"In Search of Isaac's Children"
Part 12 of 32
By Willie Martin
Chapter Six Continued:
More White Slave "plots" and revolts occurred in 1686 and 1692 including a rebellion the "Independents," an insurgent group of White Protestant slaves and freedmen who revolted against Maryland's Catholic theocracy. In 1721 White slaves were arrested while attempting to seize an arsenal at Annapolis, Maryland, the arms to be used in an uprising against the Planters. In Florida in 1768 White Slaves revolted at the Turnbull plantation in New Smyrna.
The government needed two ships full of troops and cannon to put down the revolt. "If the servant class threw up one radical hero, it was Cornelius Bryan, an Irish servant, imprisoned for mutiny on countless occasions and regularly whipped by the hangman for assembling servants and publicly making anti-planter remarks." (54) The colonial powers were not adverse to call on unlikely policemen to suppress White slave revolts: Blacks. Blacks were admitted to the Colonial Militia responsible for policing White Slaves!
The aristocratic planters had felt the necessity to "arm part of their blackmen" to assist in suppressing White Slave revolts. (55) Armed Black militias patrolled the Carolinas from the end of the 17th century to at least 1710 when Thomas Nairne reported that Blacks continued to be members of armed colonial militias organized by local governments. These White rebellions foreshadowed the later switch from reliance on masses of White slaves to greater and greater importation of Blacks because of their pliability and passivity.
But throughout the 17th and much of the 18th century, the tobacco, sugar and cotton colonies maintained a sizable White Slave population. Negro Slaves simply cost too much to import and purchase. Whites were cheaper and more expendable, until they began to fight. "...planter, especially in the South, eventually elected to replace the restive White Servants with the more identifiable and presumably less criminal black slaves." (56) The toughness and sturdiness of the White Slaves who not only fought in Bacon's Rebellion but took the worst duty in the French and Indian wars and the American Revolution may have been due in part to the presence of convicts in their ranks. Not all colonists looked with favor on the reliance upon White convict-slave-labor to build America.
Benjamin Franklin totally opposed White Slavery and supposedly referred to White convict-slaves shipped to America as "human serpents." Yet when attempts were made to abolish White Slavery and thereby stop the flow of both kidnaped and convict labor into colonial America, the measures were generally voted down, as when in 1748 Virginia's Burgesses upheld the Act of 1705, which legitimized the White Slavery under a veil of legal phraseology.
White convict-labor was used for the very harshest and life- threatening jobs others would not do, such as fighting the Indians and French in Arctic conditions with few, if any, firearms. Benjamin Franklin had been apprenticed at age 12 to his printer-brother, the term of his indenture was to have been for nine years, but he managed to have his contract voided while his brother was in jail for seditious publishing. As a young man, Franklin was once mistaken for a fugitive White Slave, "and in danger of being taken up on that suspicion." The notion that Whites are particularly "hardhearted" and "racist" because they upheld a fugitive slave law against Blacks is specious when considered in light of the enactments against rebellious and fugitive White Slaves.
If a tiny clique of wealthy Whites didn't feel sorry for their own people thus enslaved, and hunted them when they escaped or revolted, why would anyone expect them to exempt Negroes from the same treatment? Sometimes the reverse was true.
Whites like Harriet Beecher Stowe were solely concerned with the plight of Blacks and avoided the slavery of Whites to deny the oppression of Whites. Like the wealthy White elite of the 1990s who do nothing for the White poor but campaign tirelessly for the rights of colored people.
The Quakers of colonial Philadelphia were early advocates of Black rights and abolition of Negro servitude even as they whipped and brutalized the White Slaves they continued to own. Harriet Beecher Stowe was one of the Great Hypocrites of the 19th Century, a Pious Fraud whose legacy of malignant hatred for her own kind has infected many another White Man and Woman of this day.
During her triumphal 1853 tour of Britain in the wake of the publication of Uncle Tom's Cabin, Stowe was the guest of Duchess of Sutherland, a woman of vast wealth who had an interest in the "betterment of the Negro."
