Sie sind auf Seite 1von 67




Black slavery used as propaganda
A brief history of slavery
Slavery of Africans by Africans
Black slave owners in the United States
White nations and the banning of the slave trade
The White slave trade of the Arabs
White slavery in White countries
White slaves, Black slave owners in America
Convict slavery in Australia
White slavery in America
White partus slavery in the USA
White slavery as a cause of the American Civil War
White slavery in the Industrial Revolution
White slavery and the modern media

Further reading

The issue of slavery, as taught nowadays, is almost exclusively the story of Black slavery,
with particular regard to the United States of America. The facts show that the story of
slavery goes far deeper. The origins of slavery and the story of White slavery are issues
that are virtually ignored in modern education.
This realisation begs two questions:
Why is White slavery generally ignored?
Why is Black slavery virtually the only story of slavery taught to children in schools?
The answer is simple. Both the education system and the media concentrate on Black
slavery because it suits their ideological purposes (keeping in mind that these two
"industries" are overwhelmingly staffed by Multiculturalists). The issue of Black slavery
is one that is used to promote an "anti-racist" agenda. Multiculturalist slavery
propaganda is designed to make White people look bad (the oppressors), and Black
people look good (the oppressed). Multiculturalist slavery propaganda is used to make
children feel guilty for being White, and to ensure that they will become
So much Multiculturalist propaganda is aimed at fostering a guilt complex in the minds of
White people worldwide; whereas in actual fact slavery was not the "fault" of Whites,
but in the main is the fault of social attitudes of earlier times, especially amongst the rich,
not just in White societies, but also in Arabic, Black, Chinese, and Indian societies as
Slavery was an institution of the times; and talk of reparations, as has been suggested in
the USA, is sheer nonsense. In the typically racist manner of Multiculturalists, claims for
reparations are usually made with regards to Blacks, ignoring the White slaves. With the
Multiculturalist propaganda concentrating on Black slavery, the woes of the American
Indian slaves are rarely acknowledged; of course, even lesser known is the fact that the
American Indians themselves used slavery amongst themselves, as well as of captured
It should be noted that while all races used slavery, it was the Europeans nations who
banned the practice, and took determined steps to attempt to stop slavery worldwide.
Slavery was, and is, a foul, demeaning, and inhumane practice. For Multiculturalists to
use it as a propaganda tool to further their ideology is both disgusting and hypocritical. Is
nothing beneath these people?


The Multiculturalists, dominant in media and education, continuously use the issue of
Black Slavery as a psychological baton to beat over the heads of White people, children in
particular, to damage any concept of ethnic pride that they have (while at the same time,
encouraging ethnic pride amongst Blacks, Asians, etc.). Black slavery, amongst other
issues, is used by Multiculturalists as propaganda to discourage Whites from becoming
so-called "racists", and to encourage them (brainwash them) into becoming
Kevin Alfred Strom, on the American Dissident Voices radio program, gave his views on
Multiculturalist propaganda in his broadcast "The Truth About Slavery".
"By recounting and emphasizing again and again the real and imagined sufferings of Black
people under slavery, the White student is made to feel that his ancestors were cruel, morally
retarded, and evil. They are made to feel that they owe Black people a nearly infinite
compensation, since, they are taught, Black people's problems today are the legacy of
hundreds of years of slavery for which White people are responsible. They are taught that
the relative prosperity which we enjoy today was achieved largely by exploitation of Black
slaves. Is it any wonder that thousands of our young people join Jesse Jackson in chanting
"Hey Hey Ho Ho, Western Culture's Gotta Go"? Is it any wonder that they all too often
reject our European cultural heritage and embrace all forms of alien styles of music,
dancing, dress, grooming and slang, from Jamaican "rasta" to "gangsta rap"? Is it any
wonder that White teenagers are committing suicide in higher numbers every year? They
have received, in our public schools and colleges, not a "liberal education," but an
education by liberals. They have been taught very well indeed -taught that they and their
ancestors and their traditions and their natural feelings are worthless and an obstacle to be
As Johann Wingard points out, the blame for slavery should not be placed solely upon
the consciences of Europeans, and that it was a practice carried out by all races. In fact,
slavery is still practiced in Africa, by Africans, even in modern times.
"It would be wrong, however to place the focus only on Europe, as the African slave trade
with Arabia was of similar if not greater proportions. Even after the West abolished slavery,
Arab countries continued with this atrocity. Little was known of the methods by which the
slaves were obtained, or of the raids and burning of villages and wholesale depopulation of
large regions to supply slaves to the Mohammedan markets in the East, not to mention the
demand for Africa itself. The export of slaves from East Africa to Arabia, Iran, and India
had been a lucrative trade for centuries until it was finally stopped by Britain in 1845.
Even as recently as 1953, several Saudi's went to West Africa posing as Moslem missionaries
and invited thousands of Africans on a pilgrimage to Mekka. On arrival the pilgrims were

arrested for entering the country without visas and were sold as slaves. In the late 1950's
there were between 500,000 and 700,000 slaves in Arabia.
But slavery, as practiced in Africa, was even more horrendous and still continues on a large
scale, even to this day. On 6 March 2002, the French TV channel TF1, reported in its main
news bulletin how an estimated 15 000 children, abducted from Mali with promises of a
better life, were sold as slaves to cotton plantations in the Ivory Coast."
Child-slavery is a flourishing business in West Africa, in countries like Nigeria, Togo,
Benin, and Gabon. However, despite the enormity of this modern slavery, the media still
focus their tales of slavery on the issue of Black slavery in the old USA, not on this
widespread immediate problem of today. White Western societies are subjected to the
constant Multiculturalist media propaganda of Black slavery as main stories or as many
passing references in movies, and TV shows - whether in fictional stories, "magazine"
news items, or referred to in current news.
Dr. William Pierce, late leader of the American racial-nationalist organisation National
Alliance, recognised that the modern mass media deliberately ignores the modern slave
trade in Africa.
"Businessmen in the coastal cities send buyers into the interior with buses, where they collect
surplus children, in the seven- to 15-year-old age range, and bring them back in groups of
50 to 100 - in other words, a bus load - to the slave markets on the coast. Typically the
buyers pay parents anywhere from 10 to 30 dollars per child. In some areas, they simply
bribe local officials to look the other way and kidnap the children.
Once in the coastal cities, the children are housed in large, supermarket-style buildings
where shoppers can stroll through, select the children they want to buy, and pay for their
merchandise at the door as they leave. Some of the purchasers send the children out on the
streets to work as prostitutes. Others use them as house servants or as factory workers.
This is not a small-time thing or an occasional thing. This is a thriving business involving
thousands of children bought and sold every year in dozens of slave markets in West African
cities, in the region which used to be known as the "slave coast," because that's where the
slave dealers, during the 18th and early 19th centuries, would buy ship loads of slaves to
take to the West Indies and the Americas for plantation work. After slavery was outlawed in
Europe and America, it continued as an ongoing institution in Africa, just as it had for
countless centuries before White men began buying African slaves.
The only reason Europeans and White Americans ever hear anything about this ongoing
African slave trade is that there are a few tender-hearted White groups, such as Amnesty
International and Anti-Slavery International, whose sensibilities are offended by this sort of
thing. These groups try to arouse public opinion in America and Europe against slavery.

They also work through politicians, trying to persuade them to put anti-slavery amendments
into aid agreements with African countries. As a result of such aid-agreement amendments
most African countries recently have gone through the motions of enacting legislation
outlawing slavery. All this means in practice is that the slave dealers must pay bribes to the
politicians or the police in order to avoid interference with their business.
Do you wonder why you don't see more news about the slave trade? Do you wonder why the
New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and the major television
news networks have virtually nothing to say about it? Can you imagine the outrage you
would see in these controlled media, day after day and week after week, if White people were
behind this trade in Black children?
Of course, you can! But news about Blacks in Africa, behaving the way Blacks always have
behaved, whether it is buying and selling child slaves in Nigeria or engaging in ritual
cannibalism in Liberia or "necklacing" accused witches in South Africa, is news which
doesn't fit and is therefore deemed not newsworthy by the masters of the controlled media. In
fact, the media masters consider such news positively harmful, because it conflicts with the
image they have built in the minds of the White public: an image of virtuous, peaceable,
freedom-loving, industrious, sensitive, and creative Blacks, essentially noble Blacks, who
have failed to rise to the cultural level of Europe and America only because they have been
enslaved and exploited by cruel, greedy White supremacists. It's important to maintain this
deceptive image, because it reinforces the sense of White racial guilt; it helps keep Whites
convinced that they owe something to non-Whites, that they must never think of their own
racial interests or feel any sense of White racial solidarity, because that can only lead to
terrible things like slavery and the oppression of noble Blacks."
Even though slavery ended in the USA well over a hundred years ago, in 1865, even
though only 8% of American families owned slaves, even though many Blacks owned
slaves, and even though no-one who was involved in that slavery is alive today, the whole
of America's White population is collectively blamed, and is never forgiven for slavery
that occurred in the 1700s and 1800s, and that blame is extended to Whites in general
across the world.
However, Arab and Black slave traders and slave owners, who have continued to practice
slavery for hundreds of years, and who have enslaved millions of blacks, and continue the
practice of slavery even to this day, are virtually ignored by the Western media. The
Arab and African countries who do very little about this practice, or turn a blind eye to
it, are not subject to ongoing condemnation by the media or Western governments.
Whereas pre-1994 South Africa was continually attacked and maligned for having a
White-dominated society and an official policy of separate racial development, or
apartheid; the countries that allow modern-day Black slavery are not subjected to
continual media campaigns against them, nor international economic boycotts against
them (as happened to White South Africa). In fact, the human rights abuses are generally

left untouched and ignored by the Multiculturalist-dominated media.

Why? Because the issue has never been about slavery as such - the issue has always been
about how to find an excuse to condemn and denigrate White people, with the resulting
White Guilt Complex and steady demolishing of White ethnic pride, all of which is
ideologically conducive to the furthering of Multiculturalism.
To lay the blame for slavery upon Whites in general ("Whites used Blacks as slaves")
rather than upon that small percentage who actually owned slaves ("plantation owners
used Blacks as slaves"), or upon those few Africans who enslaved Blacks, or upon those
few White ship owners who actually engaged in the slave trade, is an instinctive tactic by
Multiculturalists who wish to denigrate the White race as a whole. The Multiculturalists'
obsession with Black slavery has nothing to do with slavery, but everything to do with a
hatred of the position of the White race in the world (including a self-hatred by those
Whites, instilled by a White Guilt Complex and by the anti-White hatred of
multiracialists in general).
And what of modern slavery? Where are the movies, the mini-series productions, the
constant side references in TV shows? Why doesn't the Western media produce
continuous television outpourings of rage against this horrendous practice? The reason is
because modern slavery is a product of the Third World, overwhelmingly carried out by
coloured people, and does not fit into the ideological parameters of Multiculturalist antiWhite propaganda.
The United Nations Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery has estimated in
1999 that some 20 million people are held in bonded labour around the world. Another
report, put together by Anti-Slavery International in 2002 claims that as many as 27
million people worldwide are held in one form of slavery or another, most of them
children. The report highlighted the plight of bonded agricultural workers in Pakistan,
forced labour in the Sudan, and the worldwide problem of child domestic servants and
the sexual exploitation of children. Other countries cited by the report as tolerating
slavery included Brazil, Mauritania, and the United Arab Emirates. It has also been
estimated that in India alone, forty million people, including fifteen million children, are
working in slave-like conditions as bonded laborers.
Salim Muwakkil, writing in The Chicago Tribune, has noted the silence from America on
the issue of modern-day slavery in Africa.
"the discussion about slavery in Africa has been raging just beneath the surface of
public discourse for at least a decade. That conversation has focused primarily on
the African nations of Mauritania and Sudan, where slavery is less a function of
poverty than of tradition and war. What's more, since both countries are "Islamic
republics," dominated by Arab rulers, the issue has been aggravated by religious

antagonisms, race and cultural rivalries. Further controversy has centered on the
lack of protest from the African-American community, especially since
condemnation of the transatlantic slave trade is so pivotal to black leadership's
critique of the West."
Muwakkil has also noted the racial and ethnic aspects to this slavery.
"In Mauritania, the country's leadership is dominated by ethnic Berbers who are racially
distinct from the indigenous black population. In Sudan, however, the difference is mostly
cultural or vaguely "ethnic" "
Serge Trifkovic, in The Sword of the Prophet: A Politically-Incorrect Guide to Islam, has
revealed the racial nature of the Black slavery carried out by Arabs in Mauritania and
"Contrary to the myth that Islam is a religion free from racial prejudice, slavery in the
Moslem world has been, and remains, brutally racist in character. To find truly endemic,
open, raw anti-Black racism and slavery today one needs to go to the two Islamic Republics
in Africa: Mauritania and Sudan. Black people have been enslaved on such a scale that the
term black has become synonymous with slave.
... For the pure-black populations of Sudan and Mauritania, independence from colonial
rule marked the end of a slavery-free respite. Slavery was "abolished" several times in
Mauritania since independence, most recently on July 5, 1980. Yet the Anti-Slavery
Society's findings (1982) and those of Africa Watch (1990) point to the existence of at least
100,000 "full-time" slaves and additional 300,000 half-slaves, all of them black, still
being held by Arab-Mauritanians.
... The Moslem world has yet to produce a serious indigenous movement to abolish slavery
that was not the consequence of Western prompting.
The Arabian Peninsula in 1962 became the world's penultimate region to officially abolish
slavery, yet years later Saudi Arabia alone was estimated to contain a quarter of a million
slaves. Thousands of miles away from Africa, in Pakistan's Northwest Frontier Province,
girls as young as five are auctioned off to highest bidders. Afghan girls between the ages of 5
and 17 sell for $80 to $100. The price depends on the colors of their eyes and skin; if they
are virgins, the price is higher. The girls are generally sold into prostitution or, if they are
lucky, they may join harems in the Middle East. If they are lucky."
Slaves in modern Africa miss out on the massive media propaganda that is devoted to
Black slavery in pre-Civil War America, simply because their masters are the wrong
colour - that is, their masters are Arab or African themselves. If the slaves masters of
modern Africa were Whites from South Africa or Rhodesia then the media outrage and
propaganda would know no bounds, and - like the media propaganda hurled against the

old South Africa - would be of such continuous high publicity that every citizen would be
extremely aware of it, it would be an issue of "debate" in every school, it would be the
subject of campaigns by Multiculturalist and "progressive" organisations, boycotts would
be organised, and governments would be forced into action.
If the Multiculturalists were really so concerned about the cruelty of slavery, they would
be protesting day and night against the modern-day countries that allow this practice to
continue. Yet, on this current issue of slavery, they are virtually silent.
Multiculturalists are far more concerned with promoting their world-view than they are
with condemning slavery. The fact is that the media outpourings on Black slavery are due
more to their value as Multiculturalist propaganda against "white racism" than for any
particular concern about human suffering.


