‘The gentleman – at times rocking backwards and forwards in his seat, desperate to be heard – finally revealed the issue that made him really angry: ‘And what about the white Scottish slaves?’.
A heated debate developed at the launch of the book Recovering Scotland’s Slavery Past: The Caribbean Connection in Glasgow’s Trade Hall on 22 October 2015. This debate perfectly encapsulated the wilful denial of Scotland’s involvement in Caribbean slavery. A mature gentleman sitting in the front row loudly criticised the book’s editor, Professor Tom Devine, as well as authors, contents and slant of the book.
He was sitting directly in front of a panel of three leading authorities on slavery in Scottish universities: Professor Devine, Dr Nuala Zahedieh (University of Edinburgh) and Professor Simon Newman (University of Glasgow). Amongst the audience were academic historians, postgraduate research students, academic publishers and journalists: the ideal venue for historical misinformation to be identified and reported upon.
Firstly, the gentleman asked Devine and the authors how much money they had made from the book. Nothing, was the reply. The critic then accused academic funding bodies of being founded on slavery, inferring that the historians profited indirectly through their work and grants. And then came the angry query about ‘the white Scottish slaves’.
This historical denial and whataboutery is nothing new. I’ve been accused online of profiting from the slave trade through my academic work. Similarly, in a letter sent claiming the Jacobites were white slaves, I was informed: ‘Scotch historians only copy Anglo-centric shite from Unionist historians’. I was publicly accused – by a left-wing academic – of peddling ‘counterfactual evidence’ when I stated that some working classes profited from slavery and not just the elites in Scotland. Such inaccurate ad hominem attacks are based on myths. They are designed to deflect from the wider story of Scottish profiteering from black chattel slavery in the colonial period.
This article addresses the ‘white slaves’ myth. I’ll set out my opinion from the start: there were no white Scottish slaves. In fact, if the gentleman had actually read the first page of Recovering Scotland’s Slavery Past he would have noted that Devine (along with many other historians) has drawn a fundamental legal and material distinction between the experience and status of the Scottish poor as well as the indentured white servants and the chattel slaves of the Caribbean.
The White Slaves narrative
The myth of Scottish slaves in the Caribbean is a sub-set of a narrative more commonly associated with the Irish in colonial America. It has been underpinned by two polemical books: Theodore W. Allen’s The Invention of the White Race and more recently, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh’s White Cargo: The Forgotten History of Britain’s White Slaves in America. The authors were not professional historians. Allen was a writer and activist. Jordan is a television director and Walsh a journalist, which perhaps explains the sensationalist interpretations of White Cargo. The American historian Michael Guasco recently suggested the text should be read in ‘conjunction with more analytical and thoroughly contextualized works’ – a diplomatic way of urging caution when considering the authors’ conclusions. So, I had a look. Chapter sixteen concerns the Jacobites forcibly transported from Scotland after the uprisings in 1715 and 1746 who, according to the authors, were sometimes enslaved: those sent to the Caribbean were treated worse than those sent to America. There is no question that Jacobites were harshly dealt with in what was a concerted attack on the Highland way of life – but they were never regarded or treated as chattel slaves.
Ironically, the White Cargo bibliography includes two books written by the late Anglo-Canadian journalist, John Prebble. According to Tom Devine, it is difficult to differentiate in Prebble’s work what was ‘based on reasonable research and what was the product of the imagination’. Prebble’s ‘victim histories’ of Scotland (Glencoe, Culloden, The Highland Clearances and Darien) sold in huge numbers from the 1960s onwards; exemplars of the Scottish school of pseudo-historiographical victimology. Modern academics have added more nuance. For example, Darien (1698-1700) was indeed a disaster for Scotland and deliberate lack of support from the English in the Caribbean contributed to the death of many Scots. But let’s not forget the poorly planned venture represented a failed attempt at Scottish colonisation. Indeed, one scheme proposed by the Duke of Hamilton at Darien sought to import slaves to be worked to death in the gold mines of Panama. This was not some romantic quest to establish a new society based upon utopian socialist principles. It was a mercantilist venture designed to improve personal fortunes and Scotland’s balance of trade through colonisation and exploitation.
Whilst the slant of Prebble’s books defined a generation of victimhood, popular histories have been replaced by online blogs. Elizabeth McQuillan’s ‘The hidden Scots victims of the slave trade’ in the Caledonian Mercury is completely devoid of any relevant historical evidence or analysis. Incredibly, after repeating the ‘white slaves myth’, the article suggests that ‘pressure groups [in Scotland] were looking for an official apology’ as their ancestors were white slaves. It seems almost embarrassing that the article ends with Robert Burns’s The Slaves Lament which concerns the African slave trade from Senegal to Virginia (a song he almost certainly didn’t author, according to Glasgow University experts. However, he nearly made a trip to Jamaica as a slave plantation overseer in 1786). This type of ahistorical blog enters an echo-chamber of misinformation cited as credible sources, sometimes in response to articles about migration or the Scottish role in slavery. The ‘white slaves myth’, based upon weak foundations flourishes in the unchecked environment of the Internet.
