns from Newfoundland to the Virginia Capes boast in their histories that Lief Eriksson was there. But he says that there have been no artifacts to prove his presence. He states that the Newport stone tower which is cherished as the first Christian Church in America is a fake and that it was built around 1675 by a colonial governor of Rhode Island. Yet, in 1946 an authenticated inscription was found on one of the rocks of the tower. The inscription is in Nordic Runes and simply declares the tower to be the "cathedral church" and the "Bishop's Seat."

The Newport Tower is a part of the church that the Norsemen built in the early 1300's. To further authenticate this, the Italian explorer Giovanni de Verrazano in 1524 sailed up the East coast of the United States from Florida to Labrador.

He rediscovered Long Island Sound and the Hudson River. He drew a map, which is officially shown in the Archives, of the Narragansett coast and in his writings he described the stone' built "Norman Villa." He went ashore and found friendly Indians who knew nothing of the building of the villa. Verrazano recognized it to be Norse because of the style of architecture and other evidence. An English document (of the period of the Pilgrims) proposed a settlement in Rhode Island. The document gave the location of the Norman Tower as the place where the settlement should be made.

In Rhode Island today, the local name for the tower is often given as "Governor Arnold's Mill," because the first governor made use of the tower as a flour mill. Here is an example of how a historian can take partial facts, along with legend, and make it fit the "politically correct thing to say."

There is evidence now being discovered that shows the Norsemen to have sailed South, along the Eastern seashore, into the Gulf of Mexico and then up the Mississippi River. Not only have Viking Battle Axes been found but more inscriptions to prove their presence.

The Heavener runestone inscription in the Oklahoma State Park on Poteau Mountain has been definitely judged to be Nordic script of the Viking Age of not later than 1350 A.D. Viking inscriptions have also been found in Colorado. No longer can we deny the presence of the Norsemen in America several hundred years before Columbus.

We have left for last what is perhaps the most striking evidence of pre-Columbus Europeans in America. In the Southwestern part of the United States the climate is generally arid or semi-arid and the soil is more alkaline. As a result of these conditions artifacts, including human remains, are left intact for a very long time.

There is mounting evidence that Europeans, in significant numbers, colonized a portion of the Southwestern United States during the period from approximately 700 A.D. until about 1300 A.D. It is very significant that all of the colonies in North America, including this one under discussion, appeared to simply vanish within an approximate 100 year time frame. We may never know the exact reasons and there could have been several. We know that the Europeans transmitted diseases that were specific to Europe to the indigenous natives who were vulnerable to them. Conversely, the natives gave the Europeans specific diseases to which they were vulnerable, such as some of the social diseases. Or, there could have very easily been a universal uprising and this is even probable. Whatever the reasons were, we must believe that the ventures did not please God. There had to be things that were done that were seriously breaking some of His Laws.

About 700 A.D. there appeared in the area of West Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona and Nevada, a literal empire apparently made up of a city-state system. The empire was Christian and they had succeeding kings. The people came from the British Isles, Gaul (France), Germany, Rome and apparently North Africa.

Undoubtedly, the North Africans were the Berbers who had already arrived from Libya and had previously taught the natives to build the pueblo style structures and to irrigate for farming. Some of the ancient ruins that were very skillfully built of stone masonry that are dotted over the Southwest are probably associated with the empire. Some of these ancient ruins have been rebuilt with later construction over the top of the original. The modern Amerindian knows nothing about the builders of these ancient cities. However, they have given a name to these earlier inhabitants. They call them the Hohokam, which means "Those who have gone" or "The old ones."

After the Spaniards occupied Mexico in the early 1500's, they headed north to investigate the persistent stories of the fabulously wealthy "Seven Cities of Cibola." Of course they never found them because the empire had simply vanished a couple of hundred years earlier. Even in 1300 A.D. the empire had already waned in its importance as a kingdom so there wasn't much left.

In New Mexico, south of Albuquerque and west of Los Lunas about 14 miles, is a huge Basalt (volcanic) boulder. The rock is nestled in a small draw on the side of a group of hills which overlooks the stream called Rio Puerco. The front side, protruding from the soil, is very flat and provides a perfect place for an inscription. On this boulder, inscribed in old Hebrew with a Greek influence, is the Decalog or The Ten Commandments!

As early as 1850, when New Mexico became a territory, people knew of the inscription but it was not until a century later when Professor Robert Pfeiffer of Harvard University, an authority on the Old Testament, determined it to be The Ten Commandments. The inscription was then re-authenticated as being The Ten Commandments by Dr. Barry Fell, the country's foremost epigraphic scientist.

The most revealing discoveries of this ancient kingdom came from the Tucson, Arizona area. Along the Santa Cruz River, in the vicinity of Tucson, beneath six or more feet of undisturbed clich� soil, were found many artifacts that unquestionably prove that European people lived in the area. Clich� soil is made up of crusted calcium carbonate mixed with ordinary dirt.

Through many years, water mixes with the combination and turns it into a very hard, concrete like, soil. After it is once formed, if it is then removed, the soil never returns to the original configuration. Thus, when the artifacts were found, it is certain that they are of ancient origin and not a recent fraud.

The artifacts included lead swords, spears, a patriarchal monstrance or shrine used in the religious ceremonies, and eight heavy crosses. All of the artifacts were made of molded lead which was mined in the area.

This is known because some of the molds were also found. Each of the crosses was actually two thin lead crosses which were riveted together with lead rivets. When the two halves were separated, it was found that the inner sides were protected with wax in order to preserve the inscriptions which were on the inside parts. It became obvious that the crosses were made for the purpose of a permanent recording of events that were taking place at the time. The swords were not to be used for combat. They were made of lead and also contained inscriptions. They were for ceremonies of some sort. The inscriptions contained words in Hebrew, Latin and Greek. Following are some of the translations: On one of the crosses, at the top are the words "In Memoriam."

On the cross arm at the left is a profile of a head with the words "Britain, Albion, Jacob." In the center is another head profile with the words "Romans, Actim, Theodore." On the right is another head profile with the words "Gaul, Seine, Israel." On the vertical beam of the lead cross is this inscription. "Counsels of great cities together with seven hundred soldiers A.D. 800, Jan. 1." "We are borne over the sea to Calalus, an unknown land where Toltezus Silvanus ruled far and wide over a people. Theodore transferred his troops to the foot of the city Rhoda and more than seven hundred were captured. No gold is taken away. Theodore, a man of great courage, rules for fourteen years. Jacob rules for six. With the help of God, nothing has to be feared. In the name of Israel, OL."

The inscriptions on these artifacts is a sort of history of one of the city-states of the European migration to this country. The first inscription reveals that Theodore was the ruling king over the city-state of Rhoda. The Toltecs (which history shows existed in Mexico in this time frame) were under Chief Toltezus Silvanus who ruled over a very large area and people. Theodore was a Roman and he moved his troops to the foot or outskirts of the city Rhoda for defense against the Toltecs. Apparently the troops could not hold against the Toltecs and 700 troops were captured but the Toltecs did not take any gold. Theodore must have been killed in that battle.

The second cross has the following inscription which, of course, has been translated from the Latin and Greek. "Jacob renews the city. With God's help Jacob rules with mighty hand in the manner of his ancestors. Sing to the Lord. May his fame live forever. OL." Jacob a native of Britain and he succeeded Theodore for six years while counterattacking the enemy. He personally fought at the front lines and it appears that he died in battle.

The third cross yielded this inscription. "From the egg (the beginning) A.D. 700 to A.D. 900. Nothing but the cross. While the war was raging, Israel died. Pray for the soul of Israel. May the earth lie light on thee. He adds glory to ancestral glory. Israel, defender of the faith. Israel reigns sixty-seven years."

Israel I was born on the Seine River in France and must have been just a boy when he assumed the throne in 785. These dates are known because of other inscriptions but there are too many of them to include here. The year 790 under Israel I's reign was important because of his decisive victory over the Toltecs. He subjugated them to be under his rule. On January 1, 800 he presided over a council of allied city-states. Because of the present peace, he turned his attention to the priesthood.

The next inscription. "Israel II rules for six. Israel III was twenty-six years old when he began to rule. Internecine war. To conquer or die. He flourishes in ancestral honor day by day."

The next inscription. "A.D. 880. Israel III, for liberating the Toltezus, was banished. He was first to break the custom. The earth shook. Fear overwhelmed the hearts of men in the third year after he had fled. They betook themselves into the city and kept themselves within their walls. A dead man thou shall neither bury nor burn in the city. Before the city a plain was extending. Hills rung the city. It is a hundred years since Jacob was king. Jacob stationed himself in the front line. He anticipated everything. He fought much himself. Often smote the enemy. Israel turned his attention to the appointment of priests. We have life, a people widely ruling. OL."