Slavery existed in ancient Assyria, Babylon, Egypt, Persia, Sumeria, and other ancient
societies of the Middle East; it is even mentioned in the Bible. It was also practiced in
ancient China, India, and among the blacks of Africa and the Indians of America. Slavery
in ancient times reached its height in Greece and the Roman Empire. The major source
of slaves in ancient civilizations were prisoners of war. Other slaves were criminals or
people who could not pay their debts.
Julius Caesar enslaved as many as one million Whites from Gaul, and the British were
regarded as a race of slaves. From the eighth to the eleventh century France was a major
transfer point for White slaves to the Muslim world, with Rouen being the center for the
selling of Irish and Flemish slaves. At the same time Venetians were selling slaves and
timber across the Mediterranean. The slaves were usually Slavs brought across the Alps.
After the Roman Empire broke up in the 400s, international trade fell sharply. The loss
of markets for goods that slaves might have produced led to a decline in the need for
slaves. In Europe, slavery slowly changed into serfdom. However, slavery continued in
the areas around the Mediterranean Sea. During the 600s and early 700s, Arab Muslims
conquered the Middle East, North Africa, and almost all of Spain. During the Crusades,
which began in the 1000s, the Christians attempted to recapture Jerusalem and other
areas of the Holy Land from the Muslims, and both groups enslaved their prisoners.
Following the fall of Acre and the last Christian strongholds on the mainland of Syria in
1291, Christian captives from Acre glutted the local slave markets.[17]
The Crusaders discovered sugar in the Holy Land, and when they returned home a
widespread demand was created for sugar in Europe. As a result, Italian merchants

established sugar plantations on several Mediterranean islands. The production of sugar

required large numbers of laborers, and so slaves were imported from Russia and other
parts of Europe.[18]
Even the Church owned slaves.
"Had the Church been against slavery it would have branded it as a wrong, and have set the
example of liberating its own slaves. It did neither. Its conscience was only shocked when a
Jewish or Heathen master owned Christian slaves. Nay, the Church not only held slaves
itself, not only protected others who held slaves, but it thundered against all who should
despoil its property by selling or liberating slaves belonging to the Church. The Council of
Agatho, 506, considered it unfair to enfranchise the slaves of monasteries, seeing that the
monks themselves laboured. The Council of Toledo, 597, stigmatised as robbers those who
set free the slaves of the Church without giving an equivalent. The Council of Epaona, 517,
prohibited abbots from emancipating the slaves of their monasteries. Slaves were bequeathed
to the Church by will, or given as an act of piety, and never was the gift refused. The
Church, too, held its slaves to the end. In France, in his day, Voltaire [1694 - 1778]
estimated that the Church held between 50,000 and 60,000 slaves."[19]
The word "slave" itself comes from "Slav" (the name of the largest ethnic group in
Eastern European). Many slaves in Europe were sourced from Russia and other Slavic
areas. The Vikings often supplied slaves from Russia. However, during the mid-1500s,
the expanding Ottoman Empire cut off the supply of slaves from Eastern Europe. By that
time, however, the Portuguese were increasing their trade with Africa, exchanging cloth
and weapons for gold, salt, and slaves.[20]
By the 1300s, a few African blacks had begun to replace Russian slaves on Italian
plantations. These Africans were bought or captured from North African Arabs, who had
enslaved them for years. During the 1400s, Portuguese sailors started to explore the
coast of West Africa and to ship Africans to Europe as slaves; also enslaving Africans on
sugar plantations that they established on islands off the coast of West Africa. In 1481, El
Mina, the first European trading post for slaves was created on Africa's Gold Coast by the
Portuguese who began slave trading from their new fort. The Spanish wanted to use
black slaves to take over from the Indian populations in the colonies and to cover labour
shortages in Brazil. Portuguese traders filled their ships with African slaves from the
Congo and Angola.[21]
Enslaved Africans were taken to the Americas at the beginning of the 1500s. In 1502 the
governor of Hispaniola in the West Indies arrived with a dozen African slaves. By 1510
traders were shipping a few hundred African people to the Americas every year. In 1517
Spain issued its first Asiento Treaty, a contract to supply 4000 slaves over the following
eight years. More than 100,000 slaves were imported into the Spanish possessions in the
Americas. The Portuguese slave traders had special licence from the Spanish government

to supply slaves to its colonies until Holland took over after the Dutch West India
Company was formed in 1621. Holland then captured all the trading posts established by
the Portuguese on the African Gold Coast, and set up a number of posts of its own by
1681. The Dutch held the Spanish contract for the supply of slaves from 1640-1700. By
1623 Holland had taken 15,430 slaves to Brazil. In 1646 the first black slaves were
landed in the earliest Dutch settlement in America, New Amsterdam, on the tip of
Manhattan. New Amsterdam became New York when the settlement was captured by
the English.[22]
The demand for slaves to work on sugar and tobacco plantations increased during the
1600s when France, England, and the Netherlands established colonies in the West
Indies, and along the East Coast of North America. In those areas, the local natives were
not found to be adequate as a labour force.[23]
Howard Dodson, of National Geographic, wrote that Black slavery was wanted in order
to replace the slavery of Whites and Indians.
"According to European colonial officials, the abundant land they had "discovered" in the
Americas was useless without sufficient labor to exploit it. Slavery systems of labor
exploitation were preferred, but neither European nor Native American sources proved
adequate to the task." [24]


Various societies in Africa and Asia enslaved prisoners of war. Slavery was also widely
practiced amongst the Indians in the Northwest Coast and Eastern Woodlands of the
United States, as well as on the islands in the Caribbean Sea. Lynn H. Nelson, from the
Department of History of Kansas University, noted that African complicity was an
integral part of the African slave trade.
"It is difficult to determine when slavery became an important economic factor in African
history. Certainly African enslaved each other from an early date; this is a common feature
of most societies pursuing an agriculture based on manual labor. By about 900 A.D.,
however, a regular slave-trade had developed between the Niger River valley and the
Muslims of Spain. With Negroes brought from West Africa and Slavs from Russia, the
Spanish Muslim capital of Cordoba became one of the greatest slave-markets in the world.
With the decline of Muslim Spain, this bulk of this trade shifted to East Africa. By this
time, some peoples of Africa had come to depend upon the slave trade, and Zanzibar had
become the great slave emporium. Wars between African tribes were not fought to kill, but to
take prisoners who could be exchanged with Arab slave-traders for imported goods. It has
been estimated that 25% of the slaves taken out of Africa ended up in Muslim lands. Even

more important, this centuries-old trade had rooted the institution in the African economy
and had established the general pattern of that trade."[25]
Zayde Antrim has also pointed out that African slavery was in existence well before the
arrival of the Europeans.
"Not only was slavery an established institution in West Africa before European traders
arrived, but Africans were also involved in a trans-Saharan trade in slaves along these
routes. African rulers and merchants were thus able to tap into preexisting methods and
networks of enslavement to supply European demand for slaves. Enslavement was most often
a byproduct of local warfare, kidnapping, or the manipulation of religious and judicial
institutions. Military, political, and religious authority within West Africa determined who
controlled access to the Atlantic slave trade. And some African elites, such as those in the
Dahomey and Ashanti empires, took advantage of this control and used it to their profit by
enslaving and selling other Africans to European traders."[26]
Hugh Thomas in his book on the history of Slavery, The Slave Trade, has detailed the
African involvement in the production of victims for slavery. African monarchs often
bought slaves from dealers, in order to sell them again to Europeans, to other Africans,
or to Arabs especially. The rulers of Benin, the kings of Ashanti, Congo, and Dahomey;
and the Vili rulers of Loango, sold great numbers of slaves over many generations. Jean
Barbot, who was on a slave ship during the 17th century said "the slaves [whom the African
monarchs] possess and sell are prisoners of war, or, if from among themselves, are condemned to
slavery for some crime. But there are also those who have been kidnapped by their compatriots, these
being mainly children...". The Muslims in Africa also had a heavy interest in the slave trade.
Hugh Thomas noted that the Muslims traded their African slaves to many countries,
selling them as far off as Java and India in the Middle Ages; and even to the Chinese.[27]
Richard Hellie in Slavery in Russia 1450-1725 says,
"In Africa down to the 1930's, the various tribes continued to raid one another to capture
slaves both for domestic use and to sell to outsiders. Moreover, in spite of the picture
presented in Alex Haley's Roots, white slave traders almost never entered the interior in
pursuit of prey but rather purchased their cargo from Africans at the ocean front; coastal
Africans would not allow Europeans either into or through their own countries ...some
scholars claimed that slavery in Africa was a response to the international slave trade, but it
is now obvious that (Black) slavery was an old domestic institution that was adapted for
supplying the international market when it developed." [28]
Hellie's view was echoed by Thomas Jackson in American Renaissance.
"Among the Tuareg of the southern Sahara, during the 19th century 70-90% of the
population were probably slaves. In the Sahel and the savannah, half the population might
be slaves, while in the forests the figure could be as low as 10 to 20 percent. Professor Oliver

in "The African Experience" argues that the European and American demand for slaves may
not have increased the supply. White slave traders almost never ventured into the interior
and were dependent on a varying supply over which they had no control. They followed the
flow of captives rather than create it, shifting their bases up and down the coast according to
where tribal wars were producing the most slaves. Africa clung to slavery long after it was
abolished elsewhere. Between the world wars, Liberia, founded by freed American slaves, was
censured by the League of Nations for practising slavery." [29]
An article from the Mel Fisher Maritime Heritage Society in Florida shows how
widespread slavery was at that time.
"At the dawn of the transatlantic trade, slavery was not new, nor were Africans the only
people to be enslaved. Slavery is mentioned in the Bible, and most ancient societies including
Egypt, China, India, Mexico, Peru and Greece made use of slave labor. Slaves were usually
prisoners of war, conquered peoples, debtors or criminals. In Europe, the Roman Empire took
slaves from every nation it overcame, including England, France, Spain and Germany.
Slavery persisted in the Mediterranean Basin throughout the 17th century.
The institution of slavery was present in Africa long before the arrival of Europeans on its
shores - slaves had been taken from parts of the continent since the time of ancient Egypt. In
the early 19th century, caravans of 18,000 to 20,000 black Africans were brought to Cairo
for resale, and slaves of every color were sold in the great markets of North Africa, even as
late as the first part of the 20th century.
...By 1650, most of the coastal states in Europe had possessions in the Americas. The
Spaniards dominated Central America, the Dutch and Portuguese colonized in Brazil, and
the English and the French had settlements primarily in the West Indies and North America.
All of these countries eventually imported slaves from Africa to support their American
colonies. European royalty, nobility and leading merchants were the principal supporters
and benefactors of the slave trade."[30]
The Economist admitted that the British, French, Spanish and Portuguese were not the
only people involved in the African slave trade.
"In Africa, slavery was accepted as the norm in most societies. Before Europeans arrived, and long
after, millions of Africans were marched north across the desert by Arab traders. Most had been taken
in war. The guns given in exchange helped wars to multiply and grow larger. Prisoners who might
earlier have been absorbed into the victor's army or workforce, or killed, were now fed to European
and American ships seeking human cargo, from Gambia round to Mozambique. Other Africans were
sold as slaves because they owed a debt; some even by their own families. Some, like Equiano, were
simply grabbed; though only in the early years by Europeans, because that upset relations with the
African coastal kings, who wanted to keep control of the trade."
"Between the mid-15th century and the late 19th, 12m Africans, about a third of them women,

made that voyage. Whites had found a new world, and needed blacks to exploit it. Seized - by other
blacks, not whites - force-marched to the coast carrying ivory or copper, then inspected like animals,
sold and crammed into ships, they made the 30-40-day voyage chained and forced to lie in their
own ordure and vomit. Then taken out, inspected again and resold, they were branded and forced to
dig in mines, clear land, plant and harvest sugar."
"Gradually in the 18th century an anti-slavery lobby built up in Europe, notably in Britain, the
superpower of the seas. In 1772 Lord Mansfield, a judge, ruled that a runaway slave there could
not be forced back by his master to the West Indies. The ruling was interpreted (questionably, but
this was the effect) as confirming that there could be no slavery in Britain. In America, it created
fears that Britain might try to abolish slavery in its colonies. The desire to maintain slavery was not
the least motive for the American war of independence, in which some blacks fought on the British
side. In 1807 Britain banned the slave trade, and began using its navy to stop it. But slavery itself
did not end in the British Caribbean until 1838, in the United States (in practice) 1865, in
Spanish-owned Cuba 1886, in Brazil 1888. The memory of slavery and its lasting social effects
sour race relations in Europe and America to this day."[31]


Little has been published regarding those Blacks who owned Black slaves in the USA,
however, more research is bringing this little-known subject to light.
Philip Burnham, in the article "Selling Poor Steven" published in the February/March
1993 issue of American Heritage, found that in the US Census of 1830 there were 3,775
free blacks who owned 12,740 black slaves.[32] Burnham wrote about the slave John
Casor, who was denied his freedom by Black slave owner Anthony Johnson.
"In the 1640s John Casor was brought from Africa to America, where he toiled as a servant
for a Virginia landowner. In 1654 Casor filed a complaint in Northampton County Court,
claiming that his master, Anthony Johnson, had unjustly extended the terms of his indenture
with the intention of keeping Casor his slave for life. Johnson, insisting he knew nothing of
any indenture, fought hard to retain what he regarded as his personal property. After much
wrangling, on March 8, 1655, the court ruled that "the said John Casor Negro shall
forthwith be returned unto the service of his master Anthony Johnson," consigning him to a
bitter lifetime of bondage. Given the vulnerable legal status of servants - black and white in colonial America, the decision was not surprising But the documents reveal one additional
fact of interest: Anthony Johnson, like his chattel Casor, was black...."[33]
Carter G. Woodson, whose grandparents and father had been slaves, was one of the first
to write about the Black slave owners. In Free Negro Owners of Slaves in the United States in
1830 (published in 1924) Woodson gives the names and number of slaves owned by free

blacks counted in the U. S. Census of 1830, listing them by name and the number of
slaves owned.[34]
Michael P. Tremoglie, in "The Black Roots of Slavery" also noted the issue of Black slave
"There were many free blacks in the American colonies. They were enfranchised and as early
as 1641, Mathias De Sousa, were elected to legislatures. These free blacks owned slaves some for philanthropic reasons, as Carter G. Woodson suggests. However as John Hope
Franklin wrote, " Negroes had a real economic interest in the institution of slavery
and held slaves in order to improve their economic status."
The census of 1830 lists 965 free black slave owners in Louisiana, owning 4,206 slaves.
The state of South Carolina, lists 464 free blacks owning 2,715 slaves. How ironic it is
that so many blacks owned so many slaves in South Carolina. Yet, no one seemed to mention
this during the flag controversy.
Some blacks served in the Confederate army, which is another omission in our popular
culture. The movie Glory did not happen to mention that blacks served in the Confederate
army. It did give the impression that the black soldiers in the 54th Massachusetts were
former slaves - which was not true."[35]
Harry Koger, in Black Slave Owners. Free Black Slave Masters in South Carolina, reported on
the success of Black women in Charleston.
"By 1860, so many Black women in Charleston had inherited or been given slaves and other
property by white men, and used their property to start successful businesses, that they owned
70% of the Black owned slaves in the city."[36]
From Kroger's work, it is noted that free Black slave owners resided in states as north as
New York and as far south as Florida, extending westward into Kentucky, Mississippi,
Louisiana, and Missouri. According to the federal census of 1830, free blacks owned
more than 10,000 slaves in Louisiana, Maryland, South Carolina, and Virginia. The
majority of black slave owners lived in Louisiana and planted sugar cane.[37]
John Hope Franklin and Loren Schweninger, in Runaway Slaves: Rebels on the Plantation,
revealed that conditions under Black masters could be such that slaves would run away.
"The largest black slaveholder in the South, John Carruthers Stanly of North Carolina,
faced a number of problems in the 1820s in dealing with a slave labor force on his three
turpentine plantations in Craven County. With a total of 163 slaves, Stanly was a harsh,
profit-minded taskmaster, and his field hands would run away. Stanley dealt with this
through his two white overseers and with a spy network that included a few trusted slaves.
Brister, his slave barber in New Bern, was responsible for relaying to his owner rumors of