The Sutherland wealth was based in part on one of the most criminal land-grabs in British history. The Sutherlands had seized the ancient holdings of the traditional clans of Scotland and burned the Highland crofters off their lands, resulting in pauperism and in many cases, outright starvation of Scottish women and children. (57) At one point the Sutherlands even hired armed guards to prevent famine-stricken Scottish Highlander "rabble" from catching fish in the Sutherland's well-stocked salmon and trout rivers. (58)
When Harriet Beecher Stowe returned to America she wrote a glowing account of the Sutherlands in her travel book Sunny Memories, specifically praising them for their "enlightened land policies" in Scotland, which she described as "an almost sublime instance of the benevolent employment of superior wealth and power in shortening the struggles of advancing civilization." (59) In response to Stowe's appalling whitewash of the crimes committed against the Scottish Highlanders, a London newspaper described Uncle Tom's Cabin as a "downright imposture" and "ranting, canting nonsense." (60)
White Slaves were punished with merciless whippings and beatings. The records of Middlesex County, Virginia relate how a slave master confessed; "that he hath most uncivilly and inhumanly beaten a (White) female with great knotted whipcord, so that the poor servant is a lamentable spectacle to behold."
A case in the country from 1655 relates how a White Slave was "fastened by a lock with a chain to it" by his master and tied to a shop door and "whipped till he was very bloody." The beating and whipping of White Slaves resulted in so many being beaten to death that in 1662 the Virginia Assembly passed a law prohibiting the private burial of White Slaves because such burial helped to conceal their murders and encouraged further atrocities against other White Slaves. A grievously ill White Slave was forced by his master to dig his own grave, since there was little likelihood that the master would obtain any more labor from him.
The White Slave's owner, "made him sick and languishing as he was, dig his own grave, in which he was laid a few days afterwards, the others being too busy to dig it, having their hands full in attending to the tobacco." (61)
In New England, Nicholas Weekes and his wife deliberately cut off the toes of their White Slave who subsequently died. Marmaduke Pierce in Massachusetts severely beat a White Slave boy with a rod and finally beat him to death. Pierce was not punished for the murder.
In 1655 in the Plymouth Colony a master named Mr. Latham, starved his 14 year old White Slave boy, beat him and left him to die outdoors in sub-zero temperatures. The dead boy's body showed the markings of repeated beatings and his hands and feet were frozen solid.
Colonial records are full of the deaths by beating, starvation and exposure of White Slaves in addition to tragic accounts such as one of the New Jersey White Slave boy who drowned himself rather than continue to face the unmerciful beatings of his master. (62)
Henry Smith beat to death an elderly White Slave and raped two of his female White Slaves in Virginia. John Dandy beat to death his White Slave boy whose black and blue body was found floating down a creek in Maryland.
Pope Alvey beat his White Slave girl Alice Sanford to death in 1663. She was reported to have been "beaten to a Jelly." Joseph Fincher beat his White slave Jeffery Haggman to death in 1664.
John Grammar ordered his plantation overseer to beat his White Slave 100 times with a cat-o'-nine-tails. The White Slave died from his wounds. The overseer, rather than expressing regret at the death he inflicted stated, "I could have givne him tenn times more."
There are thousands of cases in the colonial archives of inhuman mistreatment, cruelty, beatings and the entire litany of Uncle Tom's Cabin horrors administered to hapless White Slaves. In Australia, White Slave Joseph Mansbury had been whipped repeatedly to such an extent that his back appeared, "quite bare of flesh, and his collar bones were exposed looking very much like two Ivory Polished horns. It was with difficulty that we could find another place to flog him. Tony [Chandler, the overseer] suggested to me that we had better do it on the soles of his feet next time." (63)
Hughes describes the fate of White slaves as one of "prolonged and hideous torture." One overseer in Australia whose specialty was whipping White Slaves would say while applying his whip on their backs. "Another half pound mate, off the beggar's ribs." The overseer's face and clothes were described as having the appearance of, "a mincemeat chopper, being covered in flesh from the victim's body." (64)
In colonial America, in one case, the sole punishment for the murder of a White Slave (explained as an accident) consisted of the master and his wife being forbidden from owning any White Slaves for a period of three years. A White girl enslaved by a woman called "Mistress Ward," was whipped so badly that she died from it. On the finding of a jury that such action was "unreasonable and unchristian like" Mistress Ward was fined 300 pounds of tobacco. "...it was no easy task to secure the conviction of a master for the murder of his (White) servant... Convictions of masters for the murder or manslaughter of their servants were definitely the exception. In a preponderance of such trials they were acquitted or let off lightly, often in the face of incontrovertible evidence of guilt." (65)
In 1678 Charles Grimlin, a wealthy American colonial planter, was found guilty of murdering a female White Slave he owned. He was pardoned and set free. In the same year a White woman "of low origins," killed her husband, a man of some wealth.