The next inscription. "A.D. 895. An unknown land. Would that I might accomplish my task to serve the king. It is uncertain how long life will continue. There are many things which can be said while the war rages. Three thousand were killed. The leader with his principal men are captured. Nothing but peace was sought. God ordains all things. OL."

The author of the book Calalus is a history professor at Wake Forest University. He mistakenly describes the people of Rhoda as Roman Jews. This is undoubtedly because of the names of the individuals.

But again, Dr. Berry Fell, the nation's foremost expert epigraphist shows them to be Christians from England, France, Rome and North Africa. The crosses would have been unacceptable if they were Jews. The use of the chronological term A.D., which was started by Dionesius in 532 A.D., would certainly have been unacceptable to the Jews. To this day they term the present chronological time the "Christian Era" instead of A.D. The Toltecs went on to totally destroy these people. Why didn't these European Christians survive? Why did all of the other Europeans mysteriously vanish with the last of them having been gone since the 1300's? It was for several reasons, all of which are distasteful to God for His Celto-Saxon people. The Apostle Paul summed it all up when he said: "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. " (1)

For one thing, they had to interbreed themselves out of existence, at least in part. They also apparently came for the riches of gold and silver. In nearly all cases, there appears to be mining as a principle purpose for being here. They also apparently tried to subdue the native population. In other words, use them as slave or cheap labor.

If we will look back into history, all of the great civilizations of the Celto-Saxons fell when they brought in cheap labor or slaves and then mixed with them. The process destroys both cultures. If we will but look at our own history we will see a lesson. That part of our culture that came from the Pilgrims and then moved westward as the needs required used their own labor.

They had large families and the children worked in their enterprises, be it farming or a shop in town. They remained separated from other peoples and they were told in their churches that gold would be used for street paving in the future! As long as our forefathers stayed separate, feared God, loved their neighbor as themselves and did not love mammon more than their gifts form God, they were a peculiar people to Him. Look around us in modern America and what we see speaks for itself. But it is not too late. It is not too late. Not yet. (2)

Now back to where we left off in our story, as related in National Geographics. "Early map makers and explorers gave credence to the legend. Place-names from the Navigatio appear on later charts, and early navigators sought vainly for 'St. Brendan's Isle.' Fact or fantasy, the Navigatio had incalculable impact on the great European voyages of discovery, including that of Columbus.

According to the legend, St. Brendan and his fellow monks set sail from Ireland in a leather-hulled curragh; this same type of boat, now covered with tarred canvas, is still used by Irish fishermen. The voyage lasted seven years and introduced the monks to such wonders as demons who hurled fire at them, a floating crystal column, and a sea creature as great as an island. Scholars wonder today: Might they have been volcanic eruptions... an iceberg... a whale? Finally, Brendan and his shipmates reached the Promised Land, a huge, lush island divided by a mighty river.

Soon afterward they sailed home to Ireland, where Brendan died. There the legend of St. Brendan ends, to be given new vitality in the 1970's by a real-life sequel. In the following article, British author and explorer Timothy Severin recounts his epic Atlantic crossing aboard a leather boat. In proving that such a long-ago voyage could have been made, Tim Severin and his crew have brought one of history's most intriguing takes a giant step closer to the realm of possibility. -- THE EDITOR." (3)

When David died as the world emperor, he was ruling over the Mediterranean Sea in conjunction with the Phoenicians; he ruled over conquered territory from Egypt somewhere in the interior of Asia. And Israelites were present in Britain and America. During the reign of King Solomon he inherited a huge domain, great power and he devoted himself to wisdom and good rule during the first part of his reign. 1 Kings 4:20-25 related that Israel dwelt safely all the days of Solomon, indeed, how could they not, there was no one left in that area to challenge them.

1 Kings 5:12 show King Hiram and the Phoenicians were allied to Israel. "And the Lord gave Solomon wisdom, as he promised him: and there was peace between Hiram and Solomon; and they two made a league together."

1 Kings 4:31-34 makes some statements which the world's historians hate. It states that Solomons' wisdom was known to all the nations of the earth. "For he was wiser than all men; than Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, and Chalcol, and Darda, the sons of Mahol: and his fame was in all nations round about. And he spake three thousand proverbs: and his songs were a thousand and five. And he spake of trees, from the cedar tree that is in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall: he spake also of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes. And there came of all people to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from all kings of the earth, which had heard of his wisdom."

2 Chronicles states all the kings of the earth sought the presence of Solomon and brought their tributes year by year and presents to hear his wisdom. "And all the drinking vessels of king Solomon were of gold, and all the vessels of the house of the forest of Lebanon were of pure gold: none were of silver; it was not any thing accounted of in the days of Solomon. For the king's ships went to Tarshish with the servants of Huram: every three years once came the ships of Tarshish bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks. And king Solomon passed all the kings of the earth in riches and wisdom. And all the kings of the earth sought the presence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom, that God had put in his heart." (4) Is this just some imagination exaggeration of some Hebrew writer? He couldn't actually mean it could he? Well 2 Chronicles 8, 18:9-10 and 1 Kings 9 also show that Israel and Phoenicia joined their navies into one navy, and it mentions they mingled the crews on the same ship.

Berry Fells book "America B.C." has some remarkable revelations of the real extent of just how much the Israelites and the Phoenician alliance was in the area which consists of the United States today. He states in his book "America B.C." that the Phoenicians had a regular port of call of the coast of Maine. Where an old inscription was found which he translates: "Ships of Phoenicia cargo platform."

Fell states: "It is obvious that the flat topped island would not have been set aside for the loading and unloading of Phoenician ships were they not regular visitors to America, with a predictable time table of ports of arrival and departure and expected dates."

He adds: "These inscriptions suggest that international maritime commerce was well established in what he calls the late bronze age. That North American ports were listed on a sailing timetable of the overseas vessels of the principle Phoenician shipping companies. And that the same information was circulated to customers in America." This, along with the above information, gives us an entirely different perspective on just how wide spread was international commerce in the ancient world, and just how intelligent these people were. These people were not cavemen or neanderthals or some people evolutionary revolving from some primitive background, they were intelligent. How permanent were these settlements in the new world?

The book "America B.C." also shows the evidence that the Phoenicians had a twenty acre temple site to Baal and pagan deities in New Hampshire. This is not the evidence of people who were just coming for just a few years to trade with the Indians and go. They had very substantial settlements here.

Israel, as we know, quickly joined itself to the Baal worship of the Phoenicians, so it is not surprising that the Baal worship was dominating the old world colonies of the Israelites and the Phoenicians. There were, also, worshipers of the True God of Israel were present in the new world.

In "Saga America" another book by Berry Fell in two issues of the occasional publications of the Uppergrafic Society of which he was president, showed that the Ten Commandments were written in the ancient Hebrew and they were carved into the rock in New Mexico, as we have shown above.

A tablet which contained the Ten Commandments was also found in Ohio; this was found in 1860 at the opening of the Civil War or it very likely would have gotten much more attention. So, obviously, there were Israelites who were serving the True God in America. How many is very difficult to guess, since the worshipers of the True God did not build pagan temples or leave monuments to the pagan gods, as the Phoenicians did.

Soon after Solomon became king, Egypt joined the Israelites Phoenician alliance, which is discussed in 1 Kings 3:1. "And Solomon made affinity with Pharaoh king of Egypt, and took Pharaoh's daughter, and brought her into the city of David, until he had made an end of building his own house, and the house of the Lord, and the wall of Jerusalem round about."

The Pharaoh of Egypt conquered a city it states: "For Pharaoh king of Egypt had gone up, and taken Gezer, and burnt it with fire, and slain the Canaanites that dwelt in the city, and given it for a present unto his daughter, Solomon's wife." (5) Which was dowry for his daughter who was Solomon and was apparently his first wife. So, we can see that both King Hiram and Egypt's Pharaoh took the classic action of lesser powers toward a greater power, initiating the efforts to try to bind themselves to a superior power. Egypt's sailors were a fair skinned group of maritime people who settled in the area of ancient Lybia.

This is covered in "America B.C." and "Bronze Age America" where he goes into the classical writers, and it is not his own idea. There is evidence of ancient Egyptians found in Maine, they were known as the Knickknack Indians which Dr. McDonald states was the Algonquian or Iroquois Race.

