Thurmond’s family owned Sharpton’s

Local, National, Race 1 Minute

This must be a shock for all concerned:

Genealogists have found that civil rights activist the Rev. Al Sharpton is a descendent of a slave owned by relatives of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond, a newspaper reported Sunday.

The newspaper reporting the information is The New York Daily News, which hired Ancestry.com to do the research. That paper reports that Sharpton’s emotional response:

With each revelation, the feeling of disbelief grew. His lips drew thin and his face tightened as the findings, projected onto a beige wall, brought home the enormity of the moment.

Sharpton … was stunned to learn how his history was bizarrely intertwined with a man with whom on the surface he had nothing in common – the late right-wing Sen. Strom Thurmond.

Thurmond’s family was equally stunned, with one member denying the possibility:

“That’s a bunch of baloney,” said Barry Bishop, the son of one of Thurmond’s sisters.

“I’ve never heard anything about it,” said Bishop, of Greenville, S.C.

Just because you never heard anything doesn’t make it not so, Mr. Bishop. There were slaves in America, which meant that there were slave owners in America. And there’s a pretty good chance that if your family has been in the US anytime during the period of slavery (1619 – 1865) and you are white, your family owned slaves.

In this post over at RK, Kathy Gerber gives us some excellent statistical information on slavery in Virginia. The NY Daily News articles give us the human side of it.

Technorati Tags: ,

Published

19 thoughts on “Thurmond’s family owned Sharpton’s”

  1. I’m not sure what the point of this story is. It can only rile up partisans on both sides. If people only took this as a piece of history (albeit a pretty sad piece of history), it might make sense, but otherwise it just seems like this was better left unmentioned.

  3. I’m a bit confused as to Sharpton’s reaction. Would it be better if an unknown family had owned hs aneestors? Would it have made the slavery they suffered less painful? I sincerely doubt it. Still, I don’t agree with CR UVa, history like this should never go “umentioned.” The truth may hurt, but it’s still the truth.

  4. I think Sharpton’s reaction is based on who Strom Thurmond was: someone who, for most of his life, was an avowed acist. At least with an unknown family he would have been able to think that the slave owner was one of the kind, fatherly types (like the history books said all slave owners were).

    And I agree DJ – these things should be talked about.

  5. Or one of the types that faded into poverty during Reconstruction. Or one of the families for whom it was simply a function of greed. But not, as I would hope for my own, the family that would produce one of the last avowed and shamelessly racist legislators who did his damnedest to ensure that the hateful legacy of slavery was actively extended as long as possible . . .

    Seriously. If I were Sharpton, I’d make damn sure I never meet Barry Bishop.

  6. I certainly can understand Rev. Sharpton’s reaction…I discovered while doing genealogical research that Strom Thurmond and I share a common ancestor, one Elizabeth Thurmond, who married John Eubank in the 18th century.
    That little tidbit was something I kept to myself for years, knowing that the rest of the family would NOT thank me for digging up a connection to ole segregationist Strom.
    I finally realized that the fact that Strom and I share a bit of family blood is meaningless. I am still me, and Strom is still a bigoted man who at least tried to repair some of the damage he had done to others before he died. I leave it to the Good Lord to judge the old boy…and to judge me, as well.

  8. I disagree with Ms. Paige’s statement that “[…] there’s a pretty good chance that if your family has been in the US anytime during the period of slavery (1619 – 1865) and you are white, your family owned slaves.” I have always been under the impression that, in fact, most Whites did not own slaves. Slaves were somewhat expensive and many, if not most, Whites were very poor (and undoubtedly probably very racist) who wouldn’t have been able to own slaves.

    Just a thought…

  9. I wondered how long it would be before somebody mentioned that 🙂 Take a look at the stats which are included above. I intentionally said “pretty good” because of those stats.

  10. I have to agree with stm on his post regarding what you said Vivian. That is a pretty bold statement to say. I know the first members of my family arrived in North Carolina. As a teacher, I also point out to my students that the reason why there are two Carolinas is because the northern portion of the colony was founded by people who owned single farms and worked the land themselves.

    Yes, people owned slaves. Lumping everyone who’s family has been around since the beginings of colonization is a GROSS mistreatment of history. You should know better than that.

  12. I didn’t lump everyone together. I didn’t say “if your family was here you owned slaves.” That would be lumping everybody together. Look at the stats.

  13. Since no one seems to be willing to read thru the analysis, how about this part of it:

    Of the 330 white people, 161 (48.8%) lived in a household with slaves while 169 (51.2%) lived in households with no slaves.

  15. oh – on another note! i’m assuming you heard how your local congresswoman, ms. drake, locked her office to a group of visitors from moveon. what were they THINKING?!? i’m going to thoroughly enjoy following this one…

Comments are closed.