planned escapes ...Nor did Stanly have any pangs of conscience about selling children away
from their parents or holding free blacks in bondage."
"Free black slave owners who lived in urban areas - Charleston, Savannah, Mobile,
Natchez, and New Orleans - also faced difficulties with their slave property. Free mulatto
barber William Johnson of Natchez was not certain what had happened to his recently
purchased slave, Walker, when he disappeared in 1835. He had either been stolen or had
run away to Kentucky to rejoin his wife. When on 4 July 1833, authorities in Ascension
Parish, Louisiana, jailed the twelve- or fourteen-year-old black boy named Isaac taken off
the steamer Watchman, he admitted he was owned by a 'free woman of color in New Orleans
named Jane'."[38]
In "Dixie's Censored Subject: Black Slaveowners", published in The Barnes Review, Robert
M. Grooms furnished several examples of Black slave owners in the USA.
"In the rare instances when the ownership of slaves by free Negroes is acknowledged in the
history books, justification centers on the claim that black slave masters were simply
individuals who purchased the freedom of a spouse or child from a white slaveholder and
had been unable to legally manumit them. Although this did indeed happen at times, it is a
misrepresentation of the majority of instances, one which is debunked by records of the
period on blacks who owned slaves. These include individuals such as Justus Angel and
Mistress L. Horry, of Colleton District, South Carolina, who each owned 84 slaves in 1830.
In fact, in 1830 a fourth of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or
more slaves; eight owning 30 or more.
... The majority of slaveholders, white and black, owned only one to five slaves. More often
than not, and contrary to a century and a half of bullwhips-on-tortured-backs propaganda,
black and white masters worked and ate alongside their charges; be it in house, field or
workshop. The few individuals who owned 50 or more slaves were confined to 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 slaves The
largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C.
Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. Another Negro slave magnate in
Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was
valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000 (3). That year, the mean wealth of southern white
men was $3,978 (4).
Interestingly, considering today's accounts of life under slavery, authors Johnson and Roak
report instances where free Negroes petitioned to be allowed to become slaves; this because
they were unable to support themselves.
... [regarding Black ex-slave William Ellison] As with the slaves of his white counterparts,

occasionally Ellison's slaves ran away. The historians of Sumter District reported that from
time to time Ellison advertised for the return of his runaways. On at least one occasion
Ellison hired the services of a slave catcher. According to an account by Robert N. Andrews,
a white man who had purchased a small hotel in Stateburg in the 1820s, Ellison hired him
to run down "a valuable slave. Andrews caught the slave in Belleville, Virginia. He stated:
"I was paid on returning home $77.50 and $74 for expenses.
...Following in their father's footsteps, the Ellison family actively supported the Confederacy
throughout the war. They converted nearly their entire plantation to the production of corn,
fodder, bacon, corn shucks and cotton for the Confederate armies. They paid $5,000 in
taxes during the war. They also invested more than $9,000 in Confederate bonds, treasury
notes and certificates in addition to the Confederate currency they held."[39]
As an interesting sideline to Black slave owners in the South of the USA, is that there
were also an estimated 65,000 Southern blacks in the Confederate military, including
over 13,000 who fought against the North in battle.[40]
A well-known and favourably reviewed novel, The Known World, by Black author Edward
P. Jones, has tackled the issue of Black-owned slaves, much to the surprise of those
readers who had never heard of Black slave owners.[41] However, the interesting story
of Blacks who owned slaves is largely ignored by the media and educators.


Lynn H. Nelson from Kansas University has pointed out that it was the Western nations
who became committed to ending the slave trade.
"There are various estimates of the number of Africans who were taken into slavery in the
Americas, but fifteen million is perhaps the highest number that has been put forward. Of
course, one must remember that some 20% of the captives died on their way to a trading
station, and another 20% died while being transported to the plantations. So it would seem
that over twenty million Africans were consumed by the slave trade to the Americas."
Most of these went to Brazil and the Caribbean islands. Only about half a million were
carried to North America, and the new United States, in 1808, was one of the first Western
nations to outlaw the importation of slaves. By the early nineteenth century, most Western
naval powers were committed to ending the slave trade, and many were considering ways of
eliminating slavery from their possessions. The United States did so only after a bloody civil
war was fought, at least partly over this issue. In 1888, Brazil was the last Western nation
to outlaw slavery. The slave trade continued but was restricted to commerce with the
Muslims as it had been in the beginning."[42]

Lawrence James, in his review of Hugh Thomas' The Slave Trade, pointed out that there
were Africans who were not happy with the ending of the slave trade to the West.
"African kings were glad to provide a steady flow of men, women and children, who they
said were criminals or prisoners of war doomed for execution. Many were not, but this did
not prevent partisans of the trade from posing as philanthropists who were rescuing the
Africans from death and offering them a better and, of course, more productive life. An
African chief, dismayed by the news that the slave trade was on the verge of abolition,
insisted that his "oracle and priests" had told him that their god wholeheartedly approved
of it. The Christian and Muslim gods agreed, or so their clerics proclaimed."[43]
Thomas Jackson also noted Black resistance to the end of slavery.
"In the nineteenth century, when France and Britain outlawed slavery in their territories,
African chiefs who had grown fat on the slave trade sent protest delegations to Paris and
London. As Dinesh D'Souza in "The End of Racism" explains, Africans never developed a
principled opposition to slavery; they denounced it when they were slaves but practiced it
happily when they could. Slavery can still be found in Africa. In America too, by 1830,
some 3,500 free blacks in the South owned approximately 10,000 slaves."[44]
In 1808 the United States of America banned importation of slaves, although this did not
affect those already in the United States nor those yet to be born; however, slavery
finally ended in the USA in 1865.
It was Great Britain that was the prime mover in ending the trans-Atlantic slave trade.
The British navy stopped and searched ships for slaves, freeing them when found. Mark
Steyn recognised the importance of this fact, one that would be rarely mentioned in
schools or in the media.
"What no one in their delegations (to the Durban Racism Conference) will say is this - that
the West has nothing to apologize or pay for, least of all Britain. London abolished slavery
in the British Isles in 1772 and within the Empire in 1833, in the teeth of fierce opposition
from Arab and West African traders. If one had to single out one institution that did more to
end the trade in human beings than any other, it would be the Royal Navy, whose ships
enforced the ban at great risk to themselves. Yet the reflexive shame in their inheritance is
such that no British, or Canadian, delegate in Durban would dream of standing up for the
historical record." [45]
Tunde Obadina, a director of Africa Business Information Services, has acknowledged
the importance of Britain, and other Western countries, in ending the slave trade.
"When Britain abolished the slave trade in 1807 it not only had to contend with opposition
from white slavers but also from African rulers who had become accustomed to wealth gained
from selling slaves or from taxes collected on slaves passed through their domain. African

slave-trading classes were greatly distressed by the news that legislators sitting in parliament
in London had decided to end their source of livelihood. But for as long as there was demand
from the Americas for slaves, the lucrative business continued.
...The slave trade business continued in many parts of Africa for many decades after the
British abolished it. For as long as there was demand for slave labour in the Americas, the
supply was available. The British set up a naval blockade to stop ships carrying slaves from
West Africa, but it was not very effective in suppressing the trade. Thousands of slave ships
were detained during the decades the blockade was in operation. One Lieutenant Patrick
Forbes, a British naval officer, estimated in 1849 that during a period of 26 years
103,000 slaves were emancipated by the warships of the naval blockade while ships
carrying 1,795,000 slaves managed to slip past the blockage and land their cargo in the
... Slave trading for export ended in Nigeria and elsewhere in West Africa after slavery
ended in the Spanish colonies of Brazil and Cuba in 1880. A consequence of the ending of
the slave trade was the expansion of domestic slavery as African businessmen replaced trade
in human chattel with increased export of primary commodities. Labour was needed to
cultivate the new source of wealth for the African elites.
Had Europe not decided to end the slave trade and the New World ceased demanding chattel
labour, the transatlantic trade might still be rolling today. The ending of the obnoxious
business had nothing to do with events in Africa. Rulers and traders there would have
happily continued to sell humans for as long as there was demand for them."[46]
David Horowitz has also noted this point.
"Slavery existed for thousands of years before the Atlantic slave trade was born,
and in all societies. But in the thousand years of its existence, there never was an
anti-slavery movement until white Christians - Englishmen and Americans created one. If not for the anti-slavery attitudes and military power of white
Englishmen and Americans, the slave trade would not have been brought to an
end. If not for the sacrifices of white soldiers and a white American president who
gave his life to sign the Emancipation Proclamation, blacks in America would still
be slaves."[47]
As Thomas Sowell, a Black conservative, has pointed out, the efforts of the European
nations to wipe out slavery have been virtually ignored.
"Incredibly late in human history, a mass moral revulsion finally set in against slavery first in 18th century England and then, during the 19th century, throughout Western
civilization. But only in Western civilization. ...Africans, Arabs, and Asians continued to
resist giving up their slaves. Only because Western power was at its peak in the 19th century

was Western imperialism able to impose the abolition of slavery around the world -- as it
imposed the rest of its beliefs and agendas, for good or evil."[48]
"The widespread revulsion which the hideous institution of slavery inspires today was
largely confined to Western civilisation a century ago, and a century before that was largely
confined to a portion of British society. No one seems interested in the epic story of how this
curse that covered the globe and endured for thousands of years was finally gotten rid of by
the West - not only in Western societies but in other societies conquered, controlled, or
pressured by the West.
The resistance put up by Africans, Asians and Arabs was monumental in defense of slavery,
and lasted for more than a century. Only the overwhelming military power of the West
enabled it to prevail on this issue, and only the moral outrage of Western peoples kept their
government's feet to the fire politically to maintain the pressure against slavery around the
Of course, this is not the kind of story that appeals to the multiculturalists. If it had been
the other way around - if Asian or African imperialists had stamped out slavery in Europe it would still be celebrated, in story and song, on campuses across America."[49]
The well-known Indian author Dinesh D'Souza makes a very pertinent point in his book
The End of Racism:
"Was slavery a racist institution? No. Slavery was practised for thousands of years in
virtually all societies: in China, India, Europe, the Arab world, sub-Saharan Africa, and
the Americas. In the United States, slave-holding was not confined to whites: American
Indians and free blacks owned thousands of slaves. Thus slavery is neither distinctively
Western nor racist. What is uniquely Western is the abolition of slavery." [50]


Whilst the Arabs have been acknowledged as a prime force in the early usage of slaves
from Africa, very little has been written about their usage of White slaves, whether they
were part of the Russian slave trade or those kidnapped by Arab pirates. However, in
recent years, the research of some authors has been bringing this issue to light.[51]
David Brion Davis, in The New York Review of Books, explains that
"The origins of African slavery in the New World cannot be understood without
some knowledge of the millennium of warfare between Christians and Muslims
that took place in the Mediterranean and Atlantic and the piracy and kidnapping
that went along with it. In 1627 pirates from the Barbary Coast of North Africa

raided distant Iceland and enslaved nearly four hundred astonished residents. In
1617 Muslim pirates, having long enslaved Christians along the coasts of Spain,
France, Italy, and even Ireland, captured 1,200 men and women in Portuguese
Madeira. Down to the 1640s, there were many more English slaves in Muslim
North Africa than African slaves under English control in the Caribbean. Indeed, a
1624 parliamentary proclamation estimated that the Barbary states held at least
1,500 English slaves, mostly sailors captured in the Mediterranean or
Professor Robert Davis, in his book Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the
Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast, and Italy, 1500-1800, estimated that 1 million to 1.25
million White people were enslaved by North African pirates between 1530 and 1780.
North African pirates abducted and enslaved more Europeans from coastal villages and
towns. Italy, Spain, Portugal and France were hardest hit but the raiders also seized
people in Britain, Ireland and Iceland. They even captured 130 American seamen from
ships that they boarded in the Atlantic and Mediterranean between 1785 and 1793.[53]
Arab pirates and White Slaves
Interest in the Arab slaving of Europeans was rekindled in the 1990s by the discovery of
the site of a Barbary Coast shipwreck at Moor Sands on the South Devon coast in
England. Icon Films produced a documentary on the subject, and published some of their
"For England after 1625 there were great periods, particularly in Devon and Cornwall,
Dorset, even around Bristol, where ships couldn't leave port. The first of the Muslims showed
up in 1625 it caused enormous panic. It was the suddenness. It was a surprise, the fact that
there was so many of them and the fact that the English had a coastline which was virtually
unprotected." [54]
"After looking at some dozens of population estimates from a number of different kinds of
sources we have an average, year in year out, especially between the years 1580 and 1680
of about 35,000, 34,000 slaves at any given time. Well, knowing this it then becomes a
question of estimating simply how many slaves it would be necessary to be taken every year
to keep that number. I've have estimated overall that between 1530 and 1780, that is
about two and a half centuries, something of the order of a million to a million and quarter
white Europeans were enslaved and taken to Barbary." [55]
"Arab pirates plagued the south west coast of England and Ireland throughout the
seventeenth century, but the height of this activity was around the 1630s, when England's
navy was at its weakest. While anything of value was fair game, their main quarry was

In the beginning they targeted the crews of West Country fishing boats, but as the pirates
grew bolder they came ashore to find victims, such as the entire congregation of a village
church in Cornwall and most of the inhabitants of Baltimore in Southern Ireland. A
successfully ransomed sailor reported "If the hands be smooth, they was ransomed, but if the
hands be rough, they was sold as slaves". He told that a slave would fetch 40, a
ransomnable captive 80 and a fair maiden up to 300.
By 1629 west country merchants were losing so many ships that James 1st was forced to send
a fleet to North Africa to demand the return of the captives. It failed completely, but
Admiral Mansell stated on his return that he believed there were between 25 and 30,000
Christian slaves in captivity."[56]
White Slaves, African Masters
Reviews have praised White Slaves, African Masters: An Anthology of American Barbary
Captivity Narratives, a book that has revealed the slavery of North American colonists by
Barbary privateers.
"Some of the most popular stories in nineteenth-century America were sensational tales of
whites captured and enslaved in North Africa. White Slaves, African Masters for the first
time gathers together a selection of these Barbary captivity narratives, which significantly
influenced early American attitudes toward race, slavery, and nationalism.
Though Barbary privateers began to seize North American colonists as early as 1625,
Barbary captivity narratives did not begin to flourish until after the American Revolution.
During these years, stories of Barbary captivity forced the U.S. government to pay
humiliating tributes to African rulers, stimulated the drive to create the U.S. Navy, and
brought on America's first post-revolutionary war. These tales also were used both to justify
and to vilify slavery."[57]
Slavery Under Islam
Books such as Islam's Black Slaves: The Other Black Diaspora by Ronald Segal and Race and
Slavery in the Middle East: A Historical Enquiry by Bernard Lewis have made available a
wider knowledge on Arab slavery.
"The author [Bernard Lewis], a venerable authority on the Near and Middle East, using
many Arab and Persian sources in the original languages, traces the connexion between
slavery and status, both in theory and practice, in the Islamic world from the 7th century to
the present. Until quite late in the 19th Century, when the Russians closed the Caucasus
route, white slaves were imported; after this, black slaves became preponderant. On the

whole Lewis demolishes the somewhat idealised (and guilt-generated) Western perception of
Islamic slavery as being more benign that its Western counterpart and its culture non-racist.
He demonstrates that freed blacks rarely rose to high positions and quotes anti-black
opinions about it when they did."[58]
Arab rulers even had white eunuchs (slaves with their testicles cut off). In Islam's Black
Slaves, Ronald Segal reveals that the Caliph in Baghdad at the beginning of the tenth
century had seven thousand black eunuchs and four thousand white ones in his palace.
Ibn Hawqal, writing in the 970s, remarked that "among the most famous exports [from alAndalus to other Muslim lands] are comely slaves, both male and female from Frankish and
Galician regions" and that "all Slavic eunuchs on earth come from al-Andalus, because they are
castrated in that region".[59]
These are just a few examples of information available on the Arab trade in White slaves;
however, this information rarely comes to light in biased Multiculturalist education
systems, as they prefer to concentrate on the issue of Black slavery to the exclusion of all
other types of slavery. In pushing a guilt complex upon white children, as part of their
ideological fight to promote Multiculturalism and attack "White racism", activist
teachers would be aware that telling the truth about widespread White slavery would not
be helpful in their promotion of Multiculturalist propaganda.