The same judge who pardoned Grimlin sentenced the White woman (who was probably a descendant of White Slaves) to be "burned alive according to the law." Nor should it be concluded that because some trials were held for those masters who murdered their White Slaves that this reflected a higher justice than that given to Black slaves.
In thousands of cases of homicide against poor Whites there were not trails whatsoever, murdered White Slaves were hurriedly buried by their masters so that the resulting decomposition would prohibit any enquiry into the cause of their deaths. Others just "disappeared" or died from "accidents" or committed "suicide." Many of the high number of so-called "suicides" of White Slaves took place under suspicious circumstances, but in every single case the slave master was found innocent of any crime. (66) At the same time, White Slaves, White Servants and poor White working men were forbidden to serve on a jury. Only Whites who owned property could do so. Judges were recruited solely from the propertied class. When the few cases regarding the torture and murder of white Slaves reached a court it was not difficult to predict the outcome.
A White orphan boy was kidnaped in Virginia and enslaved under the guise of "teaching him a trade." The boy was able to get the Rappahannock County Court to take notice of his slaver: "...an orphan complained on July 2, 1685 that he was held in a severe and hard servitude illegally and that he was taken by one Major Hawkins 'under pretense of giving him learning.' The case came before the court on August 2, but the justices decided that he must continue in the service of his present master." (67); "They possessed one right, to complain to the planter-magistrates concerning excessively violent abuse. But this right, which by custom was also available to black slaves in some societies, had little or no mitigating effect on the overall nature of their treatment on the estates." (68)
Constables and local magistrates in Virginia to whom mistreated White slaves might appeal were often the same men who enslaved and assaulted them. It should be recalled that the killing and maiming of White Slaves was visited upon them by kinsmen of the same race and religion as their slaves, making the callous disregard for their human rights doubly heinous. White Slaves were whipped, broken on the wheel, shot, hung or even burned alive. (69)
The whole apparatus of the institution of human slavery in English-speaking America, which has been sparingly memorialized in the voluminous literature on Negro slavery, was first put into place in the enslavement of Whites who were kidnaped in their native land, died on board ship, suffered child slavery and separation of parents from children forever; endured fugitive slave-laws, the banning of White Slave meetings and severe and extreme corporal punishment, sometimes unto death.
A 1679 colonial census of Whites who fled slavery to scratch out an existence as subsistence and tenant farmers shows that they had to flee to the worst land where they existed in extreme poverty, forming yeoman peasant communities in the hills. It is instructive to note that this White yeomanry was mocked and scorned by both the wealthy White planter elite as well as the Negroes.
Rich, White plantation owners joined with the Negroes in insulting White Slaves and poor White people, referring to them as "poor-white earth-scratching scum," "redshanks," "redlegs" [forerunner of the "redneck" racial insult current nowadays], "Hill Billys" and "Scotland Johnnies." "The servants were regarded by the planters as 'white trash.'" (70)
White Slaves were taunted in the West Indies by Blacks who would chant the ditty, "Yella hair, speckly face and dey feet brick red" at them. [The epithet "redshanks" developed into the name redlegs which has since become a term for all survivors and descendants of White Slaves in the Caribbean region. Various merchants and aristocrats of the 18th and 19th centuries despised the independence of these survivors of White Slavery when they encountered them in the British West Indies. The chief hallmark of the redlegs has been their absolute refusal to interbreed with the Negroes and their independent subsistence lifestyle of fishing and gardening.
Here is a typical 19th century description of them by an aristocrat: "...that lowest of all beings, the 'redshanks.' The latter were miserable and degraded White Men who, priding themselves on their Caucasian origin, looked with contempt upon the African race." (71)
In 1654 Henry Whistler called the White slaves of Barbados "rubbish, rogues and whores." (72) In England they had been referred to by Edmund Burke as a "swinish multitude," by Samuel Johnson as "rabble" and by Sir Josiah Child as "loose, vagrant... vicious... people." While the public articulation of such negative epithets against Black people as "nigger" is regarded as a sacrilegious incitement to "hate crimes," hateful terms of abuse of White people such as "redneck" are gleefully used in newspapers and television today to express the contempt with which the corporate elite openly hold White working and poor people.