There have also been Egyptian hieroglyphics found on Long Island. While the ancient Libyan language of their sailors has been found in Quebec, Canada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, California, Texas and New York. This may sound like a roll call for a lot of people in these areas but we highly recommend these books so that you can see for yourself.

There are other states where a person by the name of Gloria Sally has found evidence of inscriptions left by the Celts, the Libyans and the Phoenicians who ascended the Mississippi, Cimmeron and Arkansas Rivers. The Bible does tell us that the Israelites, Phoenicians and the Egyptians were allied in the first millennium B.C. so we should not be shocked to find that these groups were the ones found in the North American Continent.

Is it any coincidence that the Archeological discoveries of America's past have shown these three groups were working together and exploring what has become the territory called the United States? There is a smoking gun to show that these groups were working together, the new world equivalent of the Rosette Stone has been sitting, largely unappreciated in a Davenport, Iowa museum. Its a trilingual parallel ancient inscription recording a pagan ceremony which looked very much like a May Pole or May Day celebration.

It had joint inscriptions of Egyptian hieroglyphics, the ancient Libyan, which was the language of their sailors and what is now called an Iberian Tunic. This is a language which was descended from the Hebrew Phoenicians. It was found in 1874; so it was not found just yesterday, it has been here and ignored for a long time. But it proves these groups were working together in the new world and it was in inscriptions that could be understood by anyone in those three groups of people.

Another artifact found in Oklahoma refers to the Phoenician god Baal and the Egyptian god Ra, and is dated by Fells to be about 800 B.C. Comment has to be made on the closeness of the Israelite Hebrew and the Phoenician language of Tyre and Sidon to show that the Phoenician inscriptions are also Hebrew or Israelite.

George Wellington a famous British historian of the late 1800s comments in his book "Phoenicia:" "The words most commonly in use, particles, the pronoun, the forms of the verb, the principle inflections and we may add the numerals in Phoenician are identical or near identical to the pure Hebrew. Many other sources comment on the similarity as well; and many sources reflect that the English language came from the Hebrew."

In the book "Short History of the Near East" by Philip Piffy, he states: "The Phoenician trade on an international scale on textiles, metals, glass, pottery and etc., gave the country three centuries, beginning around 1000 B.C. a prosperity unmatched in its history."

Now the world recognizes the Phoenicians had an empire at that time, but they do not wish to acknowledge that in 1000 B.C. which was the time that David and Solomon rose to power and three centuries later when the Phoenician power seem to disappear was when the Israelites left the area of Palestine. The Phoenicians did not have them around to be allied to. Ecclesiastes Two mentions that Solomon collected the best that the world had to offer in architecture, music, art, etc., and there was no bounds to his wisdom.

The Bible says that God had given him a heart as big as a sea-shore. It also states that the kings when they brought their gifts to Solomon year by year, included animals, gold, silver, many types products and artwork. Which very likely occurred during the feast of tabernacles, which Israel was keeping at that time.

There were several types of the millennium that parallel the prophecies at that time. For the world was at peace during the time that Solomon was a righteous king living by God's Laws. He was a peaceful king of kings, living in Jerusalem, and the rest of the world was flowing to Israel; he was preceded by an era of great wars, just like the millennium will be, when he and David his father put down many enemies.

So we can see that Solomon ruled an area greater than the Caesars of Rome. The Mediterranean was an Israelites lake; it was ruled by Israel and its allies the Phoenicians and Egyptians; he was in charge of the Mid-East and the Mesopotamians were ruled by Israel; but we don't know how far that went into Asia; Egypt was his ally and he had extensive presence in the new world; America was extensively explored and colonized.

Historians also record that Cadez, a city in Spain that is called Cadez now, was founded by the Phoenicians about 1000 B.C., which, again, was during the reign of David and Solomon.

When one looks at the historic records of the Phoenicians the period of 1000 B.C. is very common when they mark their ascension to greatness, which the Bible also identifies as the time when David and Solomon began their golden age. Early British historians record that the Phoenicians were heavily involved in colonizing and mining in the British Isles. In Raymond Capt's book "The Traditions of Glastenbury" mentions some of the early historical accounts of the Tribe of Asher of Israel overseeing the mining operations in Britain.

Now when Israel split into Israel and Judah this alliance weakened. Wars were fought between the Israelites and the Judeans, and yes at times they were allied. But Israel went very deep into the Baal worship of Phoenicia and around 870-850 B.C. Israel was ruled by King Ahab, who was married to a Phoenician princess by the name of Jezebel from the city state of Sidon. Which shows that the Phoenician/Israelites alliance was still followed.

When God sent a prophet name Elijah in the middle of the ninth century B.C. Israel's King Ahab had gotten to a point where he was so evil that Elijah had prayed for a drought on the land of Israel. James 5 shows that it lasted 3� years. "Elias (Elijah) was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months." (6) 1 Kings 17 and 18 show that the drought was so severe that the creeks dried up, and there was no vegetation was left for the animals. Starvation was prevalent in both Israel and the Phoenician city states as we can see from the example of Elijah when he was sent to the home of the Sidonian widow. 1 Kings 18 states that King Ahab had searched for Elijah in all the nations. "As the Lord thy God liveth, there is no nation or kingdom, whither my lord hath not sent to seek thee: and when they said, He is not there; he took an oath of the kingdom and nation, that they found thee not." (7)

Now that we know those international maritime routes included the area now known as the United States in the new world, that takes on new meaning as it was not just in the mid-east where the search took place. For Israel was still among the great nations of the earth with a large population. During this drought, they had one choice, they could either stay and starve or they could migrate elsewhere and live.

Now Israel had a colonial empire that was quite large, and they had many places to go. However, when one has women and children you do not want to put them on a boat and cross the ocean to America, or Great Britain or even to Spain, you wanted to take them somewhere as close to home as possible, to avoid the rigors of distant travel, yet was away from the drought.

History records that Cartage was founded by the Phoenicians in the middle of the 9th century B.C. Which coincides, roughly with the same time that Israel was experiencing its drought. Alfred Church's book called "Cartage" written in 1890 shows that the name Cartage was the Roman name for the city but that is not the name the Carthagenians called themselves.

They called the city, according to Alfred Church's book, the Carthegians called themselves Cherjaf-habashaf, which Hebrew meaning "new town." A very appropriate name for a new colony, which was being started. Now several historians of Cartage records the magistrates were called the Saphetes by the Romans, but again, that is not the name they called their own magistrates.

In the Carthagenian language when looking at their artifacts, they called them the Shepheta, which is also Hebrew for the word judges. The name of one of the Books of the Bible - Judges. One of their early kings was named Marcus, a Hebrew name, still present during the time of Christ, when the High Priests servant was named Marcus. Remember, he's the one who had his ear cut off, when Peter tried to cut off his head but got his ear instead. Also they had a reference to the Hebrew El, which is depicted in Carthagian artifacts as sitting between the Cherubims.

In the book "Daily Life in Cartage" it states the priestly laws of Cartage was: "A very significant resemblance to the Book of Leviticus, and many of the sacrifices corresponded exactly to those of the Hebrews."

Many historians have noticed the similarity of the Carthagenians or as the Romans called it the Tunic tongue, to Hebrew. As late as the fourth century A.D., which was many centuries after Cartage fell, remnants of the Tunic culture were recognized by early church writers such as St. Augustine and St. Jerome as having their roots in the Hebrew language.

The Encyclopedia Judicia, when it talks about the fall of Samaria, to the Assyrians it mentions that the Africans, which was their word for the Carthagenans contested with the Jews over the rights of Arab-Israel, or the land of Israel.

Now this would make no sense at all if Cartage did not consist of the descendent of the Tribes of Israel. Who had gone into captivity, or had left that area. But they clearly recognized that the land of Palestine was a cultural heritage to the people of Cartage, since they claimed that land as their own at that time. Cartage became very powerful in the middle of the first millennium B.C. In their early days they were much stronger than Rome and imposed a treaty on Rome, which basically forbade them from sailing in the Western Mediterranean and telling them where they could sail their ships.

They were the enemies of Greece and Rome, they kept them out of the Atlantic Ocean with the Carthagenian Navy. But the Greeks did record some information about what Cartage had found in their Atlantic voyages. And a lot of this will probably be quite new to you. The Greeks record: "In the sea outside the pillars of Hercules, that's Gibraltar, an island was found by the Carthagians, a wilderness having wood of all kinds, and navigatable rivers; remarkable for various kinds of fruit, many sailing distance day away. When the Carthagenians, who were the masters of the western ocean, observed that many traitors and other men were attracted by the fertility of the soil and the pleasant climate, they frequented it. And some resided there. They feared that knowledge of the land would reach other nations."