The usage of White slaves in Europe has received little attention by the media or in
academia, even though it was a widespread practise.
Juliet Gardiner and Neil Wenborn have given a broad background to the institution of
slavery in Britain.
"Slavery has had an important position in the society and economy of the British Isles and
of Britain's imperial possessions from time immemorial until the relatively recent past. It was
an integral institution in Roman society. It played a large part in Celtic societies, and was
important in Irish society until the 12th century. The Irish were particularly assiduous slave
traders, while prisoners taken in battle were frequently enslaved; there was also a flourishing
trade in slaves between Bristol and Dublin against which Wulfstan of Worcester preached.
Slavery had been an important institution for the Anglo-Saxons in England; slaves could be
bought and sold, and slavery was an inherited condition or could be imposed as a legal
punishment. Ten per cent of the population recorded in Domesday Book [1086] were slaves.
The disappearance of slavery in England in the early 12th century remains a mysterious

In Britain, as in many other countries, prisoners of war and criminals could be sold into
slavery; however, the trade in slaves also included the kidnapping of unsuspecting poor
people. Snippets in history resources sometimes mention in passing this slave trade in
White people. For example, in a history of the City of Bristol and its links with the
Transatlantic Slave Trade, we find the following snippet of information:
"By the 12th century some Bristol traders were routinely selling English children to Ireland
(especially young girls)".[61]
It was said of Malcolm III, King of Scotland, that when he invaded England in 1070 and
ravaged Durham, that his forces carried off so many prisoners that for years after English
slaves were found in every hamlet of Scotland.[62]
When James II took the British throne in 1685, the Duke of Monmouth, bastard son of
Charles II, raised a rebellion to claim the throne for himself. When his forces were
crushed at Sedgemoor, the Duke was executed with 320 of his followers. However,
hundreds more of the rebels were sentenced to slavery instead.
"over 800 rebels, as well as young girls who had embroidered Monmouth's standards at
Taunton, were given over to persons who enjoyed favour of court to be sold into slavery in
the plantations of the West Indies, there to be treated, in Samuel Pepys's words, 'according
to their deserts'."[63]
Extracts from "The Truth About Slavery" are revealing of the nature of White slavery.
"According to Thomas Burton's Parliamentary Diary 1656-1659, in 1659 the English
parliament debated the practice of selling British Whites into slavery in the New World. In
the debate, these Whites were referred to not as "indentured servants" but as "slaves."
In the Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, America and West Indies of 1701, we read
of a protest over the "encouragement to the spiriting away of Englishmen without their
consent and selling them for slaves, which hath been a practice very frequent and known by
the name of kidnapping." In the British West Indies, plantation slavery was instituted as
early as 1627. In Barbados by the 1640s there were an estimated 25,000 slaves, of whom
21,700 were White.
...Lay historian Col. A. B. Ellis, writing in the British Newspaper Argosy for May 6, 1893,
said: "Few, but readers of old colonial state papers and records, are aware that between the
years 1649 to 1690 a lively trade was carried on between England and the plantations, as
the colonies were then called, [a trade] in political prisoners... they were sold at auction...
for various terms of years, sometimes for life, as slaves."
Sir George Sandys' 1618 plan for Virginia referred to bound Whites assigned to the

treasurer's office to "belong to said office forever." The service of Whites bound to Berkeley's
Hundred was deemed "perpetual." "[64]
David M. Kennedy, Lizabeth Cohen, and Thomas A. Bailey, in The American Pageant, have
noted the high numbers of "indentured servants" in Virginia and Maryland.
"Because of the massive amounts of tobacco crops planted by families, "indentured servants"
were brought in from England to work on the farms. In exchange for working, they received
transatlantic passage and eventual "freedom dues", including a few barrels of corn, a suit of
clothes, and possibly a small piece of land.
Virginia and Maryland employed the "headright" system to encourage the importation of
servant workers. Under its terms, whoever paid the passage of a laborer received the right to
acquire 50 acres of land.
Chesapeake planters brought some 100,000 indentured servants to the region by 1700.
These "white slaves" represented more than 3/4 of all European immigrants to Virginia
and Maryland in the 17th Century."[65]
Paul Heinegg, in his book, Free African Americans
of North Carolina and Virginia, adds to the story.
"Most of the free African Americans of
Virginia and North Carolina originated in
Virginia where they became free in the 17th
and 18th century before chattel slavery and
racism fully developed in the United States.

An advertisement in an
American newspaper, regarding
a captured White runaway slave

When they arrived in Virginia, Africans

joined a society which was divided between
master and white servant.... They joined the
same households with white servants - working, eating, sleeping, getting drunk, and
running away together.

...The replacement of white servants with African slaves, begun in earnest in 1660,
continued for more than a century. African slaves had still not completely replaced white
servants by 17 October 1773 when the jailer in Prince William County advertised in the
Virginia Gazette that he had caught a runaway white servant man: "Committed to Prince
William gaol a certain William Rawlings, who says he is the property of Francis Smith of
Chesterfield. The owner is desired to pay charges, and take him away."
And he advertised in the same edition that he had jailed a runaway white servant woman:
"Committed to the gaol of Prince William a servant woman about 26 years of age, named

Mary Richardson; has on a short printed cotton gown, and striped Virginia cloth petticoat."
Michael Hoffman, in his book They Were White and They Were Slaves, confirms the large
numbers of White slaves in early America.
"From 1609 until the early 1800's, between one half and two thirds of all the White
colonists who came to the New World came as slaves. Of the passengers on the Mayflower,
twelve were White slaves. White slaves cleared the forests, drained the swamps, built the
roads. They worked and died in
greater numbers than anyone else."
British people were sentenced to
transportation to the American colonies
for petty crimes; and, as was the case
with those transported to Australia,
they were used as slaves by landowners.
As well as which, orphaned children
and other children of poor white
families, from the slums of England,
were kidnapped and transported to the
colonies. A review of They Were White
and They Were Slaves details some of the
horrors of White slavery.
"To be 'sentenced to transportation'
to the colonies was tantamount to
being sentenced to slavery.
...The notion that transportation
was a merciful alternative to
imprisonment or death in Britain is
an erroneous one. In fact, a
merciful judge was regarded as one
who did not transport British people into slavery in America.
...Transportation of the white individuals from England had higher losses of life than that
of the Black slaves of Africa. It cost more to obtain Blacks from Africa and the Whites were
cheaply obtained and were viewed as expendable. In the 17th and 18th century it was
customary to keep the White slaves below deck for the entire nine to twelve week journey. A
white slave would be confined to a hole not more that sixteen feet long, chained with 50
other men to a board, with padlocked collars around their necks.

The death rate of white slaves to America was about 25% compared to 10% of black slaves.
If a white slave was sold in advance to a Virginia planter, his well being and care was the
responsibility of the Captain of the ship until they reached the halfway point of the
voyage. After that the responsibility of costs of provisions went to the planter whether or not
the slave survived the trip. Captains became infamous for providing sufficient food for only
the first half of the trip and virtually starving their captives until they arrived in America.
...Upon arrival in America, the white kidnapped and convicts were displayed on an auction
block, examined, then sold by the ship's Captain. Once sold, the nightmare began. As many
as 80% of a shipment of white slaves died their first year. Long hours and sun exposure were
considered part of a first year 'seasoning". They would work from sunrise to sunset in the
fields or lead mines and then would be put to work in a shed grinding corn until midnight.
Some expected to serve their time and obtain land, others to apprentice to learn a trade, but
in most cases they were severely treated by beatings, etc. and did not survive. As their terms
of indenture came to a close, many were beaten and tortured, in hopes they would try to
flee. If they did flee and were caught, their indenture was extended another seven, ten or
more years.
Also additional time would be added for the cost of their capture. They were branded on the
cheek with the letter "R" and/or one or both ears were removed so they would not repeat
their fleeing. One half of White "indentured servants" did not live to attain their freedom.
Young white females in bondage were denied the right to marry. A woman having a baby,
out of wedlock, was an extension of two and a half years to her term. The baby was taken
from her and sold. These children's bondage was a "mere" 21 years for boys and 18 years
for girls. By 1769, all children born to even free white women who were unmarried were
also candidates for enslavement. Children were sold for a few pounds of tobacco to another
Michael Hoffman noted that White slaves in Barbados were badly treated by the
plantation owners.
"In Barbados by the 1640's there were an estimated 25,000 slaves, of whom 21,700 were
White. 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. In the British West Indies the torture visited upon White slaves by their masters was
routine. Masters hung White slaves by their hands and set their hands afire as a means of
To end this barbarity, Colonel William Brayne wrote to English authorities in 1656 urging
the importation of negro slaves on the grounds that, "as the planters would have to pay

much for them, they would have an interest in preserving their lives, which was wanting in
the case of whites", many of whom, he charged, were killed by overwork and cruel
treatment. Ten thousand Whites were kidnapped from England in the year 1670 alone."
Noel Scott has also researched the little-known practice of the White slavery suffered by
the White working class, using sources such as W.J. Cash, Jim Goad, Michael Hoffman,
Gary B. Nash, Robert J. Steinfeld, and Howard Zinn.
"Hoffman recounts the atrocities Oliver Cromwell and his Roundheads performed against
the Irish peasantry and anyone that so much as disagreed with Cromwell's despotic,
puritanical reign of terror. Cromwell "Barbadosed" 100,000 of his foes. Being
"Barbadosed" involved being enslaved and imported to Barbados, where the unlucky British,
Scots and Irish were "seasoned" in hellish weather and malaria-conducive conditions. In the
1640s, over eighty five percent of the slaves in Barbados were white, and by 1653, fifty
percent of white Barbadians were sent courtesy of Cromwell.
...What is often omitted from history lectures and texts is that the majority of whites did not
come to the New World seeking religious freedom. The majority of whites were "kidnabbed," drugged, knocked out or otherwise conned into coming to the Americas. "Drums"
were the hired hands of wealthy businessmen that hit poor Londoners over the head and
shipped them to the Americas; "crimps" and "spirits" either drugged victims or snatched
them off the streets.
Indentured servitude contracts were often forged documents, and the majority of indentured
servants stolen away to the Americas were children who lacked the capacity to enter into a
legal contract, notes W.J. Cash, in "The Mind of the South." Francis Trollope estimates
that 200,000 British children were kidnapped and shipped to the Americas or forced into
factory labor.
In the "Early Stuart Diaries," a 1618 parliamentary bill is mentioned which allowed
constables to kidnap orphans over eight years old, imprison them and then ship the orphans
as slaves to colonial plantations. A 1652 commonwealth law permitted vagrants and
beggars to be "schlepped in shackles to the colonies," writes Goad. And following the
English's lead, the Scottish Privy Council also sought to export its poor white trash to the
Americas, in 1669, notes Gary B. Nash in his book "Red, White, and Black: The Peoples of
Early America." The order issued by the Scottish Privy Council made it legal to capture
"strong and idle beggars, vagabonds, egyptians, common and notorious whoores, theeves,
and other dissolute and lousy persons."
Another myth Goad dispels in his taboo treatise is the bold-faced lie that "[o]nly blacks
suffered through a harrowing 'middle passage' across the Atlantic." Goad shares the plight
of a German Palatine, Gottlieb Mittelberger, who was duped by "newlanders" (the German

equivalent of British "drums" or "spirits"). Mittelberger came willingly, in 1750, but soon
realized he had been conned.
Water and food were scarce, dead women and babies were tossed overboard and German
slaves had it even worse below deck, writes Howard Zinn, in "A People's History of the
United States." In 1731, one German ship set sail with one hundred fifty German Palatines
and lost one hundred sixteen, writes Goad. In Roger A. Ekirch's "Bound for America," he
estimates that ten to fifteen percent of all white bondsmen perished before completing the
"middle passage."
Whites, like blacks, suffered the inhumanity of being separated from their families and sold
like they were non-human animals on auction blocks. One such white slave woman describes
it, in "Bound for America": "We were driven through the country like cattle to a Smithfield
market and exposed to sale in public fairs like so many brute beasts." In Robert J. Steinfeld's
"The Invention of Free Labor," he notes that West Florida's 1766 law stated that an
indentured servant was "the property of his [or her] Master." That sounds like slavery to
One might wonder why black slavery ever took root if white slaves were so abundant. Goad
explains that it was business as usual: whites could easily blend into the general white
population if they escaped slave owners' clutches, but a black slave stood out more and was
easily recaptured.
One might also argue that after black slavery took root, former white slaves and their
progeny had it made in the shade, but Goad counters this by making an astute point: Why
would plantation owners pay white workers when they had a new crop of slave laborers from
A review of Jim Goad's The Redneck Manifesto shows that an inkling of this research is
starting to reach a wider audience.
"The thesis starts out in medieval Europe, with its ruling class and serfs. It gets more
trenchant and further from liberal mythology in its analysis of indentured servitude. Try
this on for size: "A study of Virginia from 1623 to 1637 showed that white servants
outnumbered white freemen by three to one. In Maryland at one point in the 1600s, the
ration was six to one." Henry Cromwell, the Lord Protector's son, issued an edict that
forcibly seizing young Irish women and shipping them to the colonies was "so much to their
owne goode." Sounds just like liberals, doesn't it?
"So even though the popular belief is that NO whites were shipped to America against their
will, it's highly possible that MORE whites were bought here unwillingly than blacks." And
sold to the highest bidder. And, like a rental car, abused far more than the capital goods,

