Welcome To aBlackWeb

William Ellison. Is his come up fair or foul?

DOS_patos

Unverified Legion of Trill member
On March 26, 1857, William Ellison wrote to his son Henry Ellison about the family business. Life was going well and Ellison wanted to update his son on how things were going at home. John, one of Ellison’s 53 slaves had just been to the river to collect payment from a number of white slaveowners for the cotton gins they had purchased from Mr. Ellison. He came back with no money at the end of the day though. Ellison’s customers had either made excuses such as wanting to consult their overseer before paying or had not been where they said they would be. There was no frustration in Ellison’s tone as though this is something that he has had to deal with before. He then gave instructions to his son to purchase a number of farming tools that would inevitably be used in the fields by his slaves. He gave a brief farewell and ended the letter.

This same type of letter may have been sent a thousand times from a slaveholding father to his slaveholding son in mid nineteenth century American South. But William Ellison and his son, Henry Ellison, were different. William Ellison was African American, born into slavery in April of 1790 with the name April Ellison to a slave mother and white slavemaster father, Mr. William Ellison. As a young man he was apprenticed to a cotton gin maker rather than working in the fields and allowed to keep a portion of the wages he earned for his master and father, money that he later used to purchase his freedom. At the same time, he changed his name to William Ellison, after his father, to fit in with higher society. After purchasing his family, he moved to Sumter County, South Carolina and hired out other free African Americans to work in his cotton gin shop. While working, he discovered a common problem among freed slaves in the South. The expense of wages left him with a profit that would never compete with what slaveowners were earning. Wanting to move up in society, he purchased his first slaves in 1820.

By 1850, Ellison had 37 slaves while his sons owned another 16. He was one of about 180 black slave masters in South Carolina at the time, most of whom were former slaves themselves. Like Ellison, they realized that the only way to get out of the lower middle class that so many freed blacks were stuck in, was slave labor. With nearly 9,000 free blacks in South Carolina, that 180 made up a tiny percentage who were willing to do anything to compete with the upper class white slaveowners at the time. Just because they owned slaves though did not mean they were treated equally among slaveowners. As Ellison subtly hints in his letter, white slave owners would avoid interacting with African Americans as much as possible. Ellison provided many whites in the area with what were the best cotton gins available which meant that if they wanted to produce the most cotton, they would have to do business with them. They would often try to avoid paying him though. Despite the discrimination, blacks owning blacks continued all the way up to the Civil War, with many African American slave owners, including Ellison, contributing and supporting the Confederate side. Stories like Ellison’s and other black slave owners showed the economic power of slavery in Southern America in the nineteenth century. The easiest way to achieve financial and social success was to own slaves and the allure of southern wealth was enough that it convinced a few of slavery’s former victims to switch to the other side.



 
interesting....
why so?

he just did what white people did to get his family out of poverty.

Those white people don't have loyalty to black people. All black people should have some kind of loyalty to our own. So I look at that aspect differently.

He wasn't in poverty though. The article said he did it because he wanted to get out of the lower middle class. Lower middle class ain't poverty. He exploited his own people to keep them all the way fucked up for only his benefit and still was never accepted into white high class society.

That nigga was foul.
 
Those white people don't have loyalty to black people. All black people should have some kind of loyalty to our own. So I look at that aspect differently.

He wasn't in poverty though. The article said he did it because he wanted to get out of the lower middle class. Lower middle class ain't poverty. He exploited his own people to keep them all the way fucked up for only his benefit and still was never accepted into white high class society.

That nigga was foul.
but do you think you are asking for too much from a person?
he might have seen his middle class as still not enough.

but is it ok to step on others to get to where you think you need to?
 
but do you think you are asking for too much from a person?
he might have seen his middle class as still not enough.

but is it ok to step on others to get to where you think you need to?

How am I asking too much?

I have no issues with him wanting more than middle class. He should want more than middle class.

I view stepping on others and exploiting others as two different things.

People can compete and have to go through each other when trying to achieve the same position. Whoever loses gets stepped on by the winner.

Exploitation the people on the bottom don't have a chance to do shit. They just there to be taken advantage of.
 
How am I asking too much?

I have no issues with him wanting more than middle class. He should want more than middle class.

I view stepping on others and exploiting others as two different things.

People can compete and have to go through each other when trying to achieve the same position. Whoever loses gets stepped on by the winner.

Exploitation the people on the bottom don't have a chance to do shit. They just there to be taken advantage of.
i guess my question is...

why would you think he has a loyalty to others just because of their matching skin color?
also, is he obligated to help those out who are at the bottom or should he not be shunned for looking out for himself and his?
 
i guess my question is...

why would you think he has a loyalty to others just because of their matching skin color?
also, is he obligated to help those out who are at the bottom or should he not be shunned for looking out for himself and his?

I'm not saying undying loyalty as in the same he has for his family. I'm just saying he should at least have some type of loyalty to his people to not exploit them and put them in same fucked up situations white people do.

I didn't say he was obligated to help anybody just that he shouldn't exploit his people is all.

All money ain't good money. Nobody is shunned for looking out for themselves and their family. Folks get shunned for the dirty things that they might do in looking out only for themselves and their family. There is a difference.
 
I'm not saying undying loyalty as in the same he has for his family. I'm just saying he should at least have some type of loyalty to his people to not exploit them and put them in same fucked up situations white people do.

I didn't say he was obligated to help anybody just that he shouldn't exploit his people is all.

All money ain't good money. Nobody is shunned for looking out for themselves and their family. Folks get shunned for the dirty things that they might do in looking out only for themselves and their family. There is a difference.
i am curios how others see this.

not too many people would look out for others when given the chance to make money.

shit irks me when i see it happen.
and this dude was selling lil girls at that.
 
Bruh...are you really asking if a person that was born of a slave mother is foul for using SLAVE LABOR for personal gain?

Like for real?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
i am curios how others see this.

not too many people would look out for others when given the chance to make money.

shit irks me when i see it happen.
and this dude was selling lil girls at that.

Just cause a person isn't willing to exploit people doesn't mean they are looking out for said people either.
 
Just cause a person isn't willing to exploit people doesn't mean they are looking out for said people either.
doing nothing is better than hurting or exploiting.

but some people see it as....if someone is going to do it.....why not me.
its gonna happen anyway.

i just rather not be apart of it. and dont like when niggas that can help but dont. not that they are obligated. but ......fuck em.
 
It's not foul. Put yourself back in those times. The first thing a freed slave did was purchase as many family members as he could. Familial ties are important. A free black man would never make it on his on, he needed others. Black slave ownership was waaay different than white slave ownership. There was no whipping or torture. A black man could be re-enslaved, put in prison or killed for any such acts. He had to thread lightly. Slavery is mental and no black person would have that same mental fear of another black person like they would have a white person during that time. Other than family members it was very difficult for a black slaveowner to keep laborers around. They could simply walk off anytime. There was no white slave catcher or law that would enforce anything. Working for a black man was rare.
 
How he treated his slaves is what I'd like to know. Given the times, I can understand a black slave owner possibly "playing the game" like a fox. Kind like what folks do now in a modern way. What he did with that power ultimately decides this question.
 
Back
Top