You can check the historical accounts and see that Cartage at that point became very protective of what was going on west of the Atlantic Ocean, and did not allow the sailors of other nations past Gibraltar.

A Greek, in the first century by the name of Diatrous, wrote: "Over against Africa, on the other side of Africa lies a very great island in the vast ocean. Many days sail westward of Libya or from Libya westward, the soil is very fruitful, a great part is mountainous and much likewise is a plane. It has several navagatable rivers, it has very large woods, fresh water and all sorts of wild beasts to hunt."

If one will take a globe of the earth and go westward from Libya to that part of the globe, you will come right into the heartland of what is now called the United States. This land was obviously America; and it stayed in the hands of the Israelite Carthageians for many many years after Cartage fell. It was the secret of Cartage's wealth, and Cartage is acknowledged as a very wealthy city at that time. In giving America's land to the Carthagians God was passing on to them the promises to Abraham's seed.

Also they inherited the promise of possessing the gates of their enemies. And they held a lock-hold on Gibraltar during much of this time. Heroticus a Greek historian records that, "the Carthagenians sent an expedition westward from Gibraltar, which included 30,000 men and women, sixty ships, in a time frame of 500-480 B.C. that was when Cartage was much stronger. Westward through the pillars of Hercules to a destination he did not know."

Think for a moment, 30,000 men and women; that's a colonizing expedition, in 60 ships: by doing a little math that is 500 people per ship. Which will give you an idea of the size of the vessel, which even the Greeks acknowledge the Carthagenians were sailing. This also gives us an idea of the size of the ships the Phoenicians and Israelites had during the reign of David and Solomon's time.

Carthagian coins and artifacts have been found in North America, which is a story that is basically not told anywhere. It is in Berry Fells book, but the typical academic writers do not want to really deal with what he has discovered.

These coins have been found in Colorado, New York, Alabama, Connecticut and Nevada. You can even take some of the Carthagenan inscriptions which Fell discusses in his book; you can get a Hebrew Lexicon out of your Concordance and you can come to the exact same translation that Fell does by using those Hebrew Lexicons.

Most people do not realize this because history has been taught from the Greco-Roman perspective but America was long known about, in ancient history. And that Cartage was Israelite in its inception. However, in later years they became a pyelograph people, they became very degenerate. How long they had worshipers of the True God we do not know. But they became extremely evil; indulging in child sacrifice, mass sacrifices of human beings - they became extremely violent.

When Rome in the second Tunic war, finally won that war it was actually God's judgment against Cartage and its Israelite people as punishment for their sins. But even in that second Tunic War Cartage came very close to exterminating Rome from off the face of the earth. When Hannibal, who was named after Baal, took an army into the Italian area and was therefore years waging war against the Romans, conquering city after city trying to start a revolt but they were not blessed with victory.

When Cartage fell in the middle of the 2nd century B.C., where did its people go? Since some of the historians talk about the population of Cartage being some 600,000, it also relates that only a few thousand stayed to fight the Romans to the bitter end. Some of them probably sought a new life in Cartage's secret territories in America. For America has been a land of refuge for a long time before the Pilgrims came.

These people which came at that time, were Baal worshipers as the remains in America shows. They had gotten degenerate also, and likely died out in wars, intermarriage with the Indians and possibly from VD from their wild sexual practices; which their monuments testify to.

The Carthagenian Israelites in their empire had Southern Spain including the area of Gibraltar, parts of West Africa, and America in their domain. They traded exclusively in the British Isles.

The book "Judah's Scepter and Joseph's Birthright," goes into the story of how Dan and Simeon arriving in Wales and Ireland. The Carthagenians traded extensively with these people, but there is no evidence that those areas were part of Cartage Empire, they were only mercantile contacts. Let's repeat, America was given to the Israelites by God in the 1600 and 1700s as the British and European Israelite settlers came again. Historians ignore this part of history because it proves their ideas of evolution as a bunch of bologna.(8)

horizontal rule

Chapter Six
White Slavery In Early America

In the Midrash Rabbah, a rabbinical commentary, there is a prediction one day all gentiles will be slaves of Jews. (9)

In the British West Indies much of the early capital to finance White Slavery came from Sephardic Jews from Holland. They provided credit, machinery and shipping facilities. In the 1630s Dutch Jews had been deeply involved in the enslavement of the Irish, financing their transport to slave plantations in the tropics. By the 1660s, this combination of Zionist finance and White Slave labor made the British island colony of Barbados the richest in the empire. The island's value, in terms of trade and capital exceeded that of all other British colonies combined. (10)

Of the fact that the wealth of Barbados was founded on the backs of White Slave labor there can be no doubt. White Slave laborers from Britain and Ireland were the mainstay of the sugar colony. Until the mid-1640s there were almost no Blacks in Barbados.

George Downing wrote to John Winthrop, the colonial governor of Massachusetts in 1645, that planters who wanted to make a fortune in the British West Indies must procure White Slave labor "out of England" if they wanted to succeed. (11) From their experience with rebellious Irish slaves, Dutch Jews would eventually be instrumental in the switch from White to Black slavery in the British West Indies.

Blacks were more docile, and more profitable. The English traffic in slaves in the first half of the seventeenth century was solely in White slaves. The English had no slave base in West Africa, as did the Dutch Sephardim who were not only bankers and shipping magnates but slave masters and plantation owners themselves.

Jews were forbidden by English law to own White Protestant slaves, although in practice this was not uniformly enforced, Irish slaves were allowed to the Jewish slavers but were regarded by them as intractable. Hence certain Jews became prime movers behind the African slave trade and the importation of Negro slaves into the New World. (12) White Slavery was the historic base upon which Negro slavery was constructed. "...the important structures, labor ideologies and social relations necessary for slavery already had been established within indentured servitude...White Servitude...in many ways came remarkably close to the 'ideal type' of chattel slavery which later became associated with the African experience." (13) And: "The practice developed and tolerated in the kidnaping of Whites laid the foundation for the kidnaping of Negroes." (14)

The official papers of the White Slave trade refer to adult White Slaves as "freight" and White Child Slaves were termed "half-freight." Like any other commodity on the shipping inventories, white human beings were seen strictly in terms of market economics by merchants. The American colonies prospered through the use of White Slaves which Virginia planter John Pory declared in 1619 were "our principal wealth." "The White Servant, a semi-slave, was more important in the 17th century than even the Negro slave, in respect in both numbers and economic significance." (15)

Where Establishment history books or films touch on White Slavery it is referred to with the deceptively mild-sounding title of "indentured servitude," the implication being that the enslavement of Whites was not as terrible or all-encompassing as Negro "Slavery" But constituted instead a more benign bondage, that of "Servitude."

Yet the terms servant and slave were often used interchangeably to refer to people whose status was clearly that of permanent, lifetime enslavement. "An Account of the English Sugar Plantations" in the British Museum (16) written circa 1660-1685 refers to Black and White Slaves as "servants...the Colonyes were plentifully supplied with Negro and Christian {White} servants which are the nerves and sinews of a plantacon...(Christian was a euphemism for White)...In the North American colonies in the 17th and 18th centuries and subsequently in the United States, servant was the usual designation for a slave." (17)

The use of the word servant to describe a slave would have been very prevalent among a Bible-literate people like colonial Americans. In all English translations of the Bible available at the time, from Wycliffe's to the 1611 King James version, the word slave as it appeared in the original Biblical languages was translated as servant. For example, the King James Version of Genesis 9:25 is rendered: "Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be."

The intended meaning here is clearly that of slave and there is little doubt that in the mind of early Americans the word servant was synonymous with slave.(18) In original documents of the White merchants who transported Negroes from Africa the Blacks were called servants: "...one notes that the Company of Royal Adventurers referred to their cargo as 'egers,' 'Negro-Servants,' 'Servants...from Africa..." (19)

Oscar Handlin, Professor of History at Harvard University, debunks the propaganda that slavery was strictly a racist operation, part of a conspiracy of White Supremacy. Prof. Handlin points to the facts that:

1). Whites as well as Blacks were enslaved.

2). In the 17th century slaves of both races were called servants.