like the black slaves. Since, Goad argues, his ancestors were among those white slaves, why
should he pay reparations to anyone?"[71]
It is odd to note that those who call for reparations for slavery from Whites, or demand
an apology for slavery from Whites, are themselves guilty of a perverse kind of racism.
Robert W. Tracinski recognised this weird hypocrisy.
"An apology for slavery on behalf of the American nation presumes that whites today, who
predominantly oppose racism, and never owned slaves, and who bear no personal
responsibility for slavery, still bear a collective responsibility - a guilt they bear simply by
belonging to the same race as the slave-holders of the Old South. Such an apology promotes
the very idea at the root of slavery: racial collectivism.
Those who owned slaves were certainly guilty of a grave injustice. But by what standards
can other whites (many of whom are not even descendants of the slave-holders) be held
responsible for their ideas and actions? The only justification for such an approach is the
idea that each member of the race can be blamed for the actions of every other member, that
we are all just interchangeable cells of the racial collective.
The ultimate result of this approach is not racial harmony or a color-blind society, but
racial warfare. Under the premise of racial collectivism, an injustice committed against any
member of your racial group entitles you to retaliate against any member of the perpetrator's
racial group."[72]
The issue of White slavery is receiving more attention nowadays, albeit only from minor
researchers who are virtually ignored by the media and educational institutions.
However, they have made a start in countering the decades-long Multiculturalist
propaganda over Black slavery and its associated push to induce a collective feeling of
guilt in the general White population. Propaganda regarding Black slavery, especially
whilst ignoring White slavery, is nothing less than anti-White racism and therefore
should be exposed and opposed. To counter the wrongs of Multiculturalist propaganda,
it is high time that the issue of White slavery is prominently discussed in the media and in
Robert M. Grooms, in "The Johnson Family: African-American Owners of White and
Black Slaves", has revealed the fact that Blacks owned White slaves in America. He also
notes that a legal precedent for life-long slavery in America was established by a Black
slave owner with regard to one of his Black slaves.
"On April 10, 1606 the Virginia Company of London was granted a royal charter by King
James I, awarding it a large tract of land in present day Virginia, Delaware and Maryland.

On May 13, 1607 three small ships, Susan Constant, Godspeed and Discovery, arrived at
Cape Henry, sailed up the James River, and landed at present-day Jamestown ("James
Towne"). Following a 131-day voyage crowded in damp, cold, foul smelling holds in the
darkness beneath the decks, 104 settlers, including twelve servants, disembarked and
established a rough log fortress.
...In August 1619, more than a year before the landing of the ship Mayflower, a captured
Dutch man-of-war, with a Spanish captain name Jope and an English pilot named
Marmaduke, anchored in the James River near Jamestown. On board were "20 and odd"
men and women of African descent. The Virginia colony was in need of laborers, while the
captain and his crew were in need of supplies. A bargain was struck and twenty Negroes, the
first of their race in the colonies, were sold to the colonists, fresh food and water was brought
aboard, and the ship sailed away.
...According to the African-American Chairman of President William Clinton's Commission
on Race, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin:
These newcomers, who happened to be black, were simply more indentured servants. They
were listed in the census counts of 1623 and 1624; and as late as 1651, Negroes whose
period of service had expired were also being assigned land much the same way that it was
being assigned to whites who had completed their indenture. During the first-half century of
existence Virginia had many Negroes as servants; and the record reveals an increasing
numbers of free Negroes.
Franklin wrongly designated the first twenty Negroes in the colonies as indentured servants,
instead of redemptioners. Indentured servants, in return for paying the cost of their passage
to the New World, entered into a written contract while still in Europe to work for a
specified owner, for a specified number of years, under determined conditions
...The length of the bound servitude, be it an extendable set number of years or durante vite
(servitude for life) has no bearing on whether an individual is deemed a slave. The vast
majority of whites and all blacks arrived in the colonies as redemptioners. They were
generally of the underclass, including orphans, who were rounded up (often involuntarily)
while still in their native country and transported to the New World. Whites were frequently
transported in the same ships that were used for Africans.
One redemptioner who came to American in 1750 recalled his trip with horror: "To keep
from starving, we had to eat rats and mice. We paid from eight pence to two shilling for a
mouse, four pence for a quart of water."
Gittlieb Mittelburger in, Journey to Pennsylvania, recorded in 1750 that: The sale of
human beings at the market on board the ship is carried on thus: ...Every day Englishmen,
Dutchmen, and High German people come from the city of Philadelphia and other places in

part from a great distance, say twenty, thirty, or forty hours away, and go on board the
newly-arrived ship that has brought and offers for sale passengers from Europe, and select
among the healthy persons such as they deem suitable for their business
...White and black servants joined the same households - working, eating, sleeping and
running away together. Their terms of service could be extended for a large number of minor
offenses, including marrying or having children without permission. As a result of
extensions, many white redemptioners served their whole life as a "servant."
...A child born to a female redemptioner could become the property of her owner and the
mother's term extended. For example, George Cummins had the indenture of his white
servant woman named Christian Finney extended by a year and her child bound for thirtyone years by order of the Carteret County Count on December 7, 1736. When she applied to
the court for her freedom on June 9, 1744, the court ruled that she serve another five
months to pay for the cost incurred by her owner to bring the earlier action. When she
applied again 6 months later, she was ordered to serve an additional year for having a
"Mulatto Child in the time of her servitude."
Before 1643 servants without indentures generally became freemen after a term of service
varying from two to eight years. After 1643, the terms of servants "brought into the colony
without indentures or covenants to testify to their agreement" were fixed at four to seven
years, the period varying somewhat with the age of the servant. It was the custom and later
the law that a redemptioner, white or black, received from his master at the time of his
discharge a certain amount of property called "freedom dues." In 1660 Virginia custom was
to give each new freeman "3 barrels of corn and suit of clothes."
...In1651 Anthony Johnson [a negro] was given 250 acres as "head rights" for purchasing
five incoming white redemptioners.
...In 1652 John Johnson, Anthony Johnson's eldest son, purchased eleven incoming white
males and females, and received 550 acres adjacent to his father.
...There were a number of additional Virginia land patents representing grants to free blacks
of from fifty to 550 acres for purchasing white redemptioners. For example, on April 18,
1667 Emanuel Cabew received fifty acres in James City County, and in 1668 fifty acres
were deed to John Harris of Queen's Creek. Francis Payne paid for his freedom in 1650 by
purchasing three incoming whites for his master's use.
The First Black Slave for Life.
In addition to owning white redemptioners, Anthony and Mary Johnson also owned black
servants. In the 1640's John Casor was brought to the Virginia Colony, where he was
purchased by Anthony Johnson. In 1653 Casor filed a complaint in Virginia's

Northamption County Court, claiming that his master had unjustly extended the term of his
servitude with the intent of keeping Casor his servant for life. In his formal written pleading
Casor alleged: "Yt hee come unto Virginia for seaven or eight years of Indenture, yt he had
demanded his freedom of Anth. Johnson his masfter; & further sd yt hee had kept him his
servt seaven years longer than he should or ought." [Original spelling.] Johnson, insisting
he knew nothing of an indenture, fought hard to retain what he regarded as his personal
property, stating, "hee had ye Negro for his life." On March 5, 1655 the presiding judge,
Captain Samuel Goldsmith, ruled that "the said Jno Caster Negro shall forthwith bee
returned to the service of his master Anthony Johnson." Casor went with the Johnson's to
Maryland and was still owned by Mary Johnson in 1672.
Durante vite (servitude for life) had not existed in the colonies - except for a small number of
white convicts transported from the British Isles - until Anthony and Mary Johnson won the
judicial determination making John Castor their servant for life. It was not until 1670 that
the Virginia legislature enacted durante vite by providing that "all servants not being
Christians imported into this colony by shipping are to be slaves for their lives, but such
servants as come are to serve, if boys or girls, until 30 years of age, if men or women, 12
years and no longer."
Blacks and Indians came to own, and abuse, whites in Virginia in such large numbers that
in 1670 the House of Burgesses (legislature) proclaimed that " . . . noe negro or Indian
though baptyised and enjoyned their own ffreedome shall be capable of any purchase of
christians, but yet not debarred from buying any of their own nation." [Original spelling.]
"Christian" was a euphemism of the period for Caucasian. Virginia's Slave Code of 1705
provided: "That no negroes, mulattos, Indians, although christians, ore Jew, Moore,
Mahometans, or other infidels, shall at any time, purchase any Christian, nor any other,
except of their own complexion, or such as are declared slaves by this act." "[73]
This aspect of slave history seems to have "slipped by" the media and academia without
being noticed.


Approximately 162,000 convicts were sent to Australia, often for the most petty of
crimes, were treated as slave labour, and received the harshest of treatment. Norfolk
Island, in particular, dished out harsh and inhumane punishment.[74]
Even the transportation to Australia constituted a major punishment in itself. Whilst
conditions on the First Fleet have been described as fairly satisfactory, 267 convicts died
during the voyage of the Second Fleet, and 199 in the Third Fleet. Captain Hill, a British
military officer at that time, wrote of the awful conditions in the convict fleets.

"The slave traffic is merciful compared with what I have seen in this [second] fleet; in that
it is in the interests of the masters to preserve the healths and lives of their captives, they
have a joint benefit with the owners; in this, the more they can withhold from the unhappy
wretches, the more provisions they have to dispose of at a foreign market, and the earlier in
the voyage they die, the longer they can draw the deceased's allowance to themselves."[75]
Research published on the "Convicts to Australia" website adds further details:
"Convicts were housed below decks on the prison deck and further confined behind bars. In
many cases they were restrained in chains and were only allowed on deck for fresh air and
exercise. Conditions were cramped and they slept on hammocks.
...Although the six convict ships, three supply ships and two naval ships of the first fleet
arrived with their cargo of 780-odd convicts in relatively good condition, the same cannot
be said for those that followed during the rest of the century.
Of the 1000-odd convicts sent on the second fleet, 260 or more died during the voyage. As
mentioned in the section on hulks, many were diseased when they embarked and those who
managed to survive the voyage were severely weakened by scurvy, dysentry and fever.
On subsequent voyages the story was not much different and the treatment of the convicts
was a disgrace. Private merchant ships were contracted to transport the convicts and their
masters looked for ways to improve their profit margins by withholding the convicts' rations,
keeping them chained below decks without fresh air and inflicting harsh and cruel
punishment in an attempt to maintain discipline. Although official complaints were made
after the fact, justice was never seen to be done. In one particular case, Thomas Dennott, the
master of the 'Britannia', was described as a sadist. He brought a cargo of Irish convicts in
1797 and subjected them to brutal discipline of 300, 400 and 800 lashes. The worst death
rate, however, was recorded on the Hillsborough which arrived in 1799. Typhoid killed 95
of her 300 convicts."[76]
On board the ship Chapman, coming from Ireland in 1817, the reactions of naval
personnel to an alleged planned mutiny were so severe and extreme that Governor
Macquarie, after an inquiry, sent home a number of its personnel under arrest; however,
those charged were later acquitted.[77] Whilst the extremity of the brutality meted out
on the Chapman was so severe as to be reported, the ordinary everyday brutality would
usually go unreported, due to it being "acceptable" and so commonplace.
Convicts sent to Australia included some boys as young as eight years old, and there were
many sent out who were aged between twelve and eighteen.[78]
There were also political prisoners amongst the transportees, including the Scottish
martyrs of 1794; the naval mutineers of 1797; the Irish rebels of 1798, 1803, and 1848;

the agricultural rioters of 1830; the Tolpuddle martyrs of 1834; the Canadian rebels of
1839; and the Chartists of 1842.[79]
The London Quarterly Review published an article in June 1841 discussing the convict
situation in Australia:
"Captain Maconochie condemns the whole of the penal institutions of the colonies, and says
that the bad state of society may be traced directly to their pervading and demoralising
influence; he complains that physical coersion [flogging, etc.] is resorted to upon every little
breach of regulation, &c. &c.; in short, he says, in so many words, that the settlers who have
convicts assigned to them are slave-holders, and the assignees slaves."[80]
In the early days of New South Wales, convicts were employed on public works,
construction, and public farms. However, as the numbers of free settlers (including
governments officials) and emancipists (ex-convicts) increased, a large proportion of
convicts were released to them, in order to assist them in the cultivation of their lands.
Under this system of assigned service, convicts were assigned to masters and were
entirely under their control.
Governor Arthur of Van Diemen's Land declared that the assigned servant
"deprived of his liberty, exposed to all the caprices of the family to whose service he may
happen to be assigned, subject to the most summary laws... [was in a condition] in no way
different from that of a slave."
The only differences were that convicts were not to be flogged by their masters and,
except in the case of a "lifer", they were in bondage for a limited period of years.
In one notorious case the convict servants of Major James Mudie assaulted their
overseers, and when tried for attempted murder they stated that they were willing to die
provided they had been able to expose the conditions in which they were employed. The
convicts were convicted, but Governor Bourke ordered an inquiry to be held; however,
Mudie was officially exonerated.
Convicts were entitled to complain to a magistrate about ill-treatment meted out by
their masters; however the magistrates, usually settlers or masters themselves, were
more likely to be sympathetic to the master. Complaints by masters, against their convict
servants, of misconduct, insolence or idleness were readily accepted and the convicts
were sentenced to flogging or returned to government service. Governor Bourke wrote
that "The most extensive summary jurisdiction is given to the magistrates ...they are themselves
settlers directly interested in maintaining the strictest subordination and in exacting the most
laborious exertion which the law permits on the part of the assigned servant".
Magistrates regularly visited the government convict establishments to hear the