It is a travesty of historiography that out of deference to the vast political house-of-cards that has been built upon the myth that only Blacks were merchandised in the Atlantic slave trade, historians have failed to consistently describe White Chattel by the scientifically accurate term for their condition, that of slave. By avoiding this description, many academics have perpetuated the propaganda of the plutocracy which inflicted these horrors upon White humanity. Powerful colonial land companies motivated by gigantic profits were loath to admit truths subversive of the fictions which permitted the smooth functioning of "business as usual."
The label given the White laborer in bondage was crucial to a correct understanding of his condition. In the founding era of colonial America, both White and black slaves were referred to as "servants." Once the term slavery came into universal usage (a word derived from the enslavement of Slavic peoples), objective observers of the time who were without mercenary ties to the traffic in White "servants" called them slaves: "Contemporary observers described it as 'White Slavery' and referred to indentured servants as 'White Slaves.'" (73)
Some who in England lived fine and brave,
Was there like horses forc'd to trudge and slave.
Some view'd our Limbs turned us around,
Examining like Horses we were sound.
Some felt our hands others our legs and Feet,
And made us walk to see we were compleat,
Some view'd our Teeth to see if they was good,
And fit to Chaw our hard and homely food.
No shoes nor stocking had I for to wear
Nor hat, nor cap, my hands and feet went bare.
Thus dressed unto the fields I did go,
Among Tobacco plants all day to hoe.
Till twelve or one o'clock a grinding corn,
And must be up at day break in the morn.
For I was forc'd to work while I could stand,
Or hold the hoe within my feeble hands.
Forc'd from Friends and Country go go...
Void of all Relief...Sold for a Slave.
From the writing of White Slave John Lawson, 1754. (74) "Honored Father: '...O Dear Father... I am sure you'll pity your distressed daughter. What we unfortunate English people suffer here is beyond the probability of you in England to conceive. Let it suffice that I am one of the unhappy number toiling day and night, and very often in the horse's druggery, with only the comfort of hearing me called, 'You, bitch, you did not do half enough.' Then I am tied up and whipped to that degree that you's not serve an animal. I have scarce anything but Indian corn and salt to eat and that even begrudged. Nay, many Negroes are better used... after slaving after Master's pleasure, what rest we can get is to wrap ourselves up in a blanket and lay upon the ground. This is the deplorable condition your poor Betty endures..." (75)(76)
In spite of this history of White Slavery (77) the controlled mass media and contemporary history distorters have misrepresented the scope of Caucasian involvement with Negro slavery during the period of it was legally practiced in this country.
Additionally, they have purposefully ignored the disproportionate percentage of Free Negroes who owned Slaves, as well as the oculus effect the percentage of black slaves had on the free White workingmen in the South.
In 1860 the vast majority of whites, including Southerners, did not own slaves. According to United States census reports for the year, there were nearly 27 million Whites in the country, including approximately 8 million in the South.
The census also determined that there were less than 350,000 slave owners. Even if all the slave holders had been White, which was not the case, that would calculate to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country, or 4.8 percent of Southern Whites, owning one or more slaves.
In the rare instances when the ownership of slaves by Free Negroes is acknowledged by the mass media, justification is provided based on a fictitious claim that the black slave masters were simply individuals who had purchased the freedom of a spouse or a child from a White slave owner.
The misrepresentation is debunked by records of the period on blacks who owned slaves, including Justus Angel and Mistress L. Horry, of Colleton District, South Carolina, who each owned 84 slaves in 1830. IN fact, it 1830 one-quarter of the free Negro slave holders in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves; 8 owned 30 or more. According to Census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, under 4 million of whom lived in the Southern slave holding states. Of the blacks living in the South, 261,988 were not slaves; 36,855 of them resided in the Deep South. Of this number, 10,689 lived in the city of New Orleans.
According to the country's leading African American historian, Duke University Professor John Hope Franklin, in New Orleans alone over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves. That calculates to approximately 28 percent of the free blacks in the city owning slaves (compared to less than 1.4 percent of Southern Whites), indicative that, when in a position to do so, Negroes disproportionately become slave masters. The majority of slave holders owned one to five slaves, and worked along side them wherever they were employed, be it in the house or in the field. The few who owned 50 or more slaves were ranked in the top one percent, and have been defined as slave magnates.