3). The colonial merchants of 17th century America had no qualms about enslaving their own White kindred: "Through the first three-quarters of the 17th century, the Negroes, even in the South, were not numerous...They came into a society in which a large part of the (White) population was to some degree unfree... The Negroes lack of freedom was not unusual. These (Black) newcomers, like so many others, were accepted, bought and held, as kinds of servants...It was in this sense that Negro servants were sometimes called slaves...For that matter, it also applied to White Englishmen...in New England and New York too there had early been an intense desire for cheap unfree hands, for 'bond slavery, villeinage of Captivity,' whether it be White, Negro or Indian..." (20)

A survey of the various ad hoc codes and regulations devised in the 17th century for the governing of those in bondage reveals no special category for Black slaves. (21) "During Ligon's time in Barbados (1647-1650), White indentured female servants worked in the field gangs alongside the small but rapidly growing number of enslaved black women. In this formative stage of the Sugar Revolution, planters did not attempt to formulate a division of labor along racial lines. White indentured servants...were not perceived by their masters as worthy of special treatment in the labor regime." (22)

The contemporary academic consensus on slavery in America represents history by retroactive fiat, decreeing that conclusions about the entire epoch fit the characterizations of its final stage, the 19th century Southern plantation system.

Prof. Handlin informs us that legislators in Virginia sought to cover-up the record of White bondage and its equivalence to Negro servitude: "The compiler of the Virginia laws (codifying Black slavery for the first time) then takes the liberty of altering texts to bring earlier legislation into line with his own new notions." (23)For examples of alterations to insert the word slave as a reference to blacks in Virginia when it had not been used to describe them that way before.(24) What was later lawmakers sought to cover-up? The fact that the White ruling class of Colonial America had cast their own White People into the same condition as the Blacks, or even worse.

Richard Ligon's eyewitness report of a White Slave revolt in Barbados in 1649 has been consistently referred down through the years as a rebellion of Negro Slaves by at least a dozen later historians such as Poyer, Oldmixon, Schomburgh et al. In their cases this does not seem to have been a matter of deliberate falsification, but rather a complete inability to conceive of Whites as Slaves. Ligon had written that the rebels in question had not been able to "endure such slavery" any longer and the later historians automatically assumed that this had to have been a reference to Negroes. It is this persistent cognition by categorical preconception that renders much of what passes for colonial history in our era inaccurate and misleading.

17th century colonial slavery and 19th century American slavery are not a seamless garment. Historians who pretend otherwise have to maintain several fallacies, the chief among these being the supposition that when White "servants" constituted the majority of servile laborers in the colonial period, they worked in privileged or even luxurious conditions which were forbidden to Blacks.

In truth, White Slaves were often restricted to doing the dirty, backbreaking field work while Blacks and even Indians were taken into the Plantation Mansion houses to work as domestics: "Contemporaries were aware that the popular stereotyping of (White) female indentured servants as whores, sluts and debauched wenches, discouraged their use in elite planter households. Many pioneer planters preferred to employ Amerindian women in their households...With the...establishment of an elitist social culture, there was a tendency to reject (White) indentured servants as domestics...black women...represented a more attractive option and, as a result, were widely employed as domestics in the second half of the 17th century. In 1675 for example John Blake, who had recently arrived on the island (of Barbados), informed his brother in Ireland that his White Indentured Servant was a 'slut' and he would like to be rid of her...(in favor of a 'neger wench')." (25)

In the 17th century White slaves were cheaper to acquire than Negroes and therefore were often mistreated to a greater extent. Having paid a bigger price for the Negro, "the planters treated the black better than they did their 'Christian' White Servant. Even the Negroes recognized this and did not hesitate to show their contempt for those White Men who, they could see, were worse off than themselves..." (26)It was White Slaves who built America from its very beginnings and made up the overwhelming majority of slave-adorers in the colonies not Blacks in the 17th century. Negro slaves seldom had to do the kind of virtually lethal work the White Slaves of America did in the formative years of settlement. "The frontier demands for heavy manual labor, such as felling trees, soil clearance, and general infra structural development, had been satisfied primarily by White Indentured Servants (Slaves) between 1627 and 1643." (27)

The merchant class of early America was an equal opportunity enslaver and viewed with enthusiasm the bondage of all poor people within their grasp, including their own White kinsmen. There was a precedent for this in the English legal concept of villeinage, a form of medieval White Slavery in England. "...as late as 1669 those who thought of large-scale agriculture assumed it would be manned not by Negroes but by servile Whites under a condition of villeinage. John Locke's constitutions for South Carolina envisaged an hereditary group of servile 'leet men'; and Lord Shaftsbury's signory on Locke Island in 1674 actually attempted to put the scheme into practice." (28)

The Random House Dictionary of the English Language defines servitude as "slavery or bondage of any kind." The dictionary defines "bondage" as "being bound by or subjected to external control." It defines "slavery" as "ownership of a person or persons by another or others."

Hundreds of thousands of Whites in colonial America were owned outright by their masters and died in slavery. They had no control over their own lives and were auctioned on the block and examined like livestock exactly like Black slaves, with the exception that these Whites were enslaved by their own race.

White Slaves, "found themselves powerless as individuals, without honor or respect and driven into commodity production not by any inner sense of moral duty but by the outer stimulus of the whip." (29) Upon arrival in America, White Slaves were, "put up for sale by the ship captains or merchants...Families were often separated under these circumstances when wives and offspring were auctioned off to the highest bidder." (30)

Another example: "Eleanor Bradbury, sold with her three sons to a Maryland owner, was separated from her husband, who was bought by a man in Pennsylvania." (31)

White people who were passed over for purchase at the point of entry were taken into the back country by "soul drivers" who herded them along "like cattle to a Smithfield market" and then put them up for auction at public fairs. "Prospective buyers felt their muscles, checked their teeth...like cattle..." (32) White Men and Women were driven by their Jewish slavers, just as a cowboy would a herd of cattle: "They are frequently hurried in droves, under the custody of severe brutal drivers into the Back Country to be disposed of as servants." (33)

Those Whites for whom no buyer could be found even after marketing them inland were returned to the slave trader to be sold for a pittance. These Whites were officially referred to as "refuse." The Virginia Company arranged with the City of London to have 100 poor White Children "out of the swarms that swarm in the place" sent to Virginia in 1619 for sale to the wealthy planters of the colony to be used as slave labor. The Privy Council of London authorized the Virginia Company to, "imprison, punish and dispose of any of those children upon any disorder by them committed, as cause shall require."

The trade in White slaves was a natural one for English merchants who imported sugar and tobacco from the colonies. Whites kidnaped in Britain could be exchanged directly for this produce. The trade in White Slaves was basically a return hall operation. The operations of Captain Henry Brayne were typical.

In November of 1670, Capt. Brayne was ordered to sail from Carolina with a consignment of timber for sale in the West Indies. From there he was to set sail for London with a load of sugar purchased with the profits from the sale of the timber. In England he was to sell the sugar and fill his ship with from 200 to 300 White Slaves to be sold in Carolina. The notion of a "contract" and of the legal status of the White in "servitude" became a fiction as a result of the exigencies of the occasion.

In 1623 George Sandys, the treasurer of Virginia, was forced to sell the only remaining eleven White Slaves of his Company for lack of provisions to support them. Seven of these White People were sold for 150 pounds of tobacco. The slave-status of Whites held in colonial bondage can also be seen by studying the disposition of the estates of the wealthy Whites. Whites in bondage were rated as inventories and disposed of by will and by deed along with the rest of the property. They were bought, sold, bartered, gambled away, mortgaged, weighed on scales like farm animals and taxed as property.

Richard Ligon, a contemporary eyewitness to White Slavery, in his 1657 A True and Exact History tells of a White Slave, a woman, who was being traded by her master for a pig. Both the pig and the White Woman were weighed on a scale. "The price was set for a groat a pound for the hog's flesh and six pence for the woman's flesh..." (34) In general, Whites were not treated with the relative dignity the term "indentured servants" connotes, but as degraded chattel, part of the personal estate of the master and on a par with his farm animals. The term "indentured servitude" therefore is nothing more than a propagandistic softening of the historic experience of enslaved White People in order to make a false distinction between their sufferings and those of Negro Slaves!

This is not to deny the existence of a fortunate class of Whites who could in fact be called "indentured servants" according to the modern conception of the term, who worked under privileged conditions of limited bondage for a specific period of time, primarily as apprentices. These lucky few were given religious instruction and could sue in a court of law. They were employed in return for their transportation to America and room and board during their period of service. But certain [Jewish, or their lackys] historians pretend that this apprentice system, the privileged form of bound labor, was representative of the entire experience of White bondage in America.

