History Video: Africans were kidnapped from their homelands and pressed into slavery.
Some Guy in the Comments: Africans in the slavery era weren't kidnapped from their homelands! They were sold into slavery by their fellow Africans!
Me: Many were kidnapped from their homelands by Africans from the next land over. Others were kidnapped from their homelands by European slavers directly. Still others were pressed into slavery by their own society's rules, and then sold to white slavers for transport across the Atlantic. All three of those reasons for leaving Africa involved a massive worsening of their living conditions and rights. None of those scenarios make white slavers look any better. And all three of those scenarios can be reasonably summarized by the phrase "kidnapped from their homeland." And all three of those scenarios can be reasonably summarized by the phrase "pressed into slavery." So what specifically are you trying to refute?
Hob Gadling’s Involvement in the Transatlantic Slave Trade between the 16th and 19th Century
The Fallacy of (clumsily written) Racial Reconciliation or: Is show!Hob really different from comics!Hob
I originally wrote this a while back as a reply to someone else’s post, but since we’ve been discussing “Men of Good Fortune” (comics) and “The Sound of Her Wings” (Netflix) in our community over the past weeks, I’ve expanded on a few points of my original thoughts.
This post discusses difficult topics, systemic racism, questions of social (in)justice and problematic angles in writing. If that’s not your thing, this is the exit sign…
A question that comes up quite frequently is the following:
Is show!Hob different from comics!Hob?
Hob’s conversation with Dream in 1789 (and not just 1789) in the show has been significantly altered (compared to the comics), and it makes it tempting to believe this somehow makes him different regarding the more problematic side of his character.
In the comics, we have a bit of dialogue in 1789 that shows how deeply involved in the slave trade Hob was: “I sort of started it,” said with a hint of, dare I say, pride? And then brushing off Dream’s concerns by saying, “It’s a living.” Twice.
(They changed this to, “It’s just how it’s done”, and a shrug in the show.)
And it’s true: If this had been integrated into the show, it would have painted him in an even worse light. However, I personally think it was the wrong move to leave it out (Ferdinand Kingsley carefully voiced something along those lines as well btw). Because now the show pushed Hob’s whole involvement in the slave trade much more into the direction of, “Oopsie.”
Can we truly take leaving out the above dialogue as a hint that Hob might be a better person in the show? I’d like to really reflect on that--leaving out those comments can’t make him a better person. Even if we change his arc slightly and he “wasn’t that involved.” You’re involved, or you aren’t. There is no, “I tried a bit of slave trading and decided it wasn’t for me.” One could even argue it makes the angle of the show more problematic because it makes the slave trade a “little blip” in his timeline. Things like that can’t be a blip. I personally think the writers made a mistake here, but that’s obviously just my opinion.
If there wasn’t enough space in the show to expand on it (which I get for a side character), I feel they should have left out the slavery arc completely instead of keeping, but then minimising it (that might sound contradictory, but it only does if you don’t look at it too closely). It already didn't sit right with me 30 years ago to use slavery as a side note for showing a white person’s character development without properly examining the damage caused, and it still doesn't sit right with me now. It makes the plight of PoC a plot vehicle to centre white people’s guilt, and I always thought that’s a blind spot only white people have (and I’m white myself, to get that out of the road straightaway).
I’m not saying it couldn’t or shouldn’t have been used narratively. Or that you can’t show remorse and atonement/redemption for the most heinous acts (that’s not the same as forgiveness—I’ll get to that). Or that characters who have committed said acts are irredeemable. But it would have needed to be fleshed out instead of making it a comment in passing. Many books and movies do exactly that. But the point is that it’s never been fleshed out.
“But they had to shorten and streamline it…”—just no. Because to me (and ofc people are free to disagree), that exactly proves the point—centring the white guy while sidelining the people who suffer. I am a bit doubtful we’ll get anything remotely appropriate in the show after what we’ve already seen. Only time will tell, so I’m withholding final judgment at this point. Fact is: It is uncomfortable to watch for people with any sensitivity on the matter.
And yet, there is a lot of focus on leaving out Hob voicing his regret in 1889, since that (again) “would have painted him in a better light.”
While simultaneously regularly failing to mention that he proudly proclaimed he “invented” the triangle trade. Can we really pick and choose his traits like that? Hob is a materialistic opportunist who also has some regrets. That doesn’t mean he can’t exist as a character, or that we’re not allowed to like him (morally grey characters are often the most compelling ones). We don’t need to sanitise him though, or try to erase his problematic traits from canon. The same goes for other characters (yes, I’m looking at you, Dream, and I’m sure we’ll get to that very soon—in fact, we’re possibly starting tomorrow 🫣).