In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more black slaves. The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who were sugar cane planters. Another magnate black slave master, with over 100 black slaves, was Antoine Dibuclet, a sugar cane planter whose estates were valued at $264,000 in 1860. That year the wealth of Southern White men was $3,987.
Outside of Louisiana, William Ellison, at Stateburg, South Carolina was the largest Negro slave master. Ellison, who purchased his freedom at age 27, owned 63 slaves at the time of his death in 1861, and had bought and sold hundreds of slaves during his lifetime. His sons, who lived with him, owned an additional nine slaves. At the time of his death, Ellison was conservatively worth $65,000; 15 times that of the average White Man in the South. One hundred and twenty-five free Negroes in the city of Charleston, South Carolina owned slaves; six owned 10 or more. Of the million and one half dollars in taxable property by free blacks in Charleston, more than $300,000 was in black slaves.
In 1935 the father of Louisiana Senator and leader of the Populist-Socialist Share Our Wealth Society, Huey "Kingfish" Long, told a visiting journalist: "My Father and my mother didn't have slaves. They didn't even have decent land. The rich folks had all the land and all the slaves; why their women didn't even comb their own hair! They'd sooner speak to a nigger than a poor white." Senior Long was among Louisiana Socialists who, in September 1903, petitioned to join the American Socialist Party with a plank in their charter that denied membership to non-whites.
The situation in Charleston just before the start of the American Civil War (War for Southern Independence, or War of Northern Aggression) is illustrative of the debilitating impact slavery had on white working men in the South, and their struggle with the slave holding oligarchy (both black and white) and their toadies who profited from it. Urban masters often found it both convenient and lucrative to hire out their slaves. Especially during the busy fall and winter months when the year's rice and cotton crops funneled through the city on their way to Northern and European markets.
Slave masters took advantage of the increased demand for labor, and hired out any of their slaves they could do without. By confiscating most or all of the slave's wages, the masters pocketed the cash without selling their slaves or supervising their labor.
Employers were not at all reluctant to hire slaves. They were a handy source of labor, and they could not strike, or walk off the job and leave the city. But of far greater potential significance to the White workingmen were laws prohibiting the slaves from hiring their own time.
A master who wanted to hire out a slave was supposed to negotiate directly with the employer about the terms of the slave's employment. If a slave carpenter, for example, reached an agreement about work and wages with an employer without intervention of his master, then the slave was hiring his own time. He was, in a sense, participating in the labor market as if he were free.
A municipal ordinance in 1796 prohibited slave skilled labor from hiring their own time and an 1822 law extended the ban to all male slaves. A master who violated the 1822 law was subjected to a penalty up to forfeiture of any slave who was allowed to hire his own time. But White Slaves were not protected by these laws, they were never allowed to hire themselves out as the Blacks did. Nor were they ever allowed to keep any of their earnings from being hired out by the Slave Owners!
Free White workingmen wanted to work at a decent wage in order to support themselves and their families, but that was impossible to do since it ran head on into the slave master's prerogative to hire out their slaves. Until laws were slowly changed state by state, between 1829 and 1840, White workingmen had no more political power than the black slaves that took work from them. This was due to state qualifications for voting and holding political office that allowed only those owning a significant amount of property to participate.
White skilled workers who attempted to protect themselves from slave competition were also hindered by their small numbers and by the specialized nature of their concerns. The majority of skilled Whites lived in the country, and their problems were far removed from the hiring practices.
The only way that White workingmen could avoid slave competition was by leaving for the North. The turnover of White laborers in the city was compounded by the seasonal job market, as hundreds of them emigrated South for the Winter, then left during the spring and summer lull. Many of these men had only recently immigrated from Germany and Ireland, which further distanced them from the native-born majority of the state.
In the fall of 1858, the White workingmen of Charleston were struck by a Yellow Fever epidemic that raged through the city for three months. In that period, 645 Whites died from the disease. As thousands of White skilled workers and laborers lay sick and dying, their jobs were filled by black slaves, who were almost immune to Yellow Fever.
The epidemic and the loss of jobs made it more urgent than ever for White workingmen to attempt to jointly protect themselves from slave competition. Meeting in the Masonic Hall when the epidemic waned in October, they formulated a petition requesting that the Charleston City Council enact two laws.