In actuality, the indentured apprentice system represented the condition of only a tiny segment of the Whites in bondage in early America. "Strictly speaking, the term indentured servant should apply only to those persons who had bound themselves voluntarily to service but it is generally used for all classes of bond servants." (35) Richard B. Morris in Government and Labor in Early America notes that, "In the colonies, however, apprenticeship was merely a highly specialized and favored form of bound labor. The more comprehensive colonial institution included all persons bound to labor for periods of years as determined either by agreement or by law, both minors and adults, and Indians and Negroes as well as Whites." (36)

In a reversal of our contemporary ideas about White "indenture" and Black "slavery," many Blacks in colonial America were often temporary bondsmen freed after a period of time. Peter Hancock arranged for a Negro servant named Asha to serve for twelve months, thenceforth to be a free person.(37) "...free Negro boys bound out as apprentices were sometimes given the benefit of an educational clause in the indenture. Two such cases occur in the Princess Anne County Records; one in 1719, to learn the trade of tanner, the master to 'teach him to read,' and the other, in 1727, to learn the trade of gunsmith, the master to teach him 'to read the Bible distinctly." (38)

Newspaper and court records in South Carolina cite, "a free Negro fellow named Johnny Holmes...lately an indented servant with Nicholas Trott..." and "a Negro man commonly called Jack Cutler -- he is a free Negro having faithfully served out his time with me four years according to the contract agreed upon..." (39) David W. Galenson is the author of an Orwellian suppression of the horrors and conditions of White Slavery entitled White Servitude in Colonial America. He states concerning White slaves, "European men and women could exercise choice both in deciding whether to migrate to the colonies and in choosing possible destinations."

This is positively misleading! At the bare minimum, hundreds of thousands of White Slaves were kidnaped off the streets and roads of Great Britain in the course of more than one hundred and fifty years and sold to Jewish captains of Slave Ships in London known as "White Guineamen."

Ten thousand Whites were kidnaped from England in the year 1670 alone.(40) The very word "kidnapper" was first coined in Britain in the 1600s to describe those who captured and sold White Children into slavery ("kid-nabbers").

Another whitewash is the heralded "classic work" on the subject, Abbot Emerson Smith's Colonists in Bondage which is one long cover-up of the extent of the kidnaping, the denial of the existence of White Slavery and numerous other apologies for the establishment including a cover-up of the deportation and enslavement of the Irish people. But the record proves otherwise. (41) "Cromwell's conquest of Ireland in the middle of the seventeenth century made slaves as well as subjects of the Irish people. Over a hundred thousand men, women and children were seized by the English troops and shipped to the West Indies, where they were sold into slavery..." (42)

On September 11, 1655 came the following decree from the Puritan Protectorate by Henry Cromwell in London: "Concerning the young (Irish) women, although we must use force in takinge them up, yet it beinge so much for their owne goode, and likely to be of soe great advantage to the publique, it is not in the least doubted, that you may have such number of them as you thinke fitt to make use uppon this account." The "account" was enslavement and transportation to the colonies.

A week later Henry Cromwell ordered that 1,500 Irish boys aged 12 to 14 also be shipped into Slavery with the Irish Girls in the steaming tropics of Jamaica and Barbados in circumstances which killed off White Adult Slaves by the thousands due to the rigors of field work in that climate and the savage brutality of their overseers. In October the Council of State approved the plan. Altogether more than one hundred thousand Irish were shipped to the West Indies where they died in Slavery in Horrible Conditions.

Children weren't the only victims. Even eighty year old Irish women were deported to the West Indies and enslaved. (43) Irish religious leaders were herded into, "internment camps throughout Ireland, and were then moved progressively to the ports for shipment overseas like cattle." (44)

By the time Cromwell's men had finished with the Irish people, only one-sixth of the Irish population remained on their lands. (45) Cromwell did not only enslave Catholics. Poor White Protestants on the English mainland fared no better.

In February, 1656 he ordered his soldiers to find 1,200 poor English Women for enslavement and deportation to the colonies. In March he repeated the order but increased the quota to "2,000 young women of England." In the same year, Cromwell's Council of State ordered all the homeless poor of Scotland, male and female, transported to Jamaica for enslavement. (46) Of course, Cromwell and the Puritan ruling class were not the only ones involved in the enslavement of Whites.

During the Restoration reign of Charles II, the king with Catholic sympathizers who had been Cromwell's arch-enemy, King Charles enslaved large groups of poor Presbyterians and Scottish Covenanters and deported them to the plantations in turn. Legislation sponsored by King Charles in 1686, intended to ensure the enslavement of Protestant rebels in the Caribbean colonies, was so harsh that one observer noted, "the condition of these rebels was by this act made as bad, if not worse than the Negroes." (47) Further we are told: "By far the largest number and certainly the most important group of White indentured servants (Slaves) were the poor Protestants from Europe." (48)

There were four categories of status for White People in colonial America: White freemen, White freemen who owned property, White apprentices (also called "indentured servants," "redemptioners" and "free-willers") and White Slaves. The attempt by Abbot Emerson Smith, Galenson and many others at denying the existence and brutal treatment of White Slaves by pretending they were mostly just "indentured servants" learning a trade, regulated according to venerable medieval Guild traditions of apprenticeship runs completely counter to the documentary record. "...the planters did not conceive of their (White) servants socially and emotionally as integral parts of the family or household, but instead viewed them as an alien commodity...Having abandoned the moral responsibility aspect of pre-capitalist ideology, masters enforced an often violent social domination of (White) servants by the manipulation of oppressive legal codes... transform(ing)... indentured servitude, with its pre-industrial, moral, paternalistic superstructure, into a market system of brutal servitude...maintained by the systematic application of legally sanctioned force and violence." (49)

Informal British and colonial custom validated the kidnaping of working-class British Whites and their enslavement in the colonies under such euphemisms as "Servitude according to the Custom" which upheld the force of "verbal contracts" which ship masters and press-gangs claimed existed between them and the wretched Whites they kidnaped off the streets of England and sold into colonial slavery. These justifications for White slavery arose in law determined by penal codes. In other words, White slavery was permitted and perpetuated on the claim that all who were thus enslaved were criminals. No proof for this claim was needed because the fact of one's enslavement "proved" the fact of one's "criminality."

The history of White Slavery in the New World can be found within the history of the enforcement of the penal codes in Britain and America. Slaves were made of poor White "criminals" who had stolen as little as one sheep, a loaf of bread or had been convicted of destroying shrubbery in an aristocrat's garden. They would be separated from their parents or spouse and "transported" to the colonies for life.

In 1655 four teenagers were whipped through the streets of Edinburg, Scotland, burned behind the ears and "barbadosed" for interrupting a minister, James Scott, while he was preaching in church.(50) The "convict" label was so ubiquitous that it prompted Samuel Johnson's remark on Americans: "Sir, they are a race of convicts, and ought to be content with anything we allow them short of hanging."

But even an exclusive focus on the indentured servant or "apprentice" class cannot conceal the fact of White Slavery because very often the distinctions between the two blurred. Through a process of subterfuge and entrapment, White apprentices were regularly transformed into White slaves, as we shall see. White Slaves were owned not only by individual aristocrats and rich planters but by the colonial government itself or its governor. White Slaves included not just paupers but such "wicked villaines" as "vagrants, beggars, disorderly and other dissolute persons" as well as White Children from the counties and towns of Britain who were stolen from their parents through no Harriet Beecher Stowe rose to prominence in chronicling the anguish and hardship of these enslaved White Children.

A large number of the White Slaves arriving in America described as "convicts" were actually political prisoners. Of the Scottish troops captured at the battle of Worcester more than 600 hundred were shipped to Virginia as slaves in 1651. The rebels of 1666 were sent as slaves to the colonies as were the Monmouth rebels of 1685 and the Jacobites of the rising of 1715. "It is now commonly accepted that the African slave trade could not have operated for over three centuries without the active participation of some African states and political leaders. The human merchandise was obtained largely as a result of political conflicts between neighboring states and tribes. Less well known are the ways in which... (White Slave Laborers were obtained)...from the British Isles for the West Indies plantations in the seventeenth century. The English state ruthlessly rounded up victims of political conflict and prisoners of war at places like Dunbar, Worcester, Salisbury and, during territorial expansionism, in Ireland, for sale to West Indian merchants. In this respect English governments and African political leaders were responding to the same market forces." (51)

The Crown put tens of thousands of political dissidents in slavery, some being shipped to New England while others were deported to the plantations of the West Indies and worked to death in the island's boiler houses, mills and sugar cane fields. Cromwell sold the White survivors of the massacre at Drogheda to slave-traders in the Barbados, "and thereafter it became his fixed policy to 'barbadoes' his opponents." (52) By 1655, half of the total White population of Barbados consisted of political prisoners sold into slavery. (53) Establishment historians claim that only Blacks were slaves because Whites were released after a term of seven or ten years of servitude.