If we are talking about Hob’s remorse, we are probably mostly thinking about Sunday Mourning, so I need to bring in issue #73 at this point (this is your spoiler warning if you don’t want to read ahead).
The Fallacy of Racial Reconciliation
Very plainly:
A black woman is used as a vehicle to forgive Hob. And said black woman has been written by a white male author for that sole purpose without giving her anything else to do. I personally think NG got that wrong. It was clumsy and insensitive to POC, and I really hope they change this for the show. It’s a fact that he really wasn’t good with writing black female characters in the whole run—they all get fridged in one way or another, and he even admits it in the Sandman Companion. And then turns around and basically implies that it's all okay now because “nothing bad” happens to Gwen once Morpheus is dead. She is allowed to be a vehicle for the character development of a white guy though. It’s just really insensitive, and I sincerely hope they don't put it in the show this way. And I’m glad that we're seeing hints it might not happen--at least the casting in the show hints at it (from Lucienne, Death and Rose to very likely turning Carla into a white man—we already met Carl, and that’s who he is IMHO).
There is also the not so small fact that Hob is, even in his guilt and shame (shame is always about yourself, and that’s actually very in keeping with his character), not honest with Gwen. The thing about him basically inventing the triangle trade, which he so proudly proclaimed in 1789?
The English who were so good at it? The “Jack” Hawkins he talked about in 1789? That’s actually this dude:
John Hawkins (naval commander) - Wikipedia
And Hob funded him 200 years before 1789, and enabled Hawkins. Hob was involved in what became the transatlantic slave trade well before 1789–he already funded it when he had money in the 1500s.
He carried that mindset around with him for literal hundreds of years and saw nothing wrong with it until at least (! more about that in a sec) 1789. Dream had to rub his nose in it, otherwise it wouldn’t even have occurred to him (or did it, and he just chose to ignore it--see below).
Hob has been written as a stand-in for humanity, British Imperialism and England over the centuries—with all that entails.
So how honest is he with Gwen? And how long, even after 1789, was he still involved, even after abolition in England (Somerset vs. Stewart declared slavery unlawful in England in 1772, but that wasn't true for the rest of the British Empire. Buying and selling slaves was only made illegal in 1807, while owning slaves only became unlawful with the Abolition Act of 1833, and it took another year to buy out slave owners to actually make it happen)? Because there’s still this:
“It got worse when they did [outlaw the slave trade]. You only needed one voyage in three to make a profit. You could afford to dump your cargo if… you spotted a British Man o’ War.” How does he know? Why does he have these nightmares? We can take a guess…
That’s not someone who tried it for a couple of weeks and then thought, “Sorry, my bad.” That’s someone who has been opportunistically involved from the 1500s and potentially until after slavery was unlawful in England, which it already was when he talked to Dream in 1789. So does his feigned ignorance of, "It's a living/It's how it's done?" really hold? Especially if he potentially kept going, even after that convo with Dream? When I wrote "between the 16th and 19th Century" in the header, that's exactly what I meant...
Guilt and Shame
Yes, what we see above and in all the other panels is guilt and shame. And it reminded me of this:
And I’d encourage everyone to really listen to what Jasper has to say, and sit with the feelings it brings up. Because I can still remember watching this in the George Floyd aftermath for the first time, and how deeply uncomfortable it made me—because he’s right.
Black people/PoC do not need to forgive and absolve white people from their guilt. They can if they wish to, but that’s their choice, not ours. It’s not for white people to absolve other white people from their guilt around the oppression of PoC. And that’s why it could be argued it’s not for white people to write a black character to do that in their stead either (they can of course, but then they need to live with the fact that people will call them tone-deaf). It could also be argued it is something that cannot be forgiven retrospectively, and white people need to be okay with that. It can only be worked on in the present with a view to the future. And as Jasper also so rightly points out:
The guilt is not even helpful (at least Gwen has the right sentiment there, but it’s still falls incredibly flat over all), and shame only centres ourselves.
Forgiveness vs Redemption
Hob Gadling's regrets don't make everything he did forgivable. I think it actually does the story a disservice if that’s our main takeaway, because this is truly one of the bits of The Sandman that’s written in an extremely tone-deaf manner. NG isn’t the first author who did this, but we can take something good and helpful from this, and that’s engaging with these questions instead of brushing them under the carpet—because that’s what literary analysis is about.
It should be clear that I do see Hob Gadling as narratively important because I see him as a stand-in for humanity, and more specifically, English history. And there is really so much to learn from that.
Writers can get things narratively right but still be emotionally tone-deaf due to their own blind-spots. We don’t need to assume malice, but we also don’t need to leave it entirely unchallenged.