For those familiar with Hogan’s Law, this is nothing new. Liam Hogan has written articles on the myth of the Irish slaves, a myth which has been hijacked in America by right wing groups and white supremacists to deflect from the legacy of black racialised chattel slavery and the ongoing quest for reparations in America. The Scottish white slaves strand differs from the Irish version in one important way. Whilst the Irish slaves myth has been used to cultivate white victimhood in America, the Scottish version is used mainly to deflect from the wider historical narrative of Scots involvement with British imperialism and specifically Caribbean slavery.
It wisnae us – white Scots were slaves first. It wisnae us – it was the English. It wisnae us – it was the rich landowners. It wisnae us – the working classes weren’t involved. It wisnae us – it happened 200 years ago. Repeat ad nauseum.
Some are born free, others as slaves
An English concept, chattel slavery was established by the Barbados Slave Act of 1661 which ratified enslaved African peoples as property with no right to life. Prof Simon Newman has recently traced the transition from indentured servitude to chattel slavery in Barbados, arguing that the early development of the plantation economy depended on exportation of vagrants and the poor as well as criminals and political and religious exiles. Thus, the labour force of the embryonic tobacco and sugar plantations was created by forced and voluntary emigration from Scotland, England and Ireland. White indentured servitude was eventually superseded by African slavery from the 1630s which became entrenched in the colonial legal system after 1661.
Chattel slavery developed into a hierarchical system of exploitation based on class and subsequently race which evolved into the most lethal form of slavery known to mankind. Indentured servants had legal personhood whilst enslaved persons were viewed as sub-human chattel. They were listed in plantation inventories next to cattle with names such as Fido, Caeser and Jumper, and sometimes places names such as Scotland. The enslaved were treated as beasts of burden to be bought and sold and worked to death on sugar plantations. Mutilation as a punishment was permitted as was murder by hanging, slow burning and starvation in gibbets. The penalty for slaves striking a white person was death, unless the assault was to protect a slave’s owner.
Furthermore, indentured servants worked for set periods (usually three to seven years) and, in theory at least, there was an end to their servitude. By contrast, the Uterine law meant the offspring of slaves were born into the status of their mother, thus thirling successive generations for life to plantations and owners and perpetuating the hereditary cycle of racial hierarchy.
So, what of the ‘white slaves’?
In the colonial period, Scots were both forcibly transported and voluntarily emigrated to the New World. Only small numbers were transported as criminals. David Dobson suggests only 600 prisoners were deported to the Americas between 1707 and 1763. These numbers are broadly supported by Roger Ekirch, of Virginia Tech, USA. Of 395 prosecuted in Edinburgh High Court between 1718 and 1775, nearly one half (181) were transported to America. Many Jacobites were also banished and transported after uprisings in 1715 and 1746. In Banishment in the Early Atlantic World: Convicts, Slaves and Rebels, Gwenda Morgan and Peter Rushton describe the fate of many of the banished. Of 1700 prisoners taken in Scotland after the 1715 uprising, more than 450 Jacobites were sent to North America and 170 to the Caribbean. The authors note one form of ‘mercy’ was to make Jacobites sign allegiance to the King, followed by signing indentures and eventual transportation.
Many Jacobites refused to sign the seven-year indentures offered by the British Government. Yet, in the eyes of the law, they were prisoners to be transported to the colonies under indenture, not chattel slaves. In fact, many who did sign indentures bought the contracts from ship captains and freed themselves from their term of labour.
Eric Graham has recreated one such journey. In 1716, John Dunbar wrote from Chester Castle to relatives in Scotland pleading for the ‘means to get me set at liberty when I arrive in the Indies … when I am sold as a slave, to relieve myself from bondage and servitude’. Despite Dunbar’s assumptions, he used a credit note supplied by family to purchase a privileged berth in the ship he was transported in. On arrival at Sandy Point on the James River, he was released as a free man, presumably after purchasing his indenture from the captain. Instead of labouring in tobacco fields as a ‘white slave’, Dunbar took up the life of a mariner in Virginia and eventually returned to Scotland. In 1723, he inherited the family estate of Bishopmiln near Elgin. Many other Jacobites transported to South Carolina remained. In some cases, their indenture was bought by the Governor and they were instantly recruited to fight Yamassee Indians on the frontier.
Others, according to Morgan and Rushton, survived their indenture, such as William Cumming, who served in Public Office as a member of the House of Assembly (which slaves could not do). Even more revealing, on his decease, Cumming bequeathed his property – including forty slaves and three servants – to his son. Slaves were not allowed to own property and definitely not other enslaved people.
After the 1745 uprising and defeat at Culloden a year later, punishment was even harsher. Of 3463 Jacobite prisoners, 936 were transported and 348 banished. Some were intercepted by the French. Others made it to the colonies and their labour sold by agent, one of whom commented that he would make a ‘proper disposition of them amongst his friends, who I fancy will make them useful members of Society and in time they may possibly become good subjects’. However, none of the 1745 transportees signed indentures in Great Britain and were intended to be set for ‘lifelong service’. Even then, their children would have been free in contrast to the children of chattel slaves. However, again according to Morgan and Rushton, ‘those [Jacobites] who signed indentures in Jamaica had their terms reduced to seven years’. The crucial point about Dunbar and Cumming is that they were able to progress in a matter of years from unfree labourers to free persons: one returned to Scotland, the other rose to plantocracy elite in the colonies. This was only possible because they were white and therefore legally regarded in the colonies as human beings.