But the history of the enslavement of Britain's political prisoners disproves this notion. Plantation owners saw it as their profitable and patriotic duty to extend the servitude of the political prisoners on the plantations far beyond the supposed ten or twenty year limit. British political prisoners were shipped into slavery in America for life, not seven or fourteen years: "...those who survived the voyage worked out their lives in bondage on the plantations of America." (54)

Then: "After the battle of Worcester in 1652 the first mention is made of Royalists having been brought out to Barbados and sold as slaves...they had been taken prisoner at Exeter and IIchester...From there they were driven straight to Plymouth, put on a ship where they remained below deck, sleeping amongst the horses. On arrival in Barbados they were sold as chattel and employed in grinding the mills, attending to the furnaces and digging in the hot sun, whipped at the whipping post as rogues, and sleeping in stiles worse than pigs." (55) This was no "temporary bondage." Of 1300 Cavaliers enslaved in 1652 in Barbados almost all of them died in slavery. (56) The enslavement of White political prisoners in the West Indies was debated in the English Parliament on March 25, 1659.

The practice was allowed to continue and was still in operation as late as 1746 when Scottish Highland infantrymen and French and Irish regulars of the Jacobite army were transported into slavery in Barbados after the battle of Culloden. (57)

Whites convicted of no crime whatever were made slaves by being captured by press-gangs in Britain and shipped into slavery in colonial America. These slave raids (also known as "spiriting") began under the reign of King Charles I, continued during the Commonwealth period and throughout the reign of Charles II.

It was an organized system of kidnaping English, Welsh and Scottish workers, young and old, and transporting them to the American colonies to be sold, with the profits split between the press-gangs and the shipmaster to whom the captured Whyites were assigned in chains. These slave hunting gangs were viewed with covert approval by the British aristocracy who feared the overpopulation of the White underclass.

Confiscatory levels of taxation and the enclosure laws had driven British small farmers and village dwellers off the land and into the cities where they gathered and "loitered," a threat to the order and comfort of the propertied classes. 17th and 18th century economists advocated the enslavement of poor Whites because they saw them as the cheapest and most effective way to develop the colonies in the New World and expand the British empire. It was claimed that by making slave laborers out of poor Whites they were saved from being otherwise "chargeable and unprofitable to the Realm."

As the plantation system expanded in the Southern American colonies, planters demanded the legalization of the practice of kidnaping poor Whites. As it stood laws were on the books forbidding kidnaping but these were for show and were enforced with very infrequent, token arrests of "spirits." The planters' need for White slave labor expanded to such an extent that they tired of having to operate in quasi-legal manner.

In response in February, 1652 it was enacted that: "...it may be lawful for...two or more justices of the peace within any country, citty or towne corporate belonging to this commonwealth to from tyme to tyme by warrant...case to be apprehended, seized on and detained all and every person or persons that shall be found begging and vagrant...in any towne, parish or place to be conveyed into the port of London, or unto any other port...from where such person or persons may be shipped...into any forraign collonie or plantation..." (58)

Parliamentary legislation of 1664 allowed for the capture of White Children who were rounded up and shipped out in chains. Judges received 50% of the profits from the sale of the White Youths with another percentage going to the king. With these laws, it was open season on the poor of Great Britain as well as anyone the rich despised.

In 1682 four White men from Devon, England were enslaved and transported to the colonies. The judges indicated the four for "wandering." From 1662 to 1665, the judges of Edinburgh, Scotland ordered the enslavement and shipment to the colonies of a large number of "rogues" and "others who made life unpleasant for the British upper classes." (59)

In Charles County court in Maryland in 1690 it was agreed that the "indentures" under which seven White Slaves were being held were "kidnapper's indentures" and therefore technically invalid.

But the court ruled that the White Slaves should continue to be held in slavery to their various colonial masters based on the so-called "custom of the country." The ladies of the royal court and even the mayor of Bristol, England were not beneath profiting from the lucrative traffic in poor White People.

Every pretense was used to decoy the victims aboard ships lying in the Thames. The kidnaping of poor Whites became a major industry in such English port cities as London, Plymouth, Southhapton and Dover and in Scotland at Aberdeen where the kidnaping of White Children and their sale into slaver "had become an industry."

The kidnaping of English children into slavery in America was actually legalized during the first quarter of the 17th century. In that period a large number of the children of poor parents, as well as orphan children were targeted for the White Slave trade. The poor White Children were described as a "plague" and a "rowdy element."

Aristocrats who ran the Virginia Company such as Sir Thomas Smythe and Sir Edwin Sandys viewed the children as a convenient pool of slave laborers for the fields of the Virginia colony.

In their petition to the Council of London in 1618 they complained of the great number of "vagrant" children in the streets and requested that they might be transported to Virginia to serve as laborers. A bill was passed in September of 1618 permitting the capture of children aged eight years old or older, girls as well as boys. The eight year old boys were to be enslaved for sixteen years and the eight year old girls for fourteen years, after which, it was said, they would be given land. (60)

A directive was issued for the capture of children in London, empowering city aldermen to direct their constables to seize children on the streets and commit them to the prison-hospital at Bridewell, where they were to await shipment to America. (61) "...their only 'crime' was that they were poor and happened to be found loitering or sleeping in the streets when the constable passed by." (62) The street was not the only place child slaves were to be procured however. The homes of indigent parents with large families were also on the agenda of the slave-traders. Poor English parents were given the "opportunity" to surrender one or more of their children to the slavers.

If they refused they were to be starved into submission by being denied any further relief assistance from the local government: "To carry out the provisions of the act the Lord Mayor (63)...directed the alderman...to (make) inquiry of those parents 'overcharged and burdened with poor children' whether they wished to send any of them to Virginia...those who replied negatively were to be told they would not receive any further poor relief from the parish." (64) The grieving parents were assured that the shipment of their children to Virginia would be beneficial to the children because it was a place where "under severe masters they may be brought to goodness." (65)

In January of 1620 a group of desperate, terrified English children attempted to break out of Bridewell where they had been imprisoned while awaiting the slave-ships to America. They rose up and fought: "...matters were further complicated by the refusal of some of the children to be transported. In late January a kind of 'revolt' occurred at Bridewell, with some of the 'ill-disposed' among the children declaring 'their unwillingness to go to Virginia..." (66) "A hasty letter from (Sir Edwin) Sandys to the King's secretary (Sir Robert Naunton) quickly rectified the situation."

On January 31 the Privy Council decreed that if any of the children continued to their "obstinance" they would be severely punished. It is possible that one of the children was actually executed as an example to the others! What is certain is that a month later the children, mostly boys, were forced on board the ship Duty and transported to Virginia. From thence onward, English male child slaves came to be known as "Duty Boys." (67) There would be many more shipments of these doomed children bound for the colonies in the years ahead. "From that time on little is known about them except that very few lived to become adults. When a 'muster' or census of the (Virginia) colony was taken in 1625, the names of only seven boys were listed (of the children kidnaped in 1619). All the rest were dead...The statistics for the children sent in 1620 are equally grim...no more than five were alive in 1625." (68)

On April 30, 1621 Sir Edwin Sandys presented a plan to the English parliament for the solution of the threat poor English people posed to the fabulously wealthy aristocracy: mass shipment to Virginia, where they would all be "brought to goodness." When control of the colony of Virginia passed from the privately-held Virginia Company directly to the king, it was deemed more expedient, as time went on, to privatize the traffic in White Children while placing it on an even larger basis to meet the cheap labor needs of all the colonies. In this way the Crown avoided the opprobrium that might have been connected with the further official sale of English children even as the aristocracy covertly expanded this slave trade dramatically.

The early traffic in White Children to Virginia had proved profitable not only for the Virginia Company but for the judges and other officials in England who administered the capture of the children: J. Ferrar, treasurer of the Virginia Company, indicated that he had been approached by the Marshal of London and other officials who had been involved in procuring children for the colony, proclaiming that they were owed a financial reward, "for their care and travail therein, that they might be encouraged hereafter to take the like pains whensoever they should have again the like occasion."

