Showing posts with label Haiti. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Haiti. Show all posts

Saturday, October 17, 2015

Zephaniah Kingsley Jr.--Former Quaker, Slave Trader, and Emanicpator


The Review of Zephaniah Kingsley Jr. and the Atlantic World: Slave Trader, Plantation Owner, Emancipator
by Daniel L. Schafer
University Press of Florida,2013


Though the scholarly volume is fact-detailed heavy and therefore on the dry side in writing, it is one amazing historical study!

Zephaniah Kingsley Jr. greatly changed my view of the nature of slavery and slave ownership in the South. Also, it shows the dark side of the Society of Friends.

The book explains how incredibly diverse and contradictory the institution of slavery was. For Kingsley, unlike the Southern fire-eaters and other racists in the South and the North, wasn’t really racist in the usual sense, but acted more like his British forebears in that he emphasized class hierarchy.


Aerial view of Kingsley Plantation and Fort George Island.
http://www.unf.edu/floridahistoryonline/Bartram/February_1766/10-11feb1766.htm

According to Zephaniah Kingsley, slavery wasn’t about race but about commerce. Slavery was more like indentured servanthood.

It appears that despite his long engagement in the slave trade, Kingsley always held open the opportunity for his slaves to earn their freedom by saving and then buying themselves from him at half their net worth. Plus, he used a task system of work, so that his slaves had daily time when they finished a specific task to work on their own crops and earn money.


Furthermore, Kingsley was appalled by the racist rules and policies of the United States after it confiscated Florida from the Spanish after Americans invaded Northeast Florida in the infamous "Patriot War" beginning in 1810.


Originally, the American invaders had come south from Georgia to kidnap humans and take them back to Georgia to sell. But in the process they also caused all manner of havoc including burning plantations, killing, etc. Then they tried to lead a revolt against the Spanish Government. It took many years for Northeast Florida to recover.

As an American literature/history teacher for many years, I have read many volumes on and about slavery. In fact, I have an in depth background in the historical subject, know how complex and contradictory the institution was in relationship to various societies.

Yet Schafer's book surprised me in that it gives still another, different angle to the whole subject. In Zephaniah Kingsley we have a man of Thomas Jefferson's generation--the generation which took a dim view of the institution itself but however felt slavery was needed for the success of plantations. It would be many years before, gradually, Americans would dispense with the peculiar institution's benefits.

But Kingsley, despite his more humane form of slavery never condemned slavery itself, and was a slave owner all of his life until his death in 1843. On the other hand, Kingsley intermarried with African women, appeared to be proud of his life-long African common wife, Anna, and his bi-racial offspring.



He always publicly acknowledged Anna and their sons and daughters, freed them publicly, and provided for their future, willing them most of his estate.

It was an irony of history that Kingsley's youngest sister, a devout Christian, who after Kingsley death tried to break his will and confiscate all of the money from black Anna and the biracial children!

In contrast, during Kingsley's life, he encouraged the ecoomic advancement of his slaves and helped many of them, (before they earned their freedom), became highly skilled artisans and managers of plantations including his own.

Furthermore, in the 1830's Kingsley became very upset and worried when the U.S. Southern States passed racist legislation against intermarriage, etc. At that time, Kingsley bought a plantation in Haiti to provide a safe haven for Anna and their children, and other freed slaves. Haiti was the only place in the Western hemisphere where slavery was against the law.

Amazingly, Kingsley also worked with Northern abolitionists to provide Haiti as a destination for former slaves. The man was a complex mix of contradictions, but those contradictions were all about economic security for himself and his family. It appears he was seldom ideological, and almost always goal driven. What ever worked.

Below is the only known picture of a grandchild (the young woman in the red cape) of Zephaniah and Anna Kingsley. No portraits of the couple or their children exist. Probably, the portraits were destroyed in the wars and forced movements of the family.




Maria Perez Kingsley, great-granddaughter of Zephaniah and Anna Kingsley

Kingsley in his openness toward Africans and methods of gradual freeing of slaves is in stark contrast to the racist hypocrisy of Thomas Jefferson who while condemning slavery in the Declaration of Independence and in other writings, hid his own sexual relations with one of his slaves and never admitted fathering slave children.

Also, Jefferson not only profited from slave labor on his plantations and from the institution all of his life, he never officially freed almost any of his slaves, not even at his death. Most historians think Jefferson did free several biracial children fathered by him when they grew up.

Very differently, Zephaniah Kingsley began freeing some of his slaves as early as 1811. However, this good actions is contrasted by his active life as a slave trader and the fact, he still owned slaves at his death.

Despite his having grown up Quaker, a religion which began to oppose slavery by 1688, Kingsley became an active slave trader during the late 1780's shortly after all Quaker meetings totally banned slavery!

Even though the Society of Friends was originally founded on equality in about 1650, tragically, by 1681 to 1705, 70% of Quakers owned slaves! How that came about would make a powerful historical study.

A few Quakers began to speak out against slavery beginning in 1688. The Quaker business man, John Woolman, in the 1700's spent his entire life, even to the detriment of his clothing business opposing slavery among Friends. Finally, by 1756 only 10% of Quakers owned slaves.
Fischer, David Hackett Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America Oxford University Press (1989) p601

Quakers officially banned slavery in 1776. After that date no one could be a member of the Society of Friends and still own slaves. Yet it appears that, sometimes, Kingsley did attend Quaker worship meeting because he mentioned that he considered worship meeting as a good time to work on his business accounts in his mind!