Adherents of the white slaves myth commit the cardinal sin that those striving to be historians avoid: judging the past by standards of today. Yes, indentured servitude is illegal in many countries today. But at the time, the indentured system in England and Scotland was not considered oppressive bond labour. It was an accepted rite of passage – virtually all workers were in some form of hierarchical work relationship: rural servants, maids or apprentice tradesmen. There were significant differences between servitude in England and Scotland and indentured servitude in the Anglo-Caribbean in the early seventeenth century, but the indentured servants, banished exiles or transported convicts were neither de jure or de facto enslaved.
The forms of labour were different not just in law but also in practice. And conditions for white indentured servants in the eighteenth-century Caribbean improved – even exiles had a privileged status far above the enslaved. Rigidly established hierarchies of race and class ensured that even the lowliest white overseer was able to exert power and authority over the most privileged chattel slave (see Trevor Burnard’s outstanding work Master, Tyranny and Desire). Lives of indentured servants were undeniably grim but they were not chattel slaves. Historians have a duty to clarify differences between the two forms of labour and how they were conceptualised and experienced at the time. They were two entirely different legal and social realities.
No triangulation, just a straight line
There was another crucial difference: scale. The Atlantic slave trade was the largest coerced migration in history. It is generally regarded that 12-20 million Africans were shipped to the New World. Over 3m were transported in British ships. Scottish indentured numbers are miniscule compared to many millions of Africans forcibly transported to chattel slavery in the New World.
Scots had limited direct involvement in the ‘triangular trade’ simply because the ‘trade’ was already monopolised by the English merchants prior to Union. Indeed, there are only 31 recorded Scottish slave voyages 1706-1766, carrying perhaps 4-5000 slaves. By comparison, over 1000 voyages cleared the port of Liverpool in a ten year period after 1790. Here it really ‘wisnae us’ (in general), but this limited involvement facilitates another form of whataboutery: disregarding the profound involvement of Scots as overseers, bookkeepers, merchants and attorneys across the Caribbean. Instead of undertaking triangular trade voyages, Scottish ships went straight to the plantations.
‘White slaves’ propagandists also infer another myth: indentureds were ‘spirited’ children, forcibly transported vagrants, or banished religious and political exiles. Many were, of course. Dobson’s and Ekirch’s figures show many hundreds of Scots transported and banished. However, for Scotland at least, the much wider story is one of voluntary emigration to the Caribbean, or more accurately a phenomenon known as sojourning. These young men travelled to the slave economies intending to make as much money in as short a time as possible in order to return to invest in a landed estate, thus improving their status.
There are no shipping records before 1840, so emigration estimates are necessarily based on anecdotal evidence. For the period 1750-1800, it is estimated that around 17,000 Scots went voluntarily to the Caribbean. My doctoral research on Clyde-Caribbean connections suggests these numbers increased 1800-1838. By the 1830s, the indentured system was no longer as widespread although waves of Scottish adventurers still flooded into the West Indies in the hope of profiteering from the labour of chattel slaves. There is a growing body of evidence delineating the lives of Scots profiteers who made the journey to, for example, St Kitts, Jamaica, Grenada and British Guiana. So, even if judged on its own terms (ie. forced vs voluntary migration), there is no comparison. And new research reveals another narrative, although one that will represent a sharp shock to our Recovering Scotland’s Slavery Past critic.
Scotland and slavery
If there is one key message from the book Recovering Scotland’s Slavery Past: The Caribbean Connection, it is the view that Scotland had a ‘greater per capita stake than any of the four nations of the UK in British imperial slavery’.
This conclusion is principally based upon the research of Dr Nicholas Draper (UCL) and the Legacies of British Slaveownership project. When slavery was abolished on 1 August 1834, the British Government awarded the slaveowners £20m compensation. Of this compensation, Scots claimed £2m. Scots represented 10 percent of the British population, yet collected around 15-16 percent of all absentee awards claimed in Great Britain (many slaveowners were resident in the colonies).
Individuals in Glasgow were amongst the most concentrated groups of claimants in Great Britain. Absentee West India planters and merchants in Glasgow owned over 14,000 slaves which resulted in a total award of over £460,000. Contemporary estimates suggest this total is worth c.£30m today or even up to £2 billion depending on what price index is deployed. There is no question that Scots had sustained involvement as profiteers in the plantation economy from the c.1660s – 1838. Who were the real victims?
It has long been recognised the past is usable and, evidently, the ‘white slaves’ myth has been hijacked for negative purposes. However, it is becoming increasingly difficult for ‘white slaves’ promoters to continue to insist that Scots were victims, not profiteers, of slavery There is a growing body of evidence on Scottish slaveowners. If this annoys some misinformed critics, then so be it. Historians have a duty to explain – without fear or favour – in a clear, concise manner based on empirical research of verifiable sources. Analysis should be undertaken in an unbiased fashion (or at least in the knowledge of said bias). Conclusions should be based upon reasoned and judicious interpretation of representative material and appropriately contextualised. If serious historians demolish myths and challenge the preconceived ideas of many, they are simply doing their job.