The officials subsequently received the handsome "cut" for their part in the loathsome traffic in kidnaped White Children which they had desired. (69) This collusion between the public and private sphere generated profits and established a precedent for many more "occasions" where "liek pains" would be eagerly taken. The precedent established was the cornerstone of the trade in Child-slaves in Britain for decades to come; a trade whose center, after London, would become the ports of Scotland: "Press gangs in the hire of local merchants roamed the streets, seizing 'by force such boys as seemed proper subjects for the slave trade.' Children were driven in flocks through the town and confined for shipment in barns...So flagrant was the practice that people in the countryside about Aberdeen avoided bringing children into the city for fear they might be stolen; and so widespread was the collusion of merchants, shippers, suppliers and even magistrates that the man who exposed it was forced to recant and run out of town." (70)

This man was Peter Williamson who as a child in 1743 was captured in Aberdeen and sold as a slave for America with 70 other kidnaped Scottish Children in addition to other freight. After eleven weeks at sea, the ship ran aground on a sand bar near Cape May on the Delaware river. As it began to take on water, the crew fled in a lifeboat, leaving the boys to drown in the sinking ship. The Planter managed to stay afloat until morning however, and the slavers returned to salvage their "cargo." Peter Williamson was twice-blessed. He not only survived the Planter but had the great good fortune to have been purchased by a former slave, Hugh Wilson, who had also been kidnaped in Scotland as a child.

Wilson had fled slavery in another colony and now bought Williamson in Pennsylvania. He did so solely out of compassion, knowing the boy would be bought by someone else had Wilson not bought him first. Wilson paid for Williamson's education in a colonial school and years later on his death, bequeathed to the lad his horse, saddle and a small sum of money, all Wilson had in the world. With this advantage, Williamson married, became an Indian-fighter on the frontier and eventually made his way back to Scotland, seeking justice for himself and on behalf of all kidnaped children including his deceased friend Hugh Wilson. This took the form of a book, The Life and Curious Adventures of Peter Williamson, Who Was Carried Off from Aberdeen and Sold for a Slave. But when he attempted to distribute it in Aberdeen he was arrested on a charge of publishing a, "scurrilous and infamous libel, reflecting greatly upon the character and reputations of the merchants of Aberdeen."

The book was ordered to be publicly burned and Williamson jailed. He was eventually fined and banished from the city. Williamson did not give up but sued the judges of Aberdeen and took sworn statements from people who had witnessed kidnapings or who had had their own children snatched by slavers. Typical was the testimony of William Jamieson of Oldmeldrum, a farming village 12 miles from Aberdeen.

In 1741, Jamiesons's ten year old son John was captured by a "spirit" gang in the employ of "Bonny John" Burnet, a powerful slave-merchant based in Aberdeen. After making inquiries, Jamieson learned that his son was being held for shipment to the "Plantations." Jamieson hurried to Aberdeen and frantically searched the docks and ships for his boy. He found him on shore among a circle of about sixty other boys, guarded by Bonny John's slavers who brandished horse whips. When the boys walked outside the circle they were shipped.

Jamieson called to his son to come to him. The boy tried to run to his father. Father and son were beaten to the ground by the slavers. Jamieson sought a writ from the Scottish courts but was informed, "that it would be vain for him to apply to the magistrates to get his son liberate: because some of the magistrates had a hand in those doings." Jamieson never saw his son alive again, "having never heard of him since he was carried away." The testimony from Jamieson and from many others helped Peter Williamson to prevail. The Aberdeen merchants were ordered by the Edinburgh Court of Sessions to pay him 100 pounds sterling. Williamson was personally vindicated and his book would later be printed in a new edition. The kidnaping continued, however.

Notes:-

1. Isaiah in 52:11 says the same thing.

2. See the following: Barry Fell, Bronze Age America, Ruggles De Latour, New York; Barry Fell, America B.C., Simon & Schuster, New York; Barry Fell, Saga America, Times Books, New York; Cyclone Covey, Calalus, Vantage Press, New York; Samuel Morison, The European Discovery of America, Oxford University Press; Samuel Morison, Admiral of the Ocean Sea, Little, Brown & Co., Boston; and Christian Crusade For Truth, Intelligence Newsletter, March-April 1992, Deming, New Mexico.

3. National Geographic, Vol. 152, No. 6, December 1977. p. 769.

4. 2 Chronicles 9:20-23.

5. 1 Kings 9:16.

6. James 5:17.

7. 1 Kings 18:10.

8. This entire chapter was taken from "Intelligence Newsletter," written by Pastor Earl F. Jones, and a much more complete and informative book by Pastor Jones can be purchased from: "Christian Crusade For Truth," HC 66 Box 39, Deming, NM 88030, (505) 895-5365.

9. Soncino edition, section Ecclesiastes, p. 58.

10. The British Empire in America, John Oldmixon, Vol. 2, p. 186.

11. Documents Illustrative of the History of the Slave Trade to America, Elizabeth Donnan, pp. 125-126.

12. An Historical Account of the Rise and Growth of the British West Indies, Dalby Thomas, pp. 36-37; The Role of the Sephardic Jews in the British Caribbean Area in the Seventeenth Century, G. Merrill; Caribbean Studies, Vol. 4, No. 3 [1964-65]; 32-49.

13. White Servitude, Hilary McD. Beckles, pp. 6-7, 71.

14. From Columbus to Castro, Eric Williams, p. 103.

15. Laboring and Dependent Classes in Colonial America, Marcus W. Jernegan, p. 45.

16. Stowe Manuscripte 324, f. 6.

17. Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, p. 2,739.

18. cf. Genesis 9:25 in the New International Version Bible.

19. Handlin, p. 205.

20. Handlin, pp. 202-204, 218.

21. Hening, Vol. 1, pp. 226, 258, 540.

22. Natural Rebels, Beckles, p. 29.

23. Handlin, p. 216.

24. See Hening, Vol. 2, pp. iii, 170, 283, 490.

25. Natural Rebels, Beckles, pp. 56-57.

26. Bridenbaugh, p. 118.

27. Natural Rebels, Beckles, p. 8.

28. Handlin, p. 207.

29. White Servitude, Beckles, p. 5.

30. Labor in America: A History, Foster R. Dulles, p. 7.

31. Van der Zee, p. 165.

32. To Serve Well and Faithfully, Labor and Indentured Servants in Pennsylvania, Sharon Salinger, 1682-1800, p. 97.

33. Jernegan, p. 225.

34. p. 59.

35. A History of Colonial America, Oliver P. Chitwood, p. 341.

36. p. 310.

37. Bridenbaugh, pp. 120-121). Black indentured servants in the 18th century even had an "education clause" in their contracts.

38. Jernegan, p. 162.

39. Warren B. Smith, p. 106.

40. History of the United States, Vol. 2, Edward Channing, p. 369.

41. For more on Abbot Emerson Smith's errors cf. Warren B. Smith, White Servitude in Colonial South Carolina, p. ix.

42. Slavery in Colonial America, America's Revolutionary Heritage, George Novack, p. 142.

43. The Curse of Cromwell: A History of the Ironside Conquest of Ireland, D.M.R. Esson, 1649-53, p. 176.

44. D.M.R. Esson, p. 159.

45. Esson, p. 168.

46. Eric Williams, p. 101.

47. Acts Passed in the Island of Barbados, Richard Hall, p. 484.

48. Warren B. Smith, p. 44.

49. White Servitude, Beckles, pp. xiv and 5.

50. Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, America and West Indies, Vol. 5, p. 1,113.

51. White Servitude, Beckles, p. 52.

52. Eric Williams, p. 101.

53. The 'Redlegs' of Barbados, Jill Sheppard, p. 18.

54. Glencoe, John Prebble, p. 65.

55. A History of Barbados, Ronald Tree, p. 35.

56. Bridenbaugh, pp. 110-111; Heinrich von Uchteritz, Kurze Reise, pp. 3-10.

57. Sheppard, p. 3.

58. Egerton Manuscript, British Museum.

59. Register for the Privy Council of Scotland, third series, Vol. 1, p. 181; Vol 2. p. 101.

60. The Transportation of Vagrant Children from London to Virginia, 1618-1622, Robert C. Johnson, in Early Stuart Studies, p. 139.

61. Johnson, pp. 130-140.

62. Johnson, p. 142.

63. Sir William Cockayne.

64. Johnson, p. 142.

65. Johnson. p. 143.

66. Johnson, p, 143.

67. The First Republic in America, Alexander Brown, p. 375.

68. Johnson, p. 147.

69. The Records of the Virginia Company of London, Susan M. Kingsbury, ed., Vol. 1, p. 424 and Johnson, pp. 144-145.

70. Bound Over, Van der Zee, p. 210.

 
Continue on to Part 11

In Search of Isaac's Children - Table of Contents

Return to Willie Martin's Bible Studies Index Page

horizontal rule