overseers' complaints and to inflict sentences. The most common punishment was
flogging, as this interfered less with the ability of the convict to work. Later, there was a
tendency to order solitary confinement or the tread-wheel instead of the lash, but both of
these forms of punishment depended on facilities being available, whereas a whip or a
cat-of-nine-tails were more easily obtained. More severe was a sentence to hard labour
for a prescribed time on a road gang, with or without irons. Worse still was banishment
to a penal settlement. Even when granted a "ticket of leave", convicts remained subject
to severe discipline and the ticket could be revoked for any offence, no matter how
In New South Wales in 1833, in one month 2000 out of 28,000 convicts were convicted
summarily and 9000 lashes were ordered by the magistrates. In Van Diemen's Land
(Tasmania) during the same period there were 1250 summary convictions and 4250
lashes ordered among 15,000 convicts.
Road gangs of convicts suffered under extremely brutal discipline. As extra punishment,
the men could be worked in irons. James Backhouse, a Quaker who visited New South
Wales in 1836, wrote of one road gang, "the punishment to which they are subjected for
misconduct in the gang is flagellation [flogging]; and in some instances they have received from
600 to 800 lashes, within the space of eighteen months, at the rate of not more than fifty lashes for
one offence". A soldier named Joseph Sudds, who died shortly after being condemned to
work in a road gang, carried irons weighing 13 lb. 12 oz., which were described as
"light". Backhouse noted that at one time the men were ordered to work in chains for as
long as seven years, but this severity had later been relaxed.[81]
A recollection of chained convicts is given in Tom Petrie's Reminiscences of Early Queensland.
"Father also saw the unfortunate chained men on the treadmill working out their
punishment. You would hear the "click, click" of their irons as they kept step with the
wheel, and those with the heavier irons seemed to have "a great job" to keep up. Some poor
wretches only just managed to pull through till they got off at the far end, then they sat
down till their turn came to go on again. They all had to do so many hours, according to
their sentence; an overseer kept the time, and a couple of soldiers guarded them. When they
had put in their time they were marched back to barracks.
The leg irons for the chain gang were made in the lumber yard by a blacksmith prisoner
there. A supply was kept always on hand, some light and some heavy, and when a prisoner
was sentenced to wear them for a certain time he was taken to this blacksmith's shop to be
fitted up; then when his sentence had expired he was sent there to have them taken off
...The lighter irons had links about the size of a plough chain, the others being much
heavier. The chains were some two feet long between the legs, and in the middle of each was

a small ring with a string through it, which, being connected to the prisoner's belt, kept the
irons from dragging on the ground during motion. Prisoners wearing chains had a peculiar
way of walking, and you would see the poor fellows just released after six months or so,
going along as though they still wore them. Heavily-chained men always dragged their feet
along in a weary fashion - life to them could not have been much joy. Ordinary trousers
would not go over a man's irons, so the chain gang all wore these garments opened right
down the outside seams, and buttoned there with big black buttons.
...Father says, "I have often heard my father say that some of the poor fellows got fifteen or
sixteen years for stealing turnips, others were sentenced for life because they had stolen
sheep, or for forgery. Nowadays, for the same offence or worse, they pay a fine or earn a few
months in gaol".[82]
Punishment for convicts in Australia went well beyond being flogged, put in chains, or
sentenced to the treadmill. A "secondary" punishment was established by setting up
penal settlements where discipline was so severe that being sent to some of the
settlements was said to be "worse than death". In his encyclopaedic article "Convicts and
Transportation", A.G.L. Shaw notes that Chief Justice Forbes was scathing about the
conditions at such places:
"the experience furnished by these penal settlements has proved that transportation is
capable of being carried to an extent of suffering such as to render death desirable, and to
induce many prisoners to seek it under its most appalling aspects."
Shaw's researches also showed that the brutalities of life in the penal settlements at
Norfolk Island and Port Arthur were so horrifying that "convicts were known to commit
murder in order to be sent away for trial".[83]
David Bentley, writing for Brisbane's Courier Mail, says that the period when the Moreton
Bay penal settlement was under the command of Captain Patrick Logan was "an era
when convicts were literally whipped to death and desperate prisoners cast lots to slit
one another's throats as a merciful escape from torment."[84]
Life for many convicts in Australia was extraordinarily severe, wherein they suffered
from the conditions of horrendous slavery.


Michael A. Hoffman II, a researcher of the history of White slavery, has exposed the
slavery of Whites in America.

"Up to one-half of all the arrivals in the American colonies were Whites slaves and they
were America's first slaves. These Whites were slaves for life, long before Blacks ever were.
This slavery was even hereditary. White children born to White slaves were enslaved too.
Whites were auctioned on the block with children sold and separated from their parents and
wives sold and separated from their husbands. Free Black property owners strutted the streets
of northern and southern American cities while White slaves were worked to death in the
sugar mills of Barbados and Jamaica and the plantations of Virginia.
The Establishment has created the misnomer of "indentured servitude" to explain away and
minimize the fact of White slavery. But bound Whites in early America called themselves
slaves. Nine-tenths of the White slavery in America was conducted without indentures of any
kind but according to the so-called "custom of the country," as it was known, which was
lifetime slavery administered by the White slave merchants themselves.
In George Sandys laws for Virginia, Whites were enslaved "forever." The service of Whites
bound to Berkeley's Hundred was deemed "perpetual." 17th century colonial America, sifting the documents, the jargon and the statutes
on both sides of the Atlantic and one will discover that White slavery was a far more
extensive operation than Black enslavement. It is when we come to the 18th century that one
begins to encounter more "servitude" on the basis of a contract of indenture. But even in
that period there was kidnapping of Anglo-Saxons into slavery as well as convict slavery.
...Ships carrying White slaves to America often lost half their slaves to death. According to
historian Sharon V. Salinger, "Scattered data reveal that the mortality for [White] servants
at certain times equaled that for [Black] slaves in the 'middle passage,' and during other
periods actually exceeded the death rate for [Black] slaves." Salinger reports a death rate of
ten to twenty percent over the entire 18th century for Black slaves on board ships enroute to
America compared with a death rate of 25% for White slaves enroute to America."[85]
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'."[86]
A letter by White slave Elizabeth Sprigs in Maryland to her father John Sprigs in London,
England, September 22, 1756 describes some of the conditions that these White slaves
lived under.

"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..."[87]


In Lawrence Tenzer's book, The Forgotten Cause of the Civil War, White partus slavery
(slavery of people who were part-White, including those who were predominantly of
White ethnicity) in the USA is discussed. The revelations of this groundbreaking book
have been highly praised by reviewers.
"Tenzer explains that in the antebellum South, the children of slave mothers were slaves
from the moment of birth. Even though miscegenation lightened skin color, virtually white
slave children were still considered mulattoes and remained slaves nonetheless, even after an
endless number of generations went by and all discernible Negroid traits were long gone. A
good example is a case he reports in which a slave woman who was one sixty-fourth black
was on the auction block. One of her great-great-great-great grandparents was black. Not
all slaves in the South were black, and this phenomenon of white slaves, whites with a
distant black ancestor, was to have unexpected political consequences.
A large number of white slaves escaped to the Northern states hoping to pass into free white
society, and slave catchers went North looking for them. This posed a direct threat to white
people living in the North because under the provisions of the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850,
runaway slaves could be reclaimed without due process, which in effect allowed for free
whites to be mistakenly seized. ...such Southern political power opened up the potential for
slavery being nationalized, and as such the very real possibility existed that enslavement
could be extended to the lower class of white laborers as well. Lincoln himself made reference
to slavery "regardless of color" during a speech he gave in Chicago on December 10, 1856.
Lincoln also spoke of white slavery in other speeches, all of which Tenzer has fully
documented. Plate 9 in his book shows an 1856 Republican party handbill which clearly
states in capital letters,, "Slavery is right, natural, and necessary, and does not depend
upon difference of complexion. The laws of the slave states justify the holding of white men
in bondage." Illustrations which depict actual white slaves and other historical documents
having to do with white slavery provide enough proof to convince even the most skeptical
reader that white people were slaves in the American South and that white slavery was
indeed a cause of the Civil War.

...white slavery with the fear it engendered certainly qualifies having contributed to the
deep-rooted friction which existed between the free and slave sections of the country. Tenzer
offers an original thought-provoking perspective to our understanding of Abraham Lincoln
and pre-Civil War politics along with a unique bibliography with many items which have
never appeared in modern scholarship. Of particular importance is the fact that this fullydocumented book is the first to explain why Northerners went to war to end slavery without
granting blacks full civil rights after that war was won."[88]
Tenzer has documented contemporary references to White partus slavery in the
Southern states of the USA.
"accounts of white slaves were published during or after the Civil War. Reverend John H.
Aughey lived in the South for eleven years and had both white and black congregations. He
told of preaching to slaves, some with red hair and blue eyes, a third of whom were just as
white as he was. Dr. Alexander Milton Ross attended a slave auction in New Orleans where
many of the slaves were "much whiter" than the white people who were there. In Lexington,
Kentucky, Reverend Calvin Fairbank described a woman who was going to be sold at a slave
auction as "one of the most beautiful and exquisite young girls one could expect to find in
freedom or slavery.... being only one sixty-fourth African." After the Union had won the
Battle of New Bern, North Carolina in 1862, Major General Burnside assigned Vincent
Coyler to be superintendent of the poor. Coyler expressed disbelief at the complexions he saw.
"The light color of many of the refugees is a marked peculiarity of the colored people of
Newbern. I have had men and women apply for work who were so white that I could not
believe they had a particle of negro blood in their veins."
The memoirs of Chesnut, Aughey, Ross, Fairbank, and Coyler were published during or after
the Civil War. Many other accounts were published all through the period before the Civil
War in which travelers and visitors to the South made note of the white slaves they saw on
plantations and at slave auctions. Their expectation, of course, was to see slaves who were
black or brown. On seeing white slaves for the first time, they often expressed surprise at how
white those slaves really were."[89]
The issue of part-White, or mostly-White slaves, was found to be repellant to many
American citizens in the northern states of the USA, and raised both the spectre of
northern Whites being wrongly seized as runaway slaves and of the reintroduction of
White slavery to the northern states, and thus became one of the causes of the American
Civil War.[90]


It is interesting to note that one of the causes of the American Civil War (also known,
perhaps more correctly, as the War Between the States) was the threat of slavery to the
White working class in the North of the USA.
Lawrence R. Tenzer and A.D. Powell have produced research into this little-known
"The institution of slavery had existed in every one of the Northern states throughout the
colonial period and such slavery was not limited to black slavery. White political prisoners
and petty criminals from Britain were sold and brought to the colonies as slaves. ...During
the 1850s, the South's plan to nationalize slavery was merely to reintroduce it in the North
where it had previously existed just 50 to 75 years earlier. With so many white partus slaves
in the South to begin with, the idea of expanding slavery to include white laborers in the
North moved slavery from a matter of color to a matter of class. Southern politicians
frequently pointed out that the slavery in Greece and Rome was based on social status, not
on color. They also called attention to the fact that the slavery in the Bible was not Negro
...Political materials for the presidential campaign of 1856 include references to the literal
enslavement of white people and illustrate the extent to which the idea had developed.
...The famous Richmond Enquirer reference about slavery not depending on "difference of
complexion" and the laws of the slave states justifying the holding of white men in bondage
was cited along with this quote from a leading South Carolina newspaper: "Slavery is the
natural and normal condition of the labouring man, whether WHITE or black."
...All of the talk during the campaign of 1856 about the South enslaving Northern whites
took on profound meaning after the Dred Scott decision allowed slavery into the territories.
Another Dred Scott decision would allow slavery into the free states of the North. In either
case, free white labor would have to compete with slave labor and could not survive because
the average daily wage of little more than a dollar would become 10 or 25. White
laborers who fell into poverty could be sold into slavery for debt. As "The New 'Democratic'
Doctrine" said, "All that the Northern white laborer requires is somebody to sell him when
he falls into poverty." In his book, A Journey in the Back Country, Frederick Law Olmsted
asserted, "Nothing in fact but the enslavement of labor at the North, could in the nature of
things, give that the capitalists of labor at the South." In a footnote, Olmsted
quoted the Richmond Enquirer: "While it is far more obvious that negroes should be slaves
than whites, ...the principle of slavery is itself right, and does not depend upon difference of
A series of speeches and dialogues which included references to white slavery took place in
the Senate and in the House of Representatives in 1860 and give a sense for what Northern
members of Congress wanted to express on the eve of the Civil War. Congressmen Henry

Waldron of Michigan, Israel Washburn, Jr. of Maine, William Windom of Minnesota, and
Senator James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin and Senators Charles Sumner and Henry Wilson of
Massachusetts all mention George Fitzhugh by name. His quote from Sociology for the
South pertaining to "slavery, black or white" and the Richmond Enquirer quote about
slavery not depending on "difference of complexion" were repeated time and again, showing
the concern Northern politicians had regarding the enslavement of white laborers.
... In 1859 Lincoln referred to Southern political power "trying to show that slavery existed
in the Bible times by Divine ordinance....whenever you establish that Slavery was right by
the Bible, it will occur that that Slavery was the Slavery of the white man - of men without
reference to color." Lincoln's own campaign newspaper, the Rail Splitter, spoke of white
slavery. An article entitled "Capital Should Own Labor" asked, "Whatever may be your
opinion of Negro Slavery, do you think White Men should be made Slaves?" The same
edition included this excerpt from a speech by Senator Benjamin F. Wade of Ohio: "Capital
should own labor - referring not merely to the labor of the colored man, but to that of the
white man as well!" A front-page article reminded readers, "It is not long since the
Richmond Examiner, a leading Southern organ of the Democracy, said that the natural
condition of the laboring classes of whatever color was slavery." Many articles in Lincoln's
paper discussed the in-surmountable problem free labor would have in competing with slave
labor, and the specter of white slavery was always present.
... When one truly understands that the politics of slavery had no regard for color, it
becomes clear that free laborers in the North and others fought to abolish slavery, not out of
altruism, but in order to insure freedom for themselves and their loved ones. Slavery black or
white answers a major question that has puzzled historians of the American Civil War as to
why Northern whites would fight to free blacks they believed to be an inferior race. Slavery
black or white also begs the question as to whether or not the Civil War would have occurred
if the existence of white slaves had not brought home to Northern citizens the great danger
that slavery posed to their free society. The authors do not claim that white slavery was the
only cause of the Civil War, but it was certainly an important cause which has been
overlooked in academic literature."[91]


Michael A. Hoffman II has explained that even whilst not encumbered by the institution
of slavery, White people were subjected to slave-like conditions.