Featured image: Inside a Jamaican ‘House of Correction’, International Slavery Museum exhibit Diego Sideburns CC by ND-by-ND 2.0
Further reading
Tom Devine, Recovering Scotland’s Slavery Past (The Caribbean Connection);
Susan Dwyer Amussen, Slavery and the Transformation of English Society;
Mark Duffill, African Trade from the Ports of Scotland;
David Dobson, Scottish Emigration to Colonial America: 1607-1785
Joe Simpson says
Congrats on a fine exposé! Especially refreshing to read this well-balanced analysis at a time when the right-of-Genghis-Khan American white supremacist proponents of “white slavery” mythology are doubtless loudly and aggressively supportive of Donald Trump’s campaign for the GOP leadership!
Alison Gray-Thomson says
My ancestors are actually descended from fair skinned persecuted Catholic people from Scotland , the Scilly Isles and Ireland on my mother’s father’s side ..They settled in Barbados , St.Vincent and Grenada. Recently . some , settling Trinidad in the 1950s. I completely disagree with your “ research “. My family are living proof.
Justin page says
Proof of what? That they were slaves?
Ruth says
It seems to prove the article Alison, not disprove it. What you describe is what the author describes and was not chattel slavery.
James scobbie says
So the only slavery is chattel slavery ?
I notice thats how the author side steps the issue of slavery in the form of indeture, by suggesting the arguement is about personal onwership as opposed to slave labour.
Locheil says
💙🏴💙
Ckb says
Lol.
Orian Hutton says
Yes, proof of what? That they left Scotland because they were Catholic. Yes. That they settled in the Caribbean. Yes. That they were chattel slaves, bought and sold, as were their children. No. Did you even understand what this article was about? Apparently not.
Kimberley Da Silva says
I am baffled by people insistents on comparing and trying grade levels of pain,degradation.the history books are written and pushed by the Victor’s off history I.e, the wealthy, of course there were Scottish slave traders, they were the proportion of well off Scots was small due to years off oppression, and the systematic destruction off Scottish cultures, the removal off royal and wealthy Scots land, riches there for power, for it be given back to the few that were willing to betray there fellow scotts for money and power and they were happy to burn families out off there farms and villages leaving most off them with no or very choice off weather to leave Scotlands wee bit hill and Glen in order to feed there families or escape violent oppression. The art off war is not just about violance defeat it is also about the ongoing consistent reminder off the defeat, creating a his-tory books that aids the oppressors continued war for mental dominance in the minds off the people by creating a his-tory plays into the desired illusion off physical and mental ilusion off superiority. The victors historically, (regardless of ethnicity) generally do this by the continued desecration of the defeated peoples cultures their rights their beliefs pilliging villages, humiliating and demoralising the woman and imasculating the men, this stratagey has to be continued long after the war is one in order to keep control off the financial gains afforded to the wealthy humans who one. The one common denominator in all the atrocities commited to humans is HUMANS there is only one sector off people who always win and that is the wealthy while they keep the poor uneducated, hungry and fighting amongst ourselves over who got oppressed the worst.
Unknown says
Ah yes my ancestors were pale Scottish red head and all they were slaves that escaped slavery and this has been passed down for centuries in my family I have the orange hair and pale skin to it is a very strong gene and the history in my family is liveing proof of white Scottish slaves
scottish historian says
Firstly, having red hair doesn’t make someone Scottish and we’re not all white. These stereotypes are both racist and downright offensive. Secondly, you’re either delusional or you didn’t read the article. Which is it?
Mackittrick says
Fine expose? By his philosophy of somehow Scottish slavery didn’t exist because they were somehow tied into a situation, eliminates black slavery using the same philosophy. Africans were slaved by Africans who traded them to Europeans for god and guns…. so if Scottish slavery is non existent for that reason then African slavery is too. So is it or isn’t it? Slavery is slavery. And if anyone can’t walk away so if desired and are forced to labor or die then it’s slavery. Anything else is semantics. I doubt any Irish or Scott left willingly to be any kind of slave. Approx 300,000 Irish/Scott came to the us vs 388,000 Africans. Forcing men to be slaves then later selling their wives and children isn’t some contractual bs. Forcing female white slaves to breed with black slaves to make white slaves worth more money wasn’t contractual 7 year indentured anything. That happens for well over documented 30 years alone of forced breeding.
Mackittrick says
Correction- gold and guns
Mal says
Sorry but why on earth would they want gold when they have the gold? Where do you think gold comes from? lol
ckb says
Stop trying to equate Scots/Irish “slaves” with an out to their situation, to CHATTELS.
Please clarify your “388,000 Africans” claim.
By your logic Australia is birthed out of slavery.
Reisen says
Only 400,000 slaves were brought to North America, while the bulk landed in Brazil and South America. So the 388,000 number is accurate.
Orian Hutton says
‘By his philosophy of somehow Scottish slavery didn’t exist because they were somehow tied into a situation, eliminates black slavery using the same philosophy.’ In the first place, what Dr. Mullen has said is not a philosophy. It is simply historical fact. By definition, chattel slavery is different than indentured servitude. A chattel slave belonged, like a cow or a horse, to their owner, as did their offspring. An indentured servant, while their life might be harsh, was in a contract with their employer and had some rights in law. Apprenticeship agreements were also referred to as indentured servitude contracts, yet no-one is arguing that apprentices were slaves.