And because of that, we can certainly see Hob as someone who has to live with his conscience, and the consequences of his actions, for the rest of his life and struggles with that (as he should). And maybe we can see him as someone who is now, finally, trying to do the work. Because that is what atonement and redemption actually mean:
Taking action to rectify past wrongs. Actively working against the harm once caused, and preventing it from ever happening again. And I hope that’s what he does, and the signs are there (but there are also still signs that he values covering up his immortality higher than e.g. telling Gwen the truth. And we can find a million excuses for why that is, but ultimately, none of them truly matter).
However, it is not the same as forgiveness from the people we have wronged. Forgiveness is not a prerequisite to redemption, although it can be a part of it if the person who has been wronged chooses to extend it. But the people Hob wronged are dead, while their descendants still need to live with the pain people like Hob caused to this very day. So while I don’t see him as irredeemable, I don’t think he needs to, or even can, be forgiven—especially not by black people (unless they choose to. But it is also fine if they don’t, and again, we need to be okay with that). And we could say, “But Gwen chose to.” To that, I say:
I wonder what Gwen would have said if he had been truly honest with her (which he wasn’t, see below panels). That wouldn’t have been an embrace is my guess…
An Act to Prohibit the Importation of Slaves Into Any Port or Place within the Jurisdiction of the United States, From and After the First Day of January 1808, 3/2/1807
File Unit: Public Law, 9th Congress, 2nd Session: An Act to Prohibit the Importation of Slaves Into Any Port or Place Within the Jurisdiction of the U.S. [United States] From and After Jan. [January] 1, 1808, March 2, 1807, 1789 - 2013
Series: Enrolled Acts and Resolutions of Congress, 1789 - 2013
Record Group 11: General Records of the United States Government, 1778 - 2006
Transcription:
NINTH CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES;
At the Second Session,
Begun and held at the city of Washington, in the territory of Columbia,
on Monday the first of December, one thousand eight hundred and six.
AN ACT to prohibit the importation of slaves, into any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States, from and after the first day of January, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and eight.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, that from and after the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eight, it shall not be lawful to import or bring into the United States, or the territories thereof, from any foreign kingdom, place or country, any negro, mulatto, or person of color, with intent to hold, sell, or dispose of such negro, mulatto, or person of color, as a slave, or to be held to service or labor.
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, that no citizen or citizens of the United States, or any other person, shall, from and after the first day of January, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and eight, for himself, or themselves, or any other person whatsoever, either as master, factor (?), or owner, build, fit, equip, load, or otherwise prepare, any ship or vessel,in any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States, nor shall cause any ship or vessel to sail from any port or place within the same, for the purpose of procuring any negro, mulatto, or person of color, from any foreign kingdom, place or country, to be transported to any port or place whatsoever, within the jurisdiction of the United States, to be held, sold, or disposed of as slaves, or to be held to service or labor; and if any ship or vessel shall be so fitted out, for the purpose aforesaid, or shall be caused to sail so as aforesaid, every such ship or vessel her tackle, apparel, and furniture, shall be forfeited to the United States, and shall be liable to be seized, persecuted, and condemned, in any of the circuit courts, or district courts, for the district where the said ship or vessel may be found or seized.
Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That all and every person so building, filling out, equipping, loading, or otherwise preparing or sending away, any ship or vessel, knowing or intending that the same shall be employed in such trade or business, from and after the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eight, contrary tot he true intent and meaning of this act, or any ways aiding or abetting therein, shall severally forfeit and pay twenty thousand dollars, one moiety thereof to the use of the United States, and the other moiety to the use of any person or persons who shall sue for, and prosecute the same to effect.
Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, If any citizen or citizens of the United States, or any person resident within the jurisdiction of the same, shall, from and after the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eight, take on board, receive, or transport from any of the coasts or kingdoms of Africa, or from any other foreign kingdom, place or country, any negro, mulatto, or person of color, in any ship or vessel, for the purpose of selling them, in any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States, as slaves or to be held to service or labor, or shall be in any ways aiding or abetting therein, such citizen or citizens, or person shall severally forfeit and pay five thousand dollars, one moiety thereof to the use of any person or persons who shall sue for and prosecute the same to effect; and every such ship or vessel in which such negro, mulatto, or person of color shall have been taken on board, received or transported, as aforesaid, her tackle, apparel, and furniture, and the goods and effects which shall be found on board the same, shall be forfeited to the United States, and shall be liable to the seized, prosecuted, and condemned in any of the circuit courts, or district courts, in the district where the said ship or vessel may be found or seized. And neither the importer, nor any person or persons claiming from or under him, shall hold any right, or title, whatsoever, to any negro, mulatto, or person of color, nor to the service or labor thereof, who may be imported or brought within the United States, or territories thereof, in violation of this law, but the same shall remain subject to any regulation, not contravening the provisions of this act, which the legislatures of the several states, or territories, at any time hereafter, may make for disposing of any such negro, mulatto, or person of color.
Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That if any citizen or citizens of the United States, or any other person resident within the jurisdiction of the same, shall, from and after the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eight, contrary to the true intent and meaning of this act, take on board any ship or vessel, from any of the coasts or kingdoms of Africa, or from any other foreign kingdom, place or country, any negro, mulatto, or person of color, with intent to sell him, her, or them, for a slave or slaves, or to be held to services or labor, and shall transport the same to any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States, and there sell (illegible) negro, mulatto, or person of color, so transported as aforesaid, for a slave, or to be held to a service or labor, every such offender, shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and being thereof convicted before any court having competent jurisdiction, shall suffer imprisonment for not more than ten years, nor less than five years, and be fined not exceeding ten thousand dollars, nor less than one thousand dollars.
Sec. 6. And be it further enacted, that if any person or persons whatsoever, shall, from and after the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eight, purchase or sell any negro, mulatto, or person of color, for a slave or to be held to service or labor, who shall have been imported or brought from any foreign kingdom, place or country, or from the dominions of any foreign state immediately adjoining to the United States, into any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States, after the last day of December, one thousand eight hundred and seven, knowing at the time of such purchase or sale, such negro, mulatto, or person of color, was so brought within the jurisdiction of the United States as aforesaid, such purchaser and seller shall severally forfeit and pay for every negro, mulatto, or person of color, so purchased or sold as aforesaid, eight hundred dollars; one moiety thereof to the United States, and the other moiety to the use of any person, or persons, who shall sue for and prosecute the same to effect. Provided, that the aforesaid forfeiture shall not extend to the seller, or purchaser of any negro, mulatto, or person of color, who may be sold, or disposed of in virtue of any regulation which may hereafter be made by any of the legislatures of the several states, in that respect, in pursuant of this act, and the constitution of the United States.
[page 2]
Sec. 7. And be it further enacted, That if any ship or vessel shall be found, from and after the first day of January , one thousand eight hundred and eight, in any river, port, bay or harbor, or on the high seas within the jurisdictional limits of the United States, or hovering in the coast thereof, having on board any negro, mulatto, or person of color for the purpose of selling them as slaves, or with intent to land the same in any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States, contrary to the prohibition of this act, every such ship or vessel, together with her tackle, apparel, and furniture, and the goods or effects which shall be found on board the same, shall be forfeited to the use of the United States, and may be seized, prosecuted, and condemned in any court of the United States, having jurisdiction thereof. And if shall be lawful for the president of the United States, and he is hereby authorized, should he deem it expedient, to cause any of the armed vessels of the United States, to be manned and employed to cruize on any port of the coast of the United States, or territories thereof, where he may judge attempts will be made to violate the provisions of this act, and to instruct and direct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States, to seize, take, and bring into any port of the United States, all such ships or vessels, and moreover to seize, take, and bring into any port of the United States, all ship or vessel, so found and seized as aforesaid, shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and shall be liable to be prosecuted before any court of the United States, having jurisdiction thereof, and being thereof convicted shall be fined not exceeding ten thousand dollars, and be imprisoned not less than two years, and not exceeding four years; And the proceeds of all ships and vessels, their tackle, apparel and furniture, and the goods and effects on board of them, which shall be seized, presented, and condemned, shall be divided equally between the United States, and the officers and men who shall make such seizure, take or bring the same into port for condemnation, whether such seizure be made by an armed vessel of the United States, or revenue cutters thereof, and the same shall be distributed in like manner as is provided by law, for the distribution of prizes taken from an enemy; Provided, that the officers and men, to be entitled to one half of the proceeds aforesaid, shall safe keep every negro, mulatto, or person of color, found on board of any ship or vessel, so by them seized, taken, or brought into port for condemnation, and shall deliver every such negro, mulatto, or person of color, to such person or persons as shall be appointed by the respective states to receive the same; and if no such person or persons shall be appointed by the respective states, they shall deliver every such negro, mulatto, or person of color, to the overseers of the [illegible] of the port or place where such ship or vessel may be brought or found, and shall immediately transmit to the governor or chief magistrate of the state, an account of their proceedings, together with the number of such negroes, mulattoes, or persons of color, and a descriptive list of the same, that he may give directions respecting such negroes, mulattoes, or persons of color.