"in the 18th century in Britain and America, the Industrial

Revolution spawned the factory system whose first laborers
were miserably oppressed White children as young as six years
of age. They were locked in the factories for sixteen hours a
day and mangled by the primitive machinery. Hands and
arms were regularly ripped to pieces. Little girls often had
their hair caught in the machinery and were scalped from
their foreheads to the back of their necks.
White Children wounded and crippled in the factories were turned out without compensation
of any kind and left to die of their injuries. Children late to work or who fell asleep were
beaten with iron bars. Lest we imagine these horrors were limited to only the early years of
the Industrial Revolution, eight and ten year old White children throughout America were
hard at work in miserable factories and mines as late as 1920."[92]
The awful conditions suffered by the child chimney sweeps are alluded to in the poem
"The Sweep Boys Lament" (London, 1824).
I'm weak and young and frightened oft,
when the dark flue I see;
by blows and threats forced up aloft,
where nobody loves me.
My master beats me with a rope,
a cruel master he:
But I have neither friends nor hope;
For nobody loves me.
They loved the negro 'oer the wave,
they strove to set him free;
But though I am a little slave,
there's nobody loves me. [93]
Another example of child slavery in Britain can be found in A Memoir of Robert Blincoe, An
Orphan Boy, Sent from the Workhouse at St. Pancras, London at 7 Years of Age to Endure the
Horrors of a Cotton Mill.
"Being too short of stature to reach his work standing on the floor, he was placed on a
block; but this expedient only remedied a part of the evil, for he was not able by any possible
exertion to keep pace with the machinery. In vain the ...child declared it was not in his
power to move quicker. He was beaten by the overlooker with great severity and cursed and
reviled from morning 'till night, 'till his life became a burthen to him and his body
discoloured with bruises."[94]

Men would be typically hired for heavy duty or labouring jobs, whilst women would
carry out more intricate work. Women were paid less than men, and children were paid
even less, and therefore employers liked to hire children as a source of cheap labour.[95]
Chapman Cohen, in Christianity, Slavery and Labour, made note of these practices.
Sir Samuel Romily [1757 - 1818] says:-It is a very common practice with the great populous parishes in London to bind children in
large numbers to the proprietors of cotton-mills in Lancashire and Yorkshire, at a distance of
200 miles. The children who are sent off by wagon loads at a time, are as much lost for ever
to their parents as if they were shipped off for the West Indies. The parishes that bind them,
by procuring a settlement for the children at the end of forty days, get rid of them for ever;
and the poor children have not a human being in the world to whom they can look up for
redress against the wrongs they may be exposed to from these wholesale dealers in them,
whose object it is to get everything they can possibly wring from their excessive labour and
...In the mines the conditions
were, if possible, still worse. In
1842, there was presented to
both Houses of Parliament a
Report from the Children's
Employment Commissioners.
From a summary of this report,
published in the Westminster
Review for October, 1842, and
extending over fifty pages, I
take the following: Of the
extent of child labour in mines,

Children working in the mines

we are told:--

Children are taken at the earliest ages, if only to be used as living and waving candlesticks,
or to keep rats from a dinner; and it is in pits of this worst character, too, in which most
female children are employed. It would appear from the practical returns obtained by the
Commissioner, that about one-third of the persons employed in coal mines are under
eighteen years of age, and that much more than one-third of this proportion are under
thirteen years of age.
In Shropshire we learn "there are very few under six or seven who are employed to draw
weights with a girdle round the body; and those only when the roof of the pit is so low for
short distances as to prevent horses of the smallest size from being employed." Of a Yorkshire
pit, in describing the way the children draw the trucks of coal--from two to five cwt.

[hundred weight (has varied: 100-120 pounds)], "they buckle round their naked person a
broad leather strap, to which is attached in front a broad ring and about four feet of chain,
terminating in a hook." No wonder the Commissioners speak of these human beasts of
burden, chained, fettered, and harnessed, as "presenting an appearance indescribably
disgusting and unnatural."
In the West Riding there was no distinction of sex so far as underground labour was
concerned. "The men work in a state of perfect nakedness, and are in this state assisted in
their labours by females of all ages, from girls of six years old up to women of twenty-one,
these females being quite naked down to the waist." Pages might be filled with similar
descriptions of pits in England, Scotland and Wales. The whole forms a striking comment on
Canon Brownlow's statement that "One of the most remarkable effects of Christianity was
...the rehabilitation of manual labour in public estimation.
One ought to say a word or two on the employment of boys in sweeping chimneys - a practice
unknown outside the British Isles - before leaving this aspect of the subject. Children of six
or seven were employed at this task, although an Act was passed in 1817 ordering that no
boy should be employed under eight years of age.
Most of these boys were either sold outright to the employers by callous parents, or
apprenticed from the parish. They were set to climbing chimneys, and often straw was lit
behind them to encourage quickness of movement. Some masters washed their boys once a
week, others just left them alone. The boys were stunted in growth, blear-eyed from the soot,
and "flapper-kneed" from climbing. Deaths from suffocation were common. Yet, when in
1803, a very mild Bill was brought before the House of Lords, regulating the trade, it was
rejected by a House consisting of one Archbishop, five Bishops, three Dukes, five Earls, one
Viscount, and ten Barons." [96]
The chronic overworking of Whites was rampant in Western societies. The fact that
England had campaigned for an end to Black slavey whilst ignoring conditions at home
that were equivalent to White slavery was a source of anger to many working class
people and trade unionists.
In 1837, George Loveless, the leading figure of the Tolpuddle Martyrs (the six Dorset
labourers who had been sent to the penal colony of New South Wales for their Trades
Union activity), made a speech to his fellow labourers:
"England has for many years been lifting her voice against the abominable practice of negro
slavery. Numbers of great men have talked, have laboured and have struggled until at
length emancipation has been granted to the black slaves in the West Indies. When will they
dream of advocating the cause of England's white slaves?"[97]
At the height of the anti-slavery campaign, William Cobbett wrote to Wilberforce:

"You seem to have great affection for the negroes... I feel for the hard-pinched, the illtreated, the beaten down labouring classes of England, Scotland and Ireland, to whom you
do all the mischief that it is in your power to do; because you describe their situation as
good, and because you do, in some degree, at any rate, draw the public attention away from
their sufferings." [98]
In an impassioned letter to the Leeds Mercury in 1830, a social reformer, Richard Oastler,
"Thousands of our fellow creatures are existing in a state of slavery more horrid than are the
victims of that hellish system, colonial slavery... The very streets which receive the droppings
of the Anti-Slavery Society are every morning wet by the tears of innocent victims at the
accursed shrine of avarice, who are compelled, not by the cart whip of the negro slave driver,
but by the equally appalling thong or strap of the overlooker, to hasten, half-dressed, but
NOT half-fed, to those magazines of British infantile slavery - the worsted mills in the town
of Bradford." [99]
Advocates of social justice, such as Loveless, Cobbett, and Oastler, campaigned hard to
alleviate the conditions of the working people of those times. In the 1890s, Rev. Louis
Albert Banks of Boston wrote the book White Slaves Or The Oppressions Of The Worthy Poor
to expose the awful conditions of the poor people that he had witnessed in his
Chapman Cohen, in Christianity, Slavery and
Labour, has revealed instances of White slavery
in Britain in the seventeenth century and
"In the seventeenth century thousands of
Irish-men, women, and children were seized
by the order, or under the licence of the
English Government, and sold as slaves for
use in the West Indies. In the Calendar of
State Papers, under various dates, between
1653-6, the following entries occur: "For a
licence to Sir John Clotworthy to transport to
America 500 natural Irishmen." A slave
dealer, named Sellick, is granted a licence to
Slave girls
take 400 children from Ireland for New
England and Virginia. Later "1,000 Irish
girls and the like number of youths" are sold to the planters in Jamaica.
In Scotland the Parliament passed, in 1606, an Act binding all workmen engaged in coal
mines and at salt works to perpetual service. For over a century and a half later whenever

coal mines or salt works changed owners those employed were sold with the estates. They
were emancipated in 1775 by an Act of the British Parliament, but with certain special
conditions that made the Act almost a dead letter. It was not until 1799 that the colliers
[coal miners] and salt-workers of Scotland became free men."[101]
The Heritage League has also revealed some of the horrendous working conditions
suffered by White people in Britain during the nineteenth century.
"Campaigning by a few radicals, and several of the more humane factory owners, led to a
Factory Inquiry Commission being set up by Parliament in 1833. Reports to the Commission
showed that children as young as 5, but more often 7, were employed in a working day of
14-16 hours, exclusive of intervals and meals. It was also reported that factory owners
permitted overseers to flog and maltreat children and often took an active part themselves. In
many factories children were employed on 12-hour night shifts. Medical reports to the
Commission showed that thousands of children were maimed and deformed by factory work,
lack of
ren were
Children working in the mines
employed in the mines, starting underground at the age of about 7 or 8, when they would
spend long hours alone in the darkness of the pit. Older boys and girls, strapped to loaded
wagons, hauled these along tramways underground. Very small children as young as 5 or 6
were sometimes employed on the surface, in charge of the pit-head winding gear, responsible
for the lives of colliers being hauled up and down the shaft.
...In the wake of the Factory Inquiry Commission, a Factory Act of 1833 limited the hours
to be worked in a day for the under-12s to eight, and to twelve hours for those aged 13-18.
But there were clauses in the bill that allowed children to work successive eight-hour shifts,
thus prolonging the adult working day to 16 hours. This Act became known as the "White
Slavery Bill."

...At long last, during the latter part of the 19th century, a series of Factory Acts reduced
the working hours for children, and also began to introduce the idea of providing working
class children with an education. The Factory Act of 1867 permitted only part-time work
for children under 11, and a further Act of 1870 put up the age of boys working
underground in the mines to 12. This Act also set the maximum working week for children
under 16 to 54 hours. A national system of education for working-class children only began
after the 1870 Education Act set up local School Boards. But as these Boards were allowed
to charges fees for their classes, most ordinary workers could still not afford to send their
children to school. It was only after another Education Act of 1891, which permitted
schools to claim grants for the children it educated from poorer families, that a more
universal education
system came into
Shop assistants were
notoriously overworked,
and campaigners eventually
secured the passage of the
Shop Hours Act in 1886.
The Act imposed a limit of
hours worked per week of
74 hours, however, this
remained ineffectual until
the enforcement of the
regulations was handed over "The Secret Of England's Greatness, 5 pence Per Hour"
to the local authorities in
[The Bulletin, August 1889]
1912. One has to wonder
how many hours a week shop assistants were forced to work, if a reduction to 74 hours a
week was thought to be "reasonable".[103] It is little wonder that such conditions have
been referred to as "White slavery" or "wage slavery".
In such times, Black slaves in America were often treated better than White employees,
as the slaves could be quite expensive to buy, and therefore were looked after as an
economic asset. The Economist has estimated that in 1753 an African slave from the Gold
Coast would cost 16 (about UK1,000 or US$1,650 in today's money), and in the West
Indies would fetch up to 35."[104] On the other hand, White labourers were simply
hired by the hour or by the day, and - in a era without Workers' Compensation laws could be used in reckless and dangerous ways without economic liability to their bosses.
An example of this can be seen in the observations of Frederic Olmsted.
"In 1855, Frederic Law Olmsted, the landscape architect who designed New York's Central
Park, was in Alabama on a pleasure trip and saw bales of cotton being thrown from a
considerable height into a cargo ship's hold. The men tossing the bales somewhat recklessly
into the hold were Negroes, the men in the hold were Irish. Olmsted inquired about this to a

shipworker. "Oh," said the worker, "the niggers are worth too much to be risked here; if the
Paddies are knocked overboard or get their backs broke, nobody loses anything." "[105]
In light of the "White slavery" conditions suffered by the British working class, the
Heritage League has attacked those "bleeding hearts" who have for so long tried to place
the yoke of a "White guilt complex" upon the shoulders of White people worldwide.
"The cause of African slavery was championed, whilst that of the child slaves of Britain was
virtually ignored, because of an early form of political correctness. The "bleeding hearts" of
the day preferred to campaign for abolition of slavery because it was more socially
acceptable: because it was taking place somewhere else. Considering the attitudes of their ilk
today, it is unsurprising that they would campaign for one but ignore the other. When one
reflects and considers the suffering of our ancestors, our kith and kin, and the way their
plight was ignored, then you have to say that we are the ones who should be angry.
Conquerors have enslaved their enemies since before the dawn of time, the native Britons
were enslaved by the Romans, then by the Saxons who, in turn, were enslaved by the
Normans. We move on. And it is the mark of a civilized and mature folk that they accept
that what was done in the past was done in the context of the age in which it took place.
For those who did not know about these things, and sadly there are a great number, I hope
that you will now be better equipped to resist attempts to make you feel guilty about your
past. And perhaps you will educate others who are ignorant of the truth.
There may be things that have been done by the British that have been wrong, but they are
far outweighed by those things that have been right. Our ancestors suffered more than any
plantation labourer. Let no-one lecture us with the pious guilt of the "chattering classes."
Don't preach to us, liberal, when it was your kind that emancipated the African slave while
leaving our own children to work 16-hour days in the factories!"[106]


Michael Hoffman has revealed the double standards of the media when it comes to
slavery and mistreatment of those in servitude. This double standard is also applied in the
schools and universities of Multiculturalist education.
"The wealthy, educated White elite in America are the sick heirs of what Charles Dickens in
Bleak House termed "telescopic philanthropy" - the concern for the condition of distant
peoples while the plight of kindred in one's own backyard are ignored.
Today much of what we see on "Turner Television" and Pat Robertson's misnamed "Family
Channel," are TV films depicting Blacks in chains, Blacks being whipped, Blacks oppressed.
Nowhere can we find a cinematic chronicle of the Whites who were beaten and killed in

White slavery. Four-fifths of the White slaves sent to Britain's sugar colonies in the West
Indies did not survive their first year.
Soldiers in the American Revolution and sailors impressed into the American navy received
upwards of two hundred whiplashes for minor infractions. But no TV show lifts the shirt of
these White yeoman to reveal the scars on their backs.
The Establishment would rather weep over the poor persecuted Negroes, but leave the White
working class "rednecks" and "crackers" (both of these terms of derision were first applied to
White slaves), to live next door to the Blacks.
Little has changed since the early 1800s when the men of property and station of the
English Parliament outlawed Black slavery throughout the Empire. While this Parliament
was in session to enact this law, ragged five year old White orphan boys, beaten, starved and
whipped, were being forced up the chimneys of the English parliament, to clean them.
Sometimes the chimney masonry collapsed on these boys. Other times they suffocated to
death inside their narrow smoke channels.
Long after Blacks were free throughout the British Empire, the British House of Lords refused
to abolish chimney-sweeping by White children under the age of ten. The Lords contended
that to do so would interfere with "property rights." The lives of the White children were
not worth a farthing and were considered no subject for humanitarian concern.
The chronicle of White slavery in America comprises the dustiest shelf in the darkest corner
of suppressed American history. Should the truth about that epoch ever emerge into the
public consciousness of Americans, the whole basis for the swindle of "Affirmative action,"
"minority set-asides" and proposed "Reparations to African-Americans" will be swept away.
The fact is, the White working people of this country owe no one. They are themselves the
descendants, as Congressman Wilmot so aptly said, of "the sons of toil."
There will only be racial peace when knowledge of radical historical truths are widespread
and both sides negotiate from positions of strength and not from fantasies of White working
class guilt and the uniqueness of Black suffering.
Let it be said, in many cases Blacks in slavery had it better than poor Whites in the
antebellum South. This is why there was such strong resistance to the Confederacy in the
poverty-stricken areas of the mountain south, such as Winston County in Alabama and the
Beech mountains of North Carolina. Those poor Whites could not imagine why any White
laborer would want to die for the slave-owning plutocracy that more often than not, gave
better care and attention to their Black servants than they did to the free white labor they
scorned as "trash."
To this day, the White ruling class denigrates the White poor and patronizes Blacks."[107]