Stuart says
Michael Moore was just on “Finding Your Roots” PBS tv and his ancecters ship manifest to north america recorded him as Scottish slave.
ruth says
Indeed. Two of my ancestors (one Irish, one Welsh), on my mother’s side arrived in the U.S., in different centuries, as indentured servants attached to Englishmen. Historical records still extant show this. Oral history tells of many not surviving the passage or the brutality of their servitude. Oral history also tells of Irishmen being hung by the landowners if the servant behaved in a fashion afforded to the upper classes. Western European slavery and servitude originally had to do with class, not race; and it existed long before African slavery in the Americas.
This does not take away from the horrendous brutality that hundreds of thousands Africans suffered as slaves to Europeans in the Americas. Nor should it take away from the disdain for western slavery developing into a racial privilege with the advent of social Darwinism.
However, to pretend that large groups of people did not suffer nor were victimized merely because larger groups of people were brutalized more severely, minimizes the truth of many thousands of people’s very existence as survivors.
I am triracial. I despise the ideologies of white supremacy; but please, don’t say because a specific group of people is white they cannot have their historical persecution recognized.
Sandra Harvey says
I agree with what you are saying. The first of my ancestors were 4 young boys who were sold into slavery after their parents died between late 1640’s early 1650’s. Somehow it seems that these facts are threatening to others. No one is comparing the inhumanity of slavery among cultures, it just was. Why do we have to place blame? It was horrible! People continue to be enslaved today, mostly woman & children, but it is still alive & well in our world.
Fred H Rutherford says
The author of this article has a lot to learn. I am a decedent of a Scottish jacobite. Sent to the New England colonies in Virginia. My 7th grate grandfather. He was sold into servitude. He signed no contract and was treated brutally. He was forced to work long agonizing days in the tobacco fields. He was given nothing for free. Everything he needed to survive. He was charged for in the forum of time added to his length of servitude He was 14 when he arrived in Virginia. He never made out of servitude. Nor did the children born to him and his wife. While they were servants. I have all the family history and documents to prove Every word of this. My 7th Grate Grandfather a Scottish Jacobite lived and worked along side African slaves and he was treated as badly as an African
Richard Bauer says
I work with two historian friends who are very interested in your documentation. Are you willing to share. Perhaps I could give you contact information?
I’m a descendant of Covenanters and abolitionists. This information would be important to our work.
Thank you.
Robert Smith says
What a load of nonsense from these ‘expert’s’ Slavery involving every race including the Scots as victims, has been going on since the earliest times. The Vikings were the main culprits and had Dublin as their clearing house for slaves, being transported as far as North Africa. Mr Devine and others need to take another look at all this, including the excellent modern scholarship, which is not setting out to make political points.
Locheil says
Absolutely
Shawn says
A famous history professor stated that history was not a science but a continuing investigation into the past; a person’s conclusion is based on their own bias. This story will offer evidence that the Alba, Scots, Irish and Pics have been the longest race held in slavery. The reader will be responsible for their own bias pertaining to White Slavery.
Alexander Stewart was herded off the Gildart in July of 1747, bound with chains. Stewart was pushed onto the auction block in Wecomica, St Mary’s County, Maryland. Doctor Stewart and his brother William were attending the auction, aware of Alexander being on that slave ship coming from Liverpool England. Doctor Stewart and William were residents of Annapolis and brothers to David of Ballachalun in Montieth, Scotland. The two brothers paid nine pound six shillings sterling to Mr. Benedict Callvert of Annapolis for the purchase of Alexander. He was a slave. Alexander tells of the other 88 Scots sold into slavery that day in “THE LYON IN MOURNING” pages 242-243.
Jeremiah Howell was a lifetime-indentured servant by his uncle in Lewis County, Virginia in the early 1700’s. His son, Jeremiah, won his freedom by fighting in the Revolution. There were hundreds of thousands of Scots sold into slavery during Colonial America. White slavery to the American Colonies occurred as early as 1630 in Scotland.
According to the Egerton manuscript, British Museum, the enactment of 1652: it may be lawful for two or more justices of the peace within any county, citty or towne, corporate belonging to the commonwealth to from tyme to tyme by warrant cause to be apprehended, seized on and detained all and every person or persons that shall be found begging and vagrant.. in any towne, parish or place to be conveyed into the Port of London, or unto any other port from where such person or persons may be shipped into a forraign collonie or plantation.
The judges of Edinburgh Scotland during the years 1662-1665 ordered the enslavement and shipment to the colonies a large number of rogues and others who made life unpleasant for the British upper class. (Register for the Privy Council of Scotland, third series, vol. 1, p 181, vol. 2, p 101).
The above accounting sounds horrific but slavery was what the Scots have survived for a thousand years. The early ancestors of the Scots, Alba and Pics were enslaved as early as the first century BC. Varro, a Roman philosopher stated in his agricultural manuscripts that white slaves were only things with a voice or instrumenti vocali. Julius Caesar enslaves as many as one million whites from Gaul. (William D Phillips, Jr. SLAVERY FROM ROMAN TIMES TO EARLY TRANSATLANTIC TRADE, p. 18).
Pope Gregory in the sixth century first witnessed blonde hair, blue eyed boys awaiting sale in a Roman slave market. The Romans enslaved thousands of white inhabitants of Great Britain, who were also known as Angles. Pope Gregory was very interested in the looks of these boys therefore asking their origin. He was told they were Angles from Briton. Gregory stated, “Non Angli, sed Angeli.” (Not Angles but Angels).
Ro says
I think your comments are excellent, and deliver much needed context to this article. The article in no way sets out what it proports to do – debunking ‘the white slaves’ myth – but credit for taking on such a complex issue and with such a catchy and intriguing title. Mullen’s treatment of Jordan and Walsh White Cargo is particularly selective (akin to an undergraduate desperate to a point) and the intellectual dishonesty from Mullen is (hopefully) obvious to anyone reading this article. Also, Mullen’s “it wisnae us” suggestions – implying we are either all ignorant or in denial about slavery are ridiculous. Its disappointing that Mullen thinks its okay to write about such a complex subject through a solitary lens, without contextualising the issues (ever so slightly) from a broader perspective. Indeed, its been left to people like Shawn and others to provide what the author wilfully ignores
Mallory says
Lochlei, Shawn, Robert Smith.
I don’t know why but all this sounds like an “all lives matter response”. The article clearly states that Scots volunteered to work as “slaves” so that they could make money and invest it. Those who were involuntarily “sold” as slaves were criminals.
Now, please level Scottish slavery to chattel slavery in the Caribbean when you have proof that they were:
– lashed/ whipped at for no reason
– amputated/ slowly burned alive as a form of punishment
– killed if they ever hit/ self defenced against their white masters
– were in slavery for 400 years
– had their identity, culture, language, name, religion stripped from them to the point that their offspring today don’t know where they are from.
– never had a “7 year contract” and their children were born into slavery
– labeled as an asset like a farm animal
– worked to the bone which meant they lived for an average of 5 -7 years
– woman forced to sleep with their fathers to breed more slaves like beasts in the wild
– used for medical experiments by doctors
– chattel babies used as crocodile bate like worms on the hook of a fishing pole.
– were oppressed to the point that even in 2020 today, chattel people’s offsprings (African Americans) today are killed for no reason, the people who kill them are hardly ever sentenced and they march every year in a protest of BLACK LIVES MATTER, so that they can actually be free. Not systemical slaves with invisible chains that we cannot see.
Its like comparing a small cut (scot slavery) to a gun wound (chattel slavery) that is still open and bleeding today.
in conclusion, shut the f*ck up.
Kindest regards,
Your fellow Scot
Matt says
Why do you need to make a comparison though?
Because Africans were treated worse doesn’t negate the fact people from Scotland, Ireland and England were forced into slavery.
Call it what you like, but being put into iron chains, forced on to a ship and sent thousands of miles from home and sold as a possession of someone else is slavery.
Richard Bauer says
Most of your arguments are flat-out wrong.
It is silly for ignorant Scot “academics” to argue with American historians who know much more about this subject and have access to greater academic resources.
Mr. Mullen’s work is faulty in that it ignores earlier 17th Century enslavement of Scots in the West Indies and the southern colonies of what would become the United States of America. The painting of these Covenanters as criminals is an insult to all of us American Covenanter descendants whose forefathers endured terrible tribulations,
Many of the descendants of those surviving Covenanter families became ardent, violent abolitionists who fought slavery for over four generations. To suggest, somehow, we are racist or ignorant of the treatment both of our own people and those of African heritage again is an insult, and belies your own ignorance of Covenanter history and American history.
To boot, your profanity betrays your belligerence and ignorance.
Shawn Andrukates says
Oh!!!! The white liberal person has spoken. Everyone STFU because they quite obviously know first-hand the struggles of slaves and the ancestors of slaves.
The point was not to draw a comparison but to acknowledge the existence of Scots enslaved at all.
Get off your high horse and recognize that you are no better than anyone else. People like you continue the issue of race. You perpetuate racial divide through, what you mistakenly view as, support for a cause. BLM was created following the death of George Floyd. A career criminal with a history of drug arrests who died from a Fentanyl overdose while in police custody.
You are a White Slave to the media portrayal of racism in America and you will continue to feed the narrative through your own ignorance.
Just be a good person and treat everyone as an equal. Respect everyone equally until they provide a reason to not deserve your respect, as you have here with your post of sheer ignorance and disrespect for Lochlei, Shawn, Robert Smith.
Geraldine Thompson says
Hear, hear
Paisley says
Scottish and Irish slavery has also been noted in journals regarding Black history, more specifically volume 52. Ulrich B. Phillips’ Life and Labor in the Old South explains that white enslavement was crucial to the development of Black enslavement and wrote that Black slaves were “late comers into a system already developed”. There are over 10 documents that show that the Irish and Scots were slaves and Black slaves of that time have acknowledged this.
P.Ivy says
Slavery is as old as mankind.
In Saugus, Massachusets alone there is documented proof and evidence of Enland sending their Scottish POWs working as slaves in the iron mills.
This was not indentured slavery- it was as ugly as slavery is- anywhere, anytime.
To say it is fabricated is proof that ignorance still exists….
Locheil says
Sceptical Scot indeed #ismiseGàidhlig regardless our story will be told through the generations.
Gordon Marr says
Your very narrow outlook fails to identify the millions of white people who worked in Europe during the first industrial revolution. The concentration on African slaves is a distraction from the horrific situations that existed for white workers in Europe. I served an apprenticeship in a shipyard there was no PPE as result many people suffer chronic health problems. Academics who try to present biased opinions on subjects that they have only looked at from side are casting aspersions on the reader’s intellect. Why don’t you investigate the asbestosis scandal more than 20 million victims?
Kevin Marcum says
Once again documents are ignored. What is it with trying to deny white slavery and even trying to make indentured servitude as no big deal. People like you and your misinformation is the problem. Electricscotland.com shows the written proof.
D Dennison says
Since I have seen the graves of life indentured Highlanders buried with the African slaves in the slave grave yards in plantations in Barbados and I am by no means a supporter of Trump or a Right Wing nut, your statement is not accurate. Stephen Mullen’s claim that this is a myth is contradicted by multiple corroborative primary sources which he has either ignored to make his point (the Prebble trick) or has not found.
David says
Who were the 25000 white slaves auctioned on St. Kitts Island in 1650?
Google that history
Shawn Andrukates says
WTF are you talking about? Genghis Khan, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini are all your heroes. The left will add Joe Biden to that list as he and his policies continue to erode the fabric of America and push the U.S.A. into decay to be over-run by China.
If you believe there were no White Slaves then you are as blind as your parties understanding of the U.S. border crisis.
Cherry says
Were rewriting history now in 2024
Michelle McDowell says
Thank you so much for this post. Born on the island of Trinidad in the Caribbean, I am beginning to research my 3rd great-grandfather, a Gordon from Ross & Cromarty who left Scotland in 1843 to go to British Guiana as a plantation manager. He spent at least 3 decades in the colony, producing 5 legitimate children and at least one child of colour who I am descended from. It has been an interesting genealogical journey (to say the least) as I contact his descendants who are quite surprised to hear from a black “cousin.” More importantly, I find myself fascinated by his motivations for leaving the world that he knew. David Alston’s research and the UCL database you mentioned have been extremely helpful.
Mackittrick says
I too am Scott. Many Irish/ Scottish slaves women and African men were forced to have mixed babies as well in states. They were cheaper than African slaves but cost more than white slaves. This type of breeding went on for 30-50 years. You will see a lot of light skinned black folks because of this. The myth all light skins cane from slave owner rape is a myth. Some did yes but 50 years of breeding slaves makes up most. This also happened in the islands.
Locheil says
I didn’t know this, can you point to some resources? Academic or otherwise, stories retold from family experience etc? Thanks
Shannon8989 says
Yes, can you please point to some resources. After a DNA test our family is mostly Scots/Irish. From the Highlands and Northern Ireland. But we had a surprise of Guinean DNA too. I figured it was from rape of a slave ancestor, but was not even aware of white slavery. Also I think discussing white slavery is by no means diminishing African slavery. And when the writer of this article tried to make this political for Trump supporters, he is implying that we are racist. NO that is not true and you may not dehumanize us for having different views.
David says
I cannot remember the name of the book; but Google,
25000 white slaves auctioned on St. Kitts Island 1650 and the book will come up.
James Heartfield says
I’ve seen eyewitness accounts of Scots driven to market for sale c. 1740, reproduced in the Anti-Slavery Reporter a century later. Will check reference for you…
Stephen Mullen says
No requirement, James. But thank you. Indentured contracts could be bought, sold, traded and bequeathed during the period of temporary servitude. If you’re interested in reading academic works on this area, please do consult this reading list:
Jerome S. Handler and Matthew Reilly, ‘Contesting “White Slavery” in the Caribbean: Enslaved Africans and European Indentured Servants in 17th Century Barbados’ (2016) http://jeromehandler.org/wp-content/uploads/WhiteSlaves.-July-submission.pdf
Susan Dwyer Amussen “Caribbean Exchanges: Slavery and the Transformation of English Society, 1640–1700” (2007)
Christopher Tomlins “Freedom Bound: Labor, Law and Civic Identity in Colonizing America, 1580–1865” (2010)
Edmund S. Morgan, “American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia” (1975)
Abigail L. Swingen “Competing Visions of Empire: Labor, Slavery, and the Origins of the British Atlantic Empire” (2015)
Morgan and Rushton “Banishment in the Early Atlantic World: Convicts, Rebels and Slaves” (2013)
Richard S. Dunn “Sugar and Slaves: The Rise of the Planter Class in the British West Indies” (1972)
Hilary Beckles “White Servitude and Black Slavery in Barbados, 1626–1715” (1989)
Hilary Beckles, “A “Riotous and Unruly Lot”: Irish Indentured Servants and Freemen in the English West Indies, 1644–1713″, Caribbean Slavery in the Atlantic World (1999)
Russell Menard, “Sweet Negotiations: Sugar, Slavery, and Plantation Agriculture in Early Barbados” (2006)
Jenny Shaw “Everyday Life in the Early English Caribbean: Irish, Africans and the Creation of Difference” (2013)
Kristen Block, “Ordinary Lives in the Early Caribbean: Religion, Colonial Competition, and the Politics of Profit” (2012)
Block and Shaw, “Subjects without an Empire: The Irish in the Early Modern Caribbean”, Past and Present (2011)
Simon P. Newman, “A New World of Labor: The Development of Plantation Slavery in the British Atlantic” (2013)
Michael Guasco, “Slaves and Englishmen: Human bondage in the Early Modern Atlantic World” (2014)
Michael Guasco, “Indentured Servitude”, Atlantic History (May 2011)
Edward B. Rugemer, “The Development of Mastery and Race in the Comprehensive Slave Codes of the Greater Caribbean during the Seventeenth Century”, William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. 70, No. 3 (2013)
Larry Gragg, “Englishmen Transplanted: The English Colonization of Barbados, 1627–1660″ (2004)
Jerome S. Handler and Matthew C. Reilly, “Father Antoine Biet’s Account Revisited: Irish Catholics in Mid-Seventeenth Century Barbados”, Caribbean Irish Connections (2015)
Matthew C. Reilly “The Irish in Barbados: Labour, Landscape and Legacy”, Caribbean Irish Connections (2015).
Anna Suranyi, “Indenture, Transportation, and Spiriting: Seventeenth Century English Penal Policy and ‘Superfluous’ Populations”, Building the Atlantic Empires: Unfree Labor and Imperial States in the Political Economy of Capitalism, ca. 1500–1914 (2015)
Orlando Patterson, “Slavery and Social Death” (1982)
Gregory Root says
Dr. Mullen,
I know far less about this than you, and am a Yank whose ancestors were in Clans Robertson and Chattan. By the way, I very much enjoyed my visit to Glasgow last year. This need not be a polarizing matter of history. It seems clear that Scots were involved in enabling/profiting from slavery, however, it seems like it is also true that there were other Scots forced into servitude, by the Romans to the Vikings to the Unionists to fellow Scots. Your piece was informative, however, the slant was palpable. You write that there was a massive difference in scale: hundreds/thousands compared to millions. You’re right, but, you take pains to diminish and distinguish, and yet I’m left with the feeling that Scot slavery was >not< a myth. Scotland is a small place with a relatively small number of people, so its not surprising that the number of slaves/forced indenture was small.
Also, you provide a further reading list, but for a piece of this nature, there is a dearth of actual citations. You can further objective understanding of history by providing links to more original source materials.
I think you turned a number of readers off to your message by making it one-sided. If you read about worldwide slavery, the clear pattern was one of advanced societies enslaving developing societies, neighbors enslaving each other given the opportunity, and above all, victors enslaving the vanquished. Not much different for the Scots.
PETER FERGUSON says
Very well said Mr Root. No-one would ever deny the enormity of the crime of slavery committed by Europeans in the period running from the 17th to the early 19th Century, (although this in itself would be committing what Mr Mullen correctly cites as a “cardinal sin” in judging the past from the mores of the present).
However Mr Mullen is clearly from a socialist sector of commentators who slew the evidence entirely in one direction in order to “prove” their case and then cites fellow historians to reinforce their claims. This fashion for “mea culpa” is deeply troubling, for how can any white Europeans be any more “guilty” of this abhorrent trade than the African chiefs who created the whole commerce of slavery in Africa, originally with Tuareg and Arabic peoples going back into the mists of time.
Indeed this whole need to present white people as the sole creators, perpetrators and beneficiaries of this appalling trade, is in itself racist and serves to create division and hatred rather than true understanding.
Europeans were very much perpetrators of slavery and on a very large scale, but let us not overlook slavery in a global context involving all peoples of the world since time immemorial and not attempt to heighten racial antagonisms by suggesting it was the work of one racial group alone.
All of humanity has and is guilty of slavery from the vast markets of human beings in Algiers to the child workers from the lowest castes in India today who provide clothes cheaply for all of us to enjoy.
And let us not dwell too much on the legal semantics of the technical differences between chattel slaves, indentured workers, transported prisoners etc. The conditions, life expectancies and suffering endured by all of these categories are only different Mr Mullen, to an academic sitting in a lofty ivory tower enjoying tea and biscuits whilst sifting through various sources. To those who suffered it all looked very similar. Hell!
Anna says
Thank you so much for your post. Slavery has existed amongst all races, colours and cultures and as you stated still exists in various forms today. My level of frustration is inconceivable in regards to this subject, if only the baying throng would be open to a different narrative and not be vulnerable to the current climate of denigrating white civilisation. After all it was white people that fought to end slavery.
Gordon Marr says
Just one name should shut all these guys up Musa the ruler of the Mali empire who had the largest number of slaves ever accumulated. He was a local African.
Ro says
Thank you for writing an excellent post and reply
Locheil says
I would love to see that reference thank you James
Craig MacDonald says
The article was in many ways interesting and offered some different view points. The only thing that let it down was the I am superior to you rhetoric tone of the entire piece.
Why bring in “It wisnae us – white Scots were slaves first. It wisnae us – it was the English. It wisnae us – it was the rich landowners. It wisnae us – the working classes weren’t involved. It wisnae us – it happened 200 years ago. Repeat ad nauseum.” Most Scots are well aware of our involvement in the slave trade and the impact that it had. But you are equally as bad as those that make excuses for it. Your entire piece almost mocks the horror and hardship many of those who suffered enforced indentured servitude faced. The fact that being forced into a contract somehow makes it OK and legal. It is always wise to take out your own sneering superiority when you