Sec. 8. And be it further enacted, that no captain, master, or commander of any ship or vessel, of less burthen than forty tons, shall, from and after the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eight, take on board and transport any negro, mulatto, or person of color, to any port or place whatever, for the purpose of selling or disposing of the same as a slave, or with intent that the same may be sold or disposed of to be . . . held to service or labor, on penalty of forfeiting for every such negro, mulatto, or person of color, so taken on board and transported as aforesaid the sum of eight hundred dollars; one moiety thereof to the use of the United States, and the other moiety to any person or persons, who shall sue for, and prosecute the same to effect; Provided however, that nothing in this section shall prohibit the taking on board or transporting on any river or inland bay of the sea, within the jurisdiction of the United States, any negro, mulatto, or person of color, (not imported contrary to the provisions of this act,) in any vessel, or species of craft whatever.
Sec. 9. And be it further enacted, that the captain, master, or commander of any ship or vessel of the burthen of forty tons, or more, from and after the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eight, sailing coastwise from any port in the United States, to any port or place within the jurisdiction of the same, having on board any negro, mulatto, or person of color, for the purpose of transporting them to be sold or disposed of as slaves, or to be held to service or labor, shall previous to the departure of such ship or vessel, make out and subscribe duplicate manifests of every such negro, mulatto, or person of color, on board such ship or vessel, therein specifying the name, and sex of each person, their age and stature, as near as may be, and the class to which they respectively belong, whether negro, mulatto, or person of color, with the name and place of residence of every owner, or shipper of the same, and shall deliver such manifests to the collector of the port, if there be one, otherwise to the surveyor, before whom the captain, master or commander, together with the owner or shipper shall severally swear or affirm, to the best of their knowledge and belief, that the persons therein specified were not imported or brought into the United States, from and after the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eight, and that under the laws of the state, they are held to service or labor; whereupon the said collector or surveyor shall certify the same on the said manifests, one of which he shall return to the said captain, master or commander, with a permit specifying thereon the number, names, and general description of such persons, and authorizing him to proceed to the port of the destination. And if any ship or vessel, being laden and destined as aforesaid, shall deposit from the port where she may then be, without the captain, master or commander, having first made out and subscribed duplicate manifests of every negro, mulatto, and person of color, on board each ship or vessel, as aforesaid, and without having previously delivered the same to the said collector or surveyor, and obtained a permit, in manner as herein required, or shall previous to the arrival at the port of the destination, take on board any negro, mulatto, or person of color, other than specified in the manifests as aforesaid every such ship or vessel, together with the tackle, apparel and furniture, shall be forfeited to the use of the United States, and may be seized, prosecuted and condemned, in any court of the United States, having jurisdiction thereof; and the captain, master or commander of every such ship or vessel, shall moreever forfeit, for every such negro, mulatto, or person of color, so transported, or taken on board contrary to the provisions of this act, the sum of one thousand dollars, one moiety thereof to the United States, and the other moiety to the use of any person or persons who shall sue for an prosecute the same to effect.
Sec. 10. And be it further enacted, that the captain, master or commander of every ship or vessel of the burthen of forty tons, or more, from and after the first day of January one thousand, eight hundred and eight, sailing coastwise, and having on board any negro, mulatto, or person of color, to sell or dispose of as slaves, or to be held to service or labor, and arriving in any port within the jurisdiction of the United States, from any other port within the same, shall previous to the unloading or putting on shore any of the persons aforesaid, or suffering them to go on shore, deliver to the collector, if there be one, or if not, to the surveyor residing at the port of her arrival, the manifest certified by the collector or surveyor of the port from where she sailed, as is herein before directed, to the truth of which, before such officer, he shall swear or affirm, and if the collector or surveyor shall be satisfied therewith, he shall thereupon grant a permit for unlading or suffering such negro, mulatto, or person of color, to be put on shore, and if the captain, master or commander of any such ship or vessel being laden as aforesaid, shall neglect or refuse to deliver the manifest at the time, and in the manner herein described, or shall land, or put on shore any negro, mulatto, or person of color, for the purpose aforesaid, before he shall have delivered his manifest as aforesaid, and obtained a permit for that purpose, every such captain, master, or commander shall forfeit and pay ten thousand dollars, one moiety thereof to the United States, the other moiety to the the use of any person or persons who shall sue for and prosecute the same to effect.
March 2, 1807.
Approved
[signed] Th. Jefferson
I certify that this act did originate in the Senate
[signed] Sam A. Otis Secretary
[signed] Nathl Macon Speaker of the House of Representatives
[signed] Geo Clinton, Vice President of the United States, and President of the Senate.