The more moderate proposal asked that the penalty on the owner of a slave who hired his own time be extended to the employer, and that the fine for each violation be $100. The more drastic proposal would have prohibited slaves from working at any "mechanical pursuit" and from being hired-out either on their own or by their owners.
The White workingmen complained: "slaves are permitted to go at large, exercising all the privileges of free persona; making contracts, doing work, and in every way living and conducting themselves as if they were not slaves."
The Whites then attempted to gain support among the citizens of Charleston; and of the 1200 slave holders in the city, only four agreed to support the petition. The city's wealthy slave holding oligarchy (black and white) and their large merchant and attorney synchopathants, joined together to actively oppose the petition. The city's legislative committee referred the proposals to a special committee made up of the slave holding oligarchy and their cohorts. After delaying for six weeks, the committee reported that passage of the proposed laws would be "both inexpedient and improper."
They determined that to agree to the White worker's proposal, or even to enforce current law, "would create a revolution." It would, "drive away all slave labor from any employment in the towns and villages of the State."
Instead of fixing things with the White workers, the committee recommended gutting existing laws by exempting from the prohibition on slaves hiring their own time, those who worked as domestic servants, common laborers, porters, draymen, wagoners, carters, or stevedores; in sum, most of the slaves with whom Charleston's White workingmen competed.
Hardships experienced by Whites due to the presence of the Negro slaves also extended to the middle-class. The previously mentioned Negro slave masters, William Ellison, owned a large cotton plantation. White farmers who did not utilize slaves could not compete with him due to his lower production costs. Ellison was also the largest cotton gin builder and repairer in the state. There he also employed his slaves. Several White men set up competing operations, but did not utilize slave labor, and they soon went out of business. Wherever cheap slave labor was used, Whites who were not themselves slaves, could not compete. The vast majority of White workingmen and middle classes, especially those in the South, suffered because of the presence of black slaves. A relatively small number of individuals profited from slaves; however, the various Indian tribes in the area owned over, 8,000 black and white slaves in 1860.
Until 1840, Free White workingmen and the majority in the middle-class were not allowed to vote or to hold political office, and consequently had no involvement in the institution and practice of slavery. When they were in a position to participate in the political process, they attempted to limit the practice, but this was not due to a "humanitarian interest," but rather one of self-survival. They had no sympathy for either the black or White slaves, but they treated the White slaves and treated him as the deadliest enemy.
Descendants of the White working class, who had no involvement in the legalization of or the use of slaves, but also were victimized by the presence of black slaves, today are expected to pay the penalty for this countries use of slaves. The sons of the oligarchy are not passed over for the entrance to the universities due to racial and sexual quotas, where they effect only the White working and middle classes. Instead of hiring unemployed citizens of this country and paying a decent wage, the oligarchy and their ilk hire illegal aliens and avoid paying taxes. They come from both the so-called left-wing and right-wing. (78)
2). To Sir Humphry Gylberte, June 11, 1578: "Elizabeth by the Grace of God, Queen of England...do give and grant to our trusted and well-beloved servant Sir Humphry Gilbert of Compton, in our castle of Devonshire Knight, and to his heirs and assigns for ever, free liberty and license from time to time, and at all times forever hereafter, to discover, find, search out, and view such remote, heathen and barbarous lands, countries, and territories not actually possessed of any Christian Prince or People... and forasmuch, as upon the finding out, discovering, and inhabiting of such remote lands, counties, and territories, as aforesaid, it will be necessary for the safety of all men that shall adventure themselves in those journeys or voyages, to determine to live together in Christian Peace and Civil quietness each with the other...according to such statutes, laws and ordinances, as shall by him, the said Sir Humphrey, his heirs and assigns, or ever, or any of them, devised or established for the better government of the said people as aforesaid: so always that the said statutes, laws, and ordinances may be as near as conveniently may, agreeable to the form of the laws and policy of England; and also, that they be not against the True Christian faith or religion now professed in the Church of England."
3). First Charter of Virginia, April 10, 1606: "I, James, by the Grace of God, King of England... We, greatly commending, and graciously accepting of, their Desires for the furtherance of so noble a Work, which may, by the Providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the Glory of his Divine Majesty, in the propagating of Christian Religion."
4). Sir Robert Heath by Charles 1st, Oct. 30, 1629: "Whereas our beloved and faithful subject and servant, Sir Robert Heath Knight our Attorney General, kindled with a certain laudable and pious desire as well of enlarging the Christian Religion..."
5). Orders of Connecticut, January 14, 1639: "Forasmuch as it hath pleased the Almighty God by the wise disposition of His Divine Providence so to order and dispose of things that we, the Inhabitants and residents of Winsor, Hartford and Wethersfield, are now cohabiting and dwelling in and upon the River of Connecticut and the Lands thereunto adjoining; and well knowing where a people are gathered together the Word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union of such a people there should be an orderly and decent government established according to God, to order and dispose of the affairs of the people at all seasons as occasion shall require; do therefore associate and conjoin ourselves to be as one Public State or Commonwealth; and do, for ourselves and our successors and such as shall be adjoined to us at any time hereafter enter into Combination and Confederation together, to maintain and preserve the Liberty and Purity of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess as also the discipline of the churches, which according to the truth of the said gospel is now practiced amongst us..."
6). Articles of Confederation, 1643-1684: "Whereas we all come into these parts of America with one and the same end and aim, namely, to advance the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ and to enjoy the liberties of the Gospel in purity with peace... that, as in Nation and Religion, so in other respects, we be and continue one according to the tenor and true meaning of the ensuing articles... The said United Colonies for themselves and their posterities do jointly and severally hereby enter into a firm and perpetual league of friendship and amity for offense and defense, mutual advice and succor upon all just occasions both for preserving and propagating the truth and liberties of the Gospel and for their own mutual safety and welfare."
There is no doubt, and it is clearly apparent the colonist knew they were to establish a theocratic form of government which was to conform to the Word of God, that they were, in actuality reestablishing the Kingdom of God on Earth, over which our Lord Jesus Christ will reign when He returns to claim His rightful place over His Israel People, The Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, Scandinavian, Celtic and kindred peoples of the earth.
Common Law rights were protected by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. This is a Key Document establishing our right to Common Law Judicial proceedings. This Ordinance was passed by the Congress of the United States. Article 5 provided for the creating of a maximum of five states which later became; Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin and Minnesota.
The last words of the introduction or preamble to the Articles of the Ordinance, are as follows: "It is hereby ordained and declared by the authority aforesaid, That the following article shall be considered as articles of compact between the original States in said territory and forever remain unalterable, unless by common consent, to wit."
These articles have never been altered by Common Consent or in any other manner and presently remain the Law of the Land. They may be found in the original forty-eight states Compiled Laws if you were to check.
Some points concerning the validity of the ordinance that should be considered is: a). It is a Federal Statute. The preamble reads forever unalterable. It is in the Compiled Laws of many States. and it is protected by Article 4, Section 2, Part 1 of the Constitution of the United States and reads as follows: "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges of citizens in the several states."
Article 1, states: "No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner, shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship or religious sentiments, in the said territory."
Article 2, states: "The inhabitants of the said territory shall always be entitled to the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus, and of the trial by jury... and of judicial proceedings according to the course of the Common Law..." We should remind you that the Old Testament is the original source of Common Law and is found in the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
The definitions of Noah Websters original finalized dictionary in 1828 were adopted by Congress and by the courts. His definitions were Common Law definitions and established a unity of language for the United States of America.
The Republican form of limited government, just as established by our ancient Israelite ancestors, while encamped by Mount Siani, was established upon the premise: That each and every individual is the creation of the Almighty God, that each and every one has a separate and equal station to which the Laws of God entitle them.
All men are created equal [in the sight of God] and endowed by their Creator with certain Inalienable Rights that are not to be encroached or infringed upon by another group, individual, or government. Among those rights are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness [the ownership of land].
Governments are formed for the express purpose of protecting those rights, maintaining the peace, and keeping law and order. The Government formed derives its just Powers from the Consent of the Governed themselves.
When the Governing faction becomes abusive and destructive of these Ends delegated to them by the citizens it is the responsibility, right and duty of the people to dissolve, alter, or abolish it and institute New government which will provide safe guards for their future security. "For rulers [government leaders] are not a terror to good works, but to the evil... For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." (79)
This simply means the Government was formed by the People through a written contact, Compact, or Constitution within which the people delegate to the elected or appointed representation presiding over the Government for the People the Laws, Rules, and Regulations of power and authority they may exercise.
The various governing bodies such as the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial of the Federal, State, county and local Municipalities must restrict their operations to within the boundaries of authority delegated them by the People unless changed by the People themselves. This is the principle describe in detail within the Declaration, the Articles of Confederation, the Northwest Ordnance, the Constitution of the United States of America and the first ten amendments known as The Bill of Rights.
The Constitution of the United States being the Supreme Law of the Land, until Christ returns, as is the added Ten Amendments both have a Preamble that illustrates its personal Spirit and Intent. "We The People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
This emphases the fact that Government is established by the People, having only powers and authority delegated to it by the People by Contact and it is to be contained within those boundaries. The Preamble to the Ten Amendments known as The Bill of Rights is as follows: "The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its power, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution..."
This preamble explains the Bill of Rights as being "Further Declaratory and Restrictive clauses" for the purpose of preventing "Misconstruction or Abuse" of Constitutional power. Our forefathers knew that Constitutional power can be misconstructed or abused by those who are in the seat of governing authority, even though placed there by the people who pay the bills, elect, appoint, or hire them. These are Public Servants to be tried by the People themselves when found to be destroying, subverting, or changing the delegated authority by Constitutional Contract. The Laws of God intended that in each and every case the position of central authority for earthly government should be vested within the people, and no one else. (80)
54. Rebels and Reactionaries, Beckles, p. 18.
55. Rebels and Reactionaries, Beckles, p. 17.
56. Van der Zee, p. 266.
57. The Slave Trade, Domestic and Foreign, Henry C. Carey, pp. 204-209; The Highland Clearances, John Prebble, pp. 288-295.
58. Prebble, p. 293.
59. Cunliffe, p. 18, Prebble, p. 292.
60. Cunliffe, ibid.
61. Journal of a Voyage to New York and a Tour of Several American Colonies, Jaspar Danckaerts and Peter Sluyter, 1679-1680.
62. American Weekly Mercury, September 2-9, 1731.
63. The Fatal Shore, Robert Hughes, p. 115.
64. Hughes, p. 115.
65. Morris, pp. 485 and 487.
66. For acquittals of masters in Virginia or instances of failure to prosecute them for the murder of White slaves, see Virginia General Court Minutes, pp. 22-24, VMYH, XIX, 388.
67. Jernegan, pp. 159-160.
68. White Servitude, Beckles, p. 5. For information on blacks allowed to accuse White slave masters in court and who were freed from slavery as a result of hearings before White judges, see the Minutes of Council of March 10, 1654 in the Lucas Manuscripts, reel 1, f. 92, Bridgetown Public Library, Barbados.
69. The Tragical Relation of the Virginia Assembly, 1624 in the Library of Congress.
70. Capitalism and Slavery, Eric Williams, p. 17.
71. Sheppard, p. 3.
72. Journal of the West India Expedition.
73. Beckles, p. 71.
74. Quoted in Van Der Zee, Bound Over.
75. From a letter by White Slave Elisabeth Sprigs in Maryland to her father John Sprigs in London, England, September 22, 1756.
76. Public Record Office, London, England, High Court of Admiralty, 30:258; No. 106.
77. Taken, in part, from "They Were White and They Were Slaves: The Untold History of the Enslavement of Whites in Early America, by Michael A. Hoffman II, Wiswell Ruffin House, P.O. Box 236, Dresden, New York 14441, ISBN 0-929903-02-1. Mr. Michael A. Hoffman II, is also the author of "Masonic Assassination," "The Great Holocaust Trial," "Psychology and Epistemology of Holocaust Newspeak," "A candidate for the Order," and "Secrets of Masonic Mind Control."
78. The American Negro, Ray Logan and Irving Cohen; Black Masters, Michael Johnson and James Roark; The Forgotten People, Gary Mills; Reconstruction 1863-1877, Eric Foner; Men and Wealth in the U.S. 1850-1870, Lee Soltow; and The Stream of American History, Leland Baldwin.
79. Romans 13:3-4.
80. Some of this chapter
is taken from "They Were White But They Were Slaves," by Hoffman.
Continue on to Part 13
In Search of Isaac's Children - Table of Contents
Return to Willie Martin's Bible Studies Index Page