As usual, even now, human leaders display so many moral contradictions and fall far short of what they ought to achieve and ought to do and ought to be.

As mentioned earlier, Kingsley looked on slavery as a economic necessity as did Anna, his African common wife, who herself became a slave owner. In this she and he carried on the practices of East Africa, where her people, the Wolof enslaved, were enslaved, and where they sold other Africans to European ships and to Arab slave traders.


For to Kingsley's slavery wasn’t a permanent social condition related to color like for most people of the United States, nor was it like the British who wouldn’t let the lower classes move up the economic/social scale.

This doesn't excuse him from the abhorrent practice, especially his engaging in the Middle Passage for many years, but it does show a very different outlook toward the institution.

Finally, Kingsley so opposed the racist views, laws, and behavior of the South in the 1830’s that he moved his family and children to Haiti to protect them from racism, intolerance, and re-enslavement.

Some good amidst the bad.

A good man, Kingsley wasn’t.

How can anyone be good and enslave humans from half way round the world on slave ships?

But he demonstrated a different attitude and different, less severe form of slavery.

Evidently his Quaker parents’ ethics had influenced him, or despite his obsession with obtaining wealth as a form of temporary security in this life, he still had a side of him that was somewhat sensitive and concerned with fairness.

It’s all so complicated.

What a book!
Evaluation: A

A book well worth reading not only for history, but to understand why ethics are so difficult for brilliant humans. Nothing is ever easy, certainly not seeking ethical truth.

If in doubt, just look at the ethical horror and political mess, that leaders of the U.S. Government, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, the Gulf States, Iran, etc. have gotten the human race into in the last 30 years.

Trillions of dollars wasted on slaughtering, destroying, political and religious maneuvering>

Zephaniah's immoral life, yet sometimes contradictory good sense, may help us see where we still make wrong choices about the Good, the True, and the Just.

In the Light,

Daniel Wilcox

Sunday, February 21, 2010

Part #4: Women in Tragedy--Ruth

What does one do when all chaos breaks out, when everything collapses to hell, when all hope and joy is yanked low and hanged?

Where can Haitians in the midst of over 200,000 dead and a million homeless find hope and joy? Where can the wife who just lost her husband in a terrible wreck or to cancer ever find meaning and hope?

The Book of Ruth starts out in such deep tragedy. The story is set at the time of the judges (probably a better translation of that for contemporary understanding is "chieftains") when as Scripture says, everyone "did what was right in his own eyes." Judges 17:6 That phrase says so much of the evil that was in the land. When everyone lives by subjectivism, not transcendent values, but only by their own culture's mores or their own wants or ideas, look out.

Furthermore, "there was a famine in the land." Elimelech and Naomi leave their country for Moab--the despised enemy country across the river. And then it gets much worse for the couple, Elimelech dies--doesn't say how. And then Naomi's young sons die too.

The story-teller is setting us up for truth she wants to share. Notice (as I mentioned last week) that the author of the book has given allegorical/parabolic names to the characters and places. Her home where the famine comes is Bethelehem which in Hebrew means "house of bread." How ironic!

Naomi's two sons who die are Mahlon ("illness") and Chilion ("cessation").* Naomi means "sweetness," before the tragedies. When she returns home bereft and hopeless, she says call me "Mara" ("bitter"). So not only has she suffered greatly, but she is bitter about her lot in life. And she, like so many humans past and present, blames God.

In our own time countless famous American leaders have given God the credit for everything from war to disease to catastrophe, as do even insurance documents: This policy insures you except for acts of God--meaning flood, earthquake, etc. God is left holding the bag of wind, is caught opening Pandora's box, is the destroyer, the master puppeteer who majors in destruction. So the story goes, in the Book of Ruth and for countless religious people even to this day.

But that's the bad news.

What about the good news?

Enter Ruth and Orpah. They plan to return with Naomi/Mara to the House of Bread. But then Naomi/Mara tells them her life is over and that they should stay in Moab and make new lives for themselves. Both Orpah and Ruth genuinely care for Naomi/Mara, but finally Orpah goes back (her name literally means "back of the neck," meaning "back-turner."*

In contrast, Ruth clings to Naomi/Mara and refuses to leave.

Let's cut to the end quickly--ie give you the short version (what my wife's always asks of me when I start talking;-)

It is intriguing and refreshing that in the Jewish Bible, which usually focuses on men's exploits and faith journeys, that the book of Ruth was included: a story where at this point, no men are involved; they're dead. This instead is a story of women, about a woman's initiative, a woman's commitment, a woman's loyalty, a woman's humbleness, a woman's hard work , a woman's ingenuity, a woman's...well, you get the point. Too bad that Southern Baptists, Roman Catholics, and other religious groups which still deny women equality with men don't.

While there has been much questionable allegorizing of Scripture since St. Paul and Origen, the book of Ruth does appear to be an allegorical story.

Ruth represents the true follower of truth, the friend who sticks closer than a sister. Indeed, her name "Ruth" probably, etymologically, means "companion, friend." It's not that Orpah isn't a nice person; she isn't a dabbler or fair-weather friend; but when all goes to Hell, she is the one who finally leaves, looking for a better life.

In contrast, Ruth's commitment is to death, loyalty without end: "for where you go, I will go, and where you lodge, I will lodge. Your people my people, and your God, my God. Where you die, I will die..."

One point: in relationships with others, and, of course, ultimately in following God, we should give our whole heart and commit totally--no matter how terrible the circumstances.

In the Light,

Daniel

*Quoted again from Brettler