It reveals an unexpected side to the poet's personality and the brutality that brought a Caribbean dish to New England.
Black cake is a Caribbean Christmas cake, piquant with spirits and velvety with molasses or burnt sugar. Dickinson’s recipe, written in loopy letters on age-yellowed paper, belies her biography: A dedicated baker, Emily was better known during her lifetime for her desserts than her poetry.
The labor-intensive recipe, and its journey from the Caribbean to Dickinson’s elite New England milieu, reminds us of the brutal histories of colonization and enslavement that shaped her times, and the Black and immigrant domestic laborers who shaped her work and home.
Dickinson’s black cake recipe also helps us reimagine Emily herself—not as the austere recluse the patriarchal literary establishment has long portrayed, but as a sensuous, socially connected woman who shared poems and cakes with family, friends, and her life-long queer love.
It's difficult for me to summon the executive function necessary to read books these days, but I tore through James DeWolf and the Rhode Island Slave Trade by Cynthia Mestad Johnson as fast as I've read anything in a long time. DeWolf's hometown and base of Bristol, Rhode Island is also my hometown, and I'm very familiar with all of the New England locations in this horrifying book; even if Bristol seems committed to not talking about DeWolf.
Growing up I had a better idea of Rhode Island's role in the trans-Atlantic slave trade than most, thanks to my historian mother, but I thought it was a Newport thing (as if the entire state didn't profit). I didn't know DeWolf's name, didn't know the nice wide street at State St. and Thames St. where I liked to walk was his wharf, didn't know my sister was married in a DeWolf family mansion (known as Linden Place, and now more open about their history on their webpage). I didn't know that Bristol, a town where I immediately felt at home when I moved there as a child, and where I have deep family roots, was built on the profits of enslavers.
I was a lot more aware of DeWolf even before I picked up this book. In 2004, before I left Bristol, the DeWolf Tavern restaurant opened near one of DeWolf's old rum distilleries on Bristol Harbor. There were archeological investigations and talk of finding shackles. I was again surprised that this happened in Bristol, not Newport? It was just dawning on me that my quaint little town, that allegedly loved its rich history, was silent on much of that history. And I was still unaware of the sheer scale of DeWolf's businesses.
As one of the Goodreads reviews says of this book, it is "argued with all the sophistication of a high school term paper." Maybe it's because every chapter hit home for me, but I liked the author's plain, journalistic style that didn't feel the need to comment on the evils of slavery. Just learning the staggering numbers behind DeWolf's empire was overwhelming—tens of thousands of enslaved people trafficked in chains, making DeWolf the second richest man in America, and Rhode Island the epicentre of the legal and illegal slave trade. He owned plantations abroad and mills and distilleries everywhere; he's said to have had more ships than the US Navy.
Not to go full Godwin's law, but DeWolf's name should be right up there with Hitler when people want to invoke an evil, genocidal monster. DeWolf might not have had a whole country behind him, but his personal brutality was shocking. He was a man who captained slave ships, personally, and once threw an enslaved woman dying of smallpox overboard in a way that was so horrifying that his own associates pressed murder charges against him (it took him many years to be exonerated). Slavers (guineamen) were notoriously brutal.
DeWolf isn't quoted much, but Johnson references his correspondence extensively to track his movements, and his business dealings that often use evasive language, e.g. referring to a cargo of enslaved people as "articles." It's hard to say what his personality was like, or if that matters. He was clearly a consummate businessman and successful politician, detail-oriented and enterprising. He was beloved by Bristol, and it's hard to say that anyone in town wasn't complicit in his business and sharing his profits. Certainly his own family were all behind him, even the "good" DeWolf brother, Levi, who was said to be pious. Levi was just as guilty as James, Johnson demonstrates this very clearly.
I think a lot about how Rhode Island has a certain popular mythology about our history. I grew up learning what rogues and scoundrels we were, but always in a flattering, positive light. We defied the British and burned HMS Gaspee! We're independent and free-spirited, and our state was founded on religious freedom by Roger Williams! We were the last state to sign the Declaration of Independence because we were waiting on the Bill of Rights! The statue atop the Rhode Island state house is called "The Independent Man."
Rhode Island is also absolutely bonkers about the Revolutionary War, and reenactors are everywhere. Today Bristol, Rhode Island is famous for its huge 4th of July parade, the oldest continuous 4th of July parade in the USA, since 1785. One of my earliest memories as a child was being really impressed by a bunch of amrev reenactors having a skirmish (even baby Shaun loved military garb). We also love to talk about our role as the "birthplace of the American Industrial Revolution," with Samuel Slater's 1793 mill in Pawtucket.