The emphasis upon Black slavery, and the ignoring of White slavery by teachers and the
media is nothing short of racism against White people. To use propaganda to make
Whites feel worthless in terms of their heritage and to instill feelings of guilt is an
atrocious example of the cunning, treacherous, and underhand nature of
It is time for all people of European descent to be made aware of this emotional
blackmail, to regain their pride of heritage, and to ignore the machinations of racist
The Enslavement of Whites in Early America and Industrial Britain
(Michael A. Hoffman II)
The Forgotten Slaves: Whites in Servitude in Early America and Industrial Britain
(Michael A. Hoffman II)
The Truth About Slavery
(American Dissident Voices, National Vanguard Books)
White Slaves
(Lawrence R. Tenzer)
The Illicit Slave Trade
(Lawrence R. Tenzer)
Racial Theory & The Pre-Civil War Census
(Lawrence R. Tenzer)
White Slavery, Maternal Descent, And The Politics Of Slavery In The Antebellum
United States
(Lawrence R. Tenzer and A.D. Powell)
Slave Kingdoms [African involvement in the slave trade]
There Were More White Slaves Than Black Slaves in Colonial America

i[1] C.S. Everett. "Reparations",
L.E. Salazar. "Barbados and the Melungeons of Appalachia",
ii[2] "White Slaves of the Maquinna",
"White Slaves of Maquinna",
"White Slaves of the Nootka",
iii[3] Kevin Alfred Strom. "The Truth About Slavery",
American Dissident Voices (National Vanguard Books). "The Truth About Slavery",
iv[4] Johann Wingard. "The Vilakazi Renaissance",
v[5] Dr. William Pierce. "Slavery and Race" (Free Speech - November 1997 - Volume
III, Number 11),
vi[6] "American Civil War Census Data ",
vii[7] Philip Burnham. "Selling Poor Steven" (abstract of the article "Selling Poor
Steven" from the February/March 1993 issue of American Heritage, p.90-),
Robert M. Grooms. "Dixie's Censored Subject: Black Slaveowners",
See also the section in this document regarding "Black slave owners".

viii[8] Regarding application of the White Guilt Complex, see:

Elizabeth Wright. "Blaming Whitey",
ix[9] "Bonded labour",
x[10] "As Many as 27 Million Forced Into Slavery Worldwide",
"Millions 'forced into slavery'",
xi[11] NGO Group for the Convention on the Rights of the Child. "Database of NGO
Reports presented to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child",
xii[12] Salim Muwakkil. "African Slavery and Its Denial by Blacks" (republished from the
Chicago Tribune, 7 May 2001),
xiii[13] Salim Muwakkil. "African Slavery and Its Denial by Blacks" (republished from
the Chicago Tribune, 7 May 2001),
xiv[14] Serge Trifkovic. "Islam's Wretched Record on Slavery","Another in a
series of excerpts adapted by Robert Locke from Dr. Serge Trifkovic's new book The
Sword of the Prophet: A Politically-Incorrect Guide to Islam")
xv[15] "Slavery and Servitude: The years of slavery since ~3500 BC - 1619 - Present",
xvi[16] Michael Hoffman II, They Were White and They Were Slaves; cited in: "Slavery",
"Slavery ...until the end of time",
xvii[17] Christopher Tyerman. England and the Crusades 1095-1588. University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, 1988, p. 236-237.
"Slavery and Servitude: The years of slavery since ~3500 BC - 1619 - Present",
xviii[18] "Slavery and Servitude: The years of slavery since ~3500 BC - 1619 - Present",

xix[19] "Slavery" (article), in Philosophical Dictionary; cited in: "Christianism - Addition

xx[20] "Search for Labor",
"The Vikings",
xxi[21] "Exploration and the Beginning of the Slave Trade",
xxii[22] "Exploration and the Beginning of the Slave Trade",
xxiii[23] "Exploration and the Beginning of the Slave Trade",
"Slavery and Servitude: The years of slavery since ~3500 BC - 1619 - Present",
xxiv[24] Howard Dodson "How Slavery Helped Build a World Economy" (3 February
xxv[25] Lynn H. Nelson. "The Slave Trade",
xxvi[26] Zayde Antrim. "Confronting the legacy of the African slave trade",
xxvii[27] Al Benson, Jr. "The Slavery Issue - More Complex Than It Seems",
xxviii[28] "Slavery",
xxix[29] Thomas Jackson, 1992, American Renaissance 3, x; cited in "Slavery",
xxx[30] "A Slave Ship Speaks: The Wreck of the Henrietta Marie",
xxxi[31] "Guilty parties" (from The Economist print edition, 23 Dec 1999),

xxxii[32] Al Benson Jr. "Proof, I Don't Gotta Show You No Stinkin' Proof",
Edward J. Toner Jr. "USA: Free Blacks who owned Black Slaves",
"Black Reparations Poll", (see
posting by "B4Ranch", "To: Otis Mukinfus"); cites: "Selling Poor Steven", American
Heritage Magazine, Feb/Mar 1993 (Vol. 441) p. 90.
xxxiii[33] Philip Burnham. "Selling Poor Steven" (abstract of the article "Selling Poor
Steven" from the February/March 1993 issue of American Heritage, p.90-),
See also: "Re: Black on Black: Black American Slaveholders",
Edward Toner. "An Untold Black History",
xxxiv[34] "Carter Godwin Woodson",
"Free Blacks Who Themselves Owned Slaves",
Ed Toner. "Blacks Owning Slaves",
xxxv[35] Michael P. Tremoglie. "The Black Roots of Slavery",
xxxvi[36] Larry Koger. Black Slaveowners: Free Black Slave Masters in South Carolina 17901860, 1985, cited in: "Page 2 Politics", (see section
"Posted by: lyn at July 3, 2004 01:21 AM")
See also: "Black Slaveowners " (review),
xxxvii[37] Ingolf Vogeler. "Free Black Slaveowners in South Carolina", (cites
source: Larry Koger. Black Slaveowners: Free Black Slave Masters in South Carolina, 17901860. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 1985)
See also: "Black Slaveowners",

xxxviii[38] John Hope Franklin and Loren Schweninger. Runaway Slaves, Rebels on the
Plantation, New York: Oxford University Press, 2000; cited in: Jim Powell. "Runaway
xxxix[39] Robert M. Grooms. "Dixie's Censored Subject: Black Slaveowners",
Robert M. Grooms. "Dixie's Censored Subject - Black Slave Owners", The Barnes Review,
1(13) 1995 , pp. 17-22; cited in "Reparations For Slavery: The Republican Way",
"Michael P. Johnson and James L. Roark, Black Masters: A Free Family of Color in the
Old South (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1984), 422 pp." (review),
xl[40] Scott K. Williams. "Black Confederates Fact Page",
Scott K. Williams. "On Black Confederates",
See also:
"The Black and the Gray",
"The Black Confederate",
"Black Confederates",
"Black Confederates",
"Black Confederates",
"Black Confederates",
"Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War Virginia",
"Black Confederate Soldiers",
"Black Men say Rebel flag flies for freedom",
"The Chandler Boys",
"Confederates of All Colors" (internet links),
"Diverse Confederates",
Bob Harrison. "Just A Few Thoughts...",
Bob Harrison. "A Letter From A Black Confederate",
Patrick R. Massengill. "Black Confederates in the Civil War",
John Nevins. "Black Americans in the Confederate Navy & Marine Corps",
Vernon R. Padgett. "A Series of Essays by Dr. Vernon R. Padgett, PhD, California
Division of Sons of Confederate Veterans",
"Quotations on Black Confederates",
Derrick Shipman. "Black Confederates in the War for Southern Independence",
Tim Westphal. "Black Confederate Participation",
"A True Black History Moment",
Walter Williams. "Black Confederates",
"Writings About and By Black Confederates",
xli[41] Olga Lorenzo. "The Known World" (The Known World, by Edward P. Jones:
reviewed by Olga Lorenzo),
xlii[42] Lynn H. Nelson. "The Slave Trade",
xliii[43] "Slavery",
xliv[44] Thomas Jackson. American Renaissance, xi, 1995; cited in: "Slavery",
xlv[45] Mark Steyn. "The World Conference Against Whitey"; cited in: "Slavery",
xlvi[46] Tunde Obadina. "Slave trade: a root of contemporary African Crisis",
xlvii[47] "The Controversial Anti-Reparations Ad by David Horowitz",
See also: David Horowitz. "10 Reasons Why Reparations For Blacks Are A Bad Idea For
Blacks And Racist, Too",

xlviii[48] Thomas Sowell. "History Swept Under the Rug: Only Western Civilization
Put an End to Slavery",
xlix[49] "Slavery",
l[50] "Slavery",
li[51] See the various books cited in this section, as well as:
Dan Neill. "When Morocco ruled the waves" (27 June 2004, The Observer),,6121,1248090,00.html (re. White
Gold, by Giles Milton)
lii[52] David Brion Davis. "Slavery - White, Black, Muslim, Christian",
liii[53] Rory Carroll. "New book reopens old arguments about slave raids on Europe"
(11 March 2004, The Guardian),,3604,1166720,00.html
liv[54] "Dutch or Morroccan?",
lv[55] "Slave Industry",
lvi[56] "White Slaves article",
lvii[57] "Baepler, Paul: White Slaves, African Masters" (book review),
lviii[58] Findlay Dunachie. "Slavery under Islam",
lix[59] "Eunuch Archive Message Boards - Islam's Black Slaves",
lx[60] Juliet Gardiner & Neil Wenborn (editors). The History Today Companion to British
History, Collins & Brown, London, 1995, p. 698.
Estimates of slaves as part of the recorded English population as recorded in the Domesday
Book of 1086 varies between 9% to 10%.
Juliet Gardiner & Neil Wenborn (editors). The History Today Companion to British History,
p. 698.

Kenneth O. Morgan (editor). The Oxford History of Britain (revised edition), Oxford
University Press, Oxford, 1999, p. 181.
lxi[61] Andrew Nash. "Bristol and Slavery - Pre 17th Century Slavery",
lxii[62] "Kings of Scotland",
lxiii[63] Christopher Hibbert. The Marlboroughs: John and Sarah Churchill 1650-1744.
Viking, London, 2001, p. 30-33.
lxiv[64] American Dissident Voices (National Vanguard Books). "The Truth About
lxv[65] David M. Kennedy, Lizabeth Cohen, Thomas A. Bailey. The American Pageant
(12th Edition), chapter 4,
lxvi[66] "Freed In the 17th Century",
lxvii[67] Michael Hoffman II, They Were White and They Were Slaves; cited in: "Slavery",
lxviii[68] "Recommended Reading Synopsis" (see review of They Were White and They
Were Slaves: The Untold History of the Enslavement of Whites in Early America by Michael A
Hoffman II),
lxix[69] Michael Hoffman II, They Were White and They Were Slaves; cited in: "Slavery",
lxx[70] Noel Scott. "Historians overlooked white slavery",
lxxi[71] "Wolfe's Lodge - Reviews - The Redneck Manifesto",
lxxii[72] Robert W. Tracinski, "Apology for Slavery Will Perpetuate Racism"; cited in:
lxxiii[73] Robert M. Grooms. "The Johnson Family: African-American Owners of White
and Black Slaves",
lxxiv[74] "Convicts and the European Settlement of Australia",

"History and Culture: Convict",
lxxv[75] A.G.L. Shaw. Convicts and transportation, The Australian Encyclopaedia, Angus
and Robertson, Sydney, 1958 (second edition), vol. III, p. 25.
lxxvi[76] "Life at Sea" (Convicts to Australia website),
lxxvii[77] A.G.L. Shaw. "Convicts and transportation", The Australian Encyclopaedia,
1958 (second edition), vol. III, p. 26.
lxxviii[78] A.G.L. Shaw. "Convicts and transportation", The Australian Encyclopaedia,
1958 (second edition), vol. III, p. 30.
lxxix[79] A.G.L. Shaw. "Convicts and transportation", The Australian Encyclopaedia, 1958
(second edition), vol. III, p. 31.
lxxx[80] Captain Maconochie, "Thoughts on Convict Management," "The Australian
Convict," from The London Quarterly Review (68) June 1841; American Edition published
by Jemima M. Mason; cited in: May Lee. "Convicts in Australia",
lxxxi[81] A.G.L. Shaw. "Convicts and transportation", The Australian Encyclopaedia, 1958
(second edition), vol. III, p. 28. [Some direct quoatations used].
NSW Department of Corrective Services. "The First 200 Years",
lxxxii[82] Constance Campbell Patrie. Tom Petrie's Reminiscences of Early Queensland. Lloyd
O'Neil, Windsor, Victoria, 1980 (first published 1904), p. 242-243.
lxxxiii[83] A.G.L. Shaw. "Convicts and transportation", The Australian Encyclopaedia,
1958 (second edition), vol. III, p. 29.
lxxxiv[84] David Bentley. "Discovery and disaster",
lxxxv[85] Michael A. Hoffman II. "The Forgotten Slaves: Whites in Servitude in Early
America and Industrial Britain",
lxxxvi[86] Dr. Holary McD. Beckles (University of Hull, England) White Servitude, p. 71;
cited in "There Were More White Slaves Than Black Slaves in Colonial America",

lxxxvii[87] Public Record Office, London, England, High Court of Admiralty, 30:258;
No. 106; cited in "There Were More White Slaves Than Black Slaves in Colonial
lxxxviii[88] "What Is The Forgotten Cause Of The Civil War?" [review of Tenzer's
book, at bottom of page],
lxxxix[89] "White Slaves" by Lawrence R. Tenzer,
xc[90] "Youth's Companion: "White Slaves" (1865)",
xci[91] Lawrence R. Tenzer and A.D. Powell. "White Slavery, Maternal Descent, And
The Politics Of Slavery In The Antebellum United States",
xcii[92] Michael A. Hoffman II. "The Forgotten Slaves: Whites in Servitude in Early
America and Industrial Britain",
xciii[93] Michael A. Hoffman II. "The Enslavement of Whites in Early America and
Industrial Britain",
xciv[94] A Memoir of Robert Blincoe, An Orphan Boy, Sent from the Workhouse at St. Pancras,
London at 7 Years of Age to Endure the Horrors of a Cotton Mill. J. Doherty, Manchester,
1832; cited in "The Enslavement of Whites in Early America and Industrial Britain" by
Michael A. Hoffman II,
xcv[95] "Children at Work: Background",
xcvi[96] Christianity Slavery and Labour, by Chapman Cohen [see 1150], (Third Edition
Revised and Enlarged), Issued for the Secular Society, Limited, by the Pioneer Press, 61
Farringdon Street, E.C.4 London, 1931, p. 32-33; cited in: "Christianism - Addition
xcvii[97] "The Other Side of Slavery",
(republished from Heritage and Identity, issue no. 1, published by the Heritage League)
xcviii[98] "The Other Side of Slavery",
xcix[99] "The Other Side of Slavery",
c[100] "The Project Gutenberg EBook of White Slaves, by Louis A Banks" (full text of

ci[101] Christianity, Slavery and Labour, by Chapman Cohen [see 1150], (Third Edition
Revised and Enlarged), issued for the Secular Society, Limited, by the Pioneer Press, 61
Farringdon Street, E.C.4 London, 1931, p. 32-33; cited in: "Christianism - Addition
cii[102] "The Other Side of Slavery",
ciii[103] Juliet Gardiner & Neil Wenborn (editors). The History Today Companion to British
History, Collins & Brown, London, 1995, p. 692.
civ[104] "Guilty parties" (from The Economist print edition, 23 Dec 1999),
cv[105] Michael A. Hoffman II. "The Forgotten Slaves: Whites in Servitude in Early
America and Industrial Britain",
cvi[106] "The Other Side of Slavery",
cvii[107] Michael A. Hoffman II. "The Forgotten Slaves: Whites in Servitude in Early
America and Industrial Britain",