We don't talk much about slavery, and we never, ever talk about New England's opposition to the War of 1812, which seems to have been especially strong in Rhode Island. I had to wonder if our opposition was rooted in the increased British presence harrassing Rhode Island slave traders, because I know that the British captured a few Rhode Island slavers as prizes, but DeWolf made a huge profit with his many privateers (some of which were definitely also involved in the slave trade).
The Harper's New Monthly Magazine article that I shared actually mentions two of DeWolf's War of 1812 privateers, Yankee and Macdonough. It proclaims the huge profits raked in by Yankee especially, with one cruise alone bringing in over $300,000. The author, seemingly unaware of DeWolf's illegal activities and corrupt port authorities in Rhode Island, praises the ship that "scoured the whole western coast of Africa." The War of 1812 was a great thing for DeWolf, personally. I don't know if he publicly opposed it for political reasons.
I reached out to my sister, who is still in Bristol, to see if this 2014 book made any noise, and learned that "when it came out it caused a big ruckus in town nobody wanted to hear it." (I left Rhode Island to move to the midwest with my then-fiancée in 2013). The internet doesn't add any more news of controversy, just more silence. I don't know what to say, and while I think this isn't the entirety of Bristol's past and present, it's unfortunate that we are so loathe to talk about it. The DeWolfs are very much still around and one of them, James DeWolf Perry—the most Rhode Island of all names—is committed to discussing his ancestor's legacy.
I have always loved Bristol, and I still love Bristol, but my hometown has an extraordinarily dark past. I feel part of that too.
Deposition of William Chandler regarding an alleged slave ship, 3/17/1846
He testifies that the ship carried rations for enslaved people--a pound of rice and a pint of water per person per day--as well as a 4 ½’ high space for them to be transported, each sitting between the legs of the next person.
File Unit: United States v. Nathaniel T. Davis, 3/17/1846 - 5/4/1846
Series: Criminal Case Files, 1790 - 1912
Record Group 21: Records of District Courts of the United States, 1685 - 2009
Transcription:
US MARCH 17. 1846
vs
Nathaniel J. Davis Captain of Schooner Patuxent
Under act 10 May 1800 2 & 3
Prohibiting carrying on slave trade
1 Story laws 780
William Chandler sworn- Is Lieutenant in U.S.N. - was attached in Sept. last to U.S.S. Yorktown - she was bound on her Southern cruise. Commander Bell was
Capt the Patuxent was first seen at Monrovia on or about the 25 Sept and was boarded by one of the Yorktown boats. She was only detained the usual time to make
the usual inquiries. I did not board her. Lt. [illegible] boarded her. She was again boarded the day afterwards at Cape Mount about 50 miles N.W. of Monrovia in the
afternoon or evening by the same officer. She was anchor close in with Cape Mount & the Yorktown at anchor near her - Comr Bell took possession of her & her paper, at about 9 A.M. of 27th Sept. I was ordered to the Patuxent about 1 P.M. to relieve Lt [illegible] & to take command. I took her to Monrovia the greater portion of the time in company with the Yorktown leaving Cape Mount on the 28th. I arriving at Monrovia on 1st Oct & leaving again to meet the Yorktown & again arriving on 2 Oct. Left Monrovia on 4 Oct & arrived at N.Y. 9 March. Were compelled to pull into Bermuda twice - Staid there 1st time one month repairing & the 2ᵈ time about 2 months during the whole time engaged in getting the vessel in a seaworthy condition. Davis the person now on examination was in command of the Patuxent when she was taken. I examined the vessel on the 29th but did not dis
[page 2]
turb the cargo or rather made a personal inspection. She was from 90 to 100 tons. I found 5 persons on board W. T. Davis the Master -- Thos l. Shaw the mate -- and Joseph Morrell, James C. .Clark & John Smith. -- The three men are now present. That is about the usual number for a vessel of that size in the mercht service. The men were very capable men & good seamen--
[left margin] Provisions [/left margin]I found a large quantity of provisions on board, beef, pork & bread. There was quite enough to 15 men for 35 days and more than enough beef. Some of the beef is yet unused. I had been serving on the Yorktown about two months previous to the seizure-- Whilst on the station I have met with individuals who seemed to have a very good knowledge of the manner in which the slave trade was carried on. I have principally derived my information from American Officers. I should think 250 slaves might have been carried from Africa to Cuba in the Patuxent-- 25 days would be rather a long voyage than a short one-- I dont know how many men would be required to take charge of a cargo of that number of slaves. 8 or 10 persons more would have been quite sufficient.
[left margin] do. Rice [/left margin] We counted 71 bags of rice on board -- sacks of old canvass. They averaged about 100 lbs apiece and over. There was a tierce of 8 barrels of rice. full. The barrels were common sized flour barrels. The allowance for each slave is generally about a pound or pint of rice apiece. A cargo of 250 slaves could have been subsisted 30 odd days on the amt of rice on board-- Rice & water is the usual food given the slaves. It was African rice a good deal
[left margin] Water [/left margin] mixed with gravel & dirt. There were 10 casks of water & 1 butt containing or capable of containing in all 1500 gallons. In that hot climate a gallon a day to a man would be a liberal allowance for drinking, cooking & washing. A pint is usually, as I have understood allowed per day
[page 3]
to each slave. There were no other water casks in the vessel to my Knowledge. I judge that 1500 galls of water is sufficient for a crew of 15 persons at a gall per day each for 30 days and at the rate of 1 pint per day for each slave for 250 slaves for 30 days. The casks could be very easily filled on the Coast of Africa in the rainy season. I shᵈ [should] judge they might have been filled in one night by spreading an awning. It is not usual for vessels of that size to make such preparations for water. It is not essential to a slaver to have a slave deck.-- We found 50 pieces of plank
[left margin] Plank [/left margin] of various lengths from 4 to 38 or 40 feet in length, most of it long: some 10 or 12 pieces of intermediate length-- This plank might have been laid as a deck in a very few minutes without either hatchet or saw without the slightest difficulty. The plank was new deck plank about six inches wide & 3 inches thick
[left margin] Stauncheons [/left margin] The Stauncheons which we found on board the vessel were not all up and such as were up were not fixtures as is usual on board of vessels carrying cargo This would afford a facility in laying a deck with planks -- Such a deck as this plank would make would be very useful in transporting a cargo of slaves,
[left margin] Arch of deck [/left margin] more so than a permanent deck. The beams of the deck were slightly arched so that the deck would be
[left margin] Deck frame [/left margin] supported even without the stauncheons. The deck frame seemed sounder than the rest of the vessel and from that I judged that it had been put in since the vessel was built-- Under the deck plank, I found a large quantity
[left margin] Pine plank [/left margin] of pitch pine plank stowed & billetted up so as to be level so that it would form a foundation for the deck plank on which it might have been laid by a few hands in a very few minutes-- I found also on board some six or seven tons of stone ballast stowed abaft the mainmast between that & the Cabin Bulkhead.
[page 4]
I found some pieces of chain in the holds. One piece about 8 fathoms & one about 5 fathoms. a small pair of chain [illegible] and a large number of assorted bolts such as come out of ships timbers rather larger than would come out of the Patuxent. a ring & bolt. some iron hooks also. a chest of old tools good for nothing. A number of spare pars ^4 spare sails ^ were found The deck could have been laid with the cargo she then had on board leaving a flush space of 4 1/2 or 5 feet under the deck. The slaves are stowed sitting, one within the legs of the other and 4 1/2 feet would have been ample. When the Patuxent was taken she was anchored about a mile from the shore.
(The Logbook of the Patuxent produced identified IS. Clark Master from June 19 1844 to 12 May 1845. Hiatus to 23 June 1845 when N. T. Davis is master. in the port of New York 26th June crew came on board. Captain, passengers & pilot went on shore Heading from N.Y. towards Coast of Africa 2 Augt. 1845. 7 a.m. made Cape Mount. 11 furled sails. Captain & passengers went on shore.
19 Augt. 1845 to 22 August Vessel lies at Cape Mount 22nd. Took in 3 passengers at Sulima for Sierra Leone. 24th at Sierra Leone. Capt. & 2 passengers went on shore.
Log Book of Brig Atalanta found on board identified 18 July 1844 commences. Johnston Martee. Heading from N.Y. to W. Coast of Africa. Arrived on coast & sailed up & down until Dec 24th 1844 Capt. told crew that vessel was sold to Capt. Canot of Cape Mount.
This last entry is in Capt. Davis's handwriting. There are other entries in the Book in his handwriting.
Is there a notorious establishment at Cape Mount for
The "Whydah" sank off the coast of Massachusetts in 1717, killing all but two people on board
Per the Field Museum, Bellamy’s crew was made up of enslaved Africans, Native Americans, and sailors from across Europe and North America. Originally a British slave ship, the vessel was captured by Bellamy in early 1717.
The New England Historical Society notes that the captain treated all crew members equally, allowing them to vote on significant decisions. Bellamy, who nicknamed himself “Robin Hood of the Sea,” viewed his piracy as a form of vigilante justice against wealthy merchants who “rob[ed] the poor under the cover of law.” To retaliate, he once declared in a speech, “[W]e plunder the rich under the protection of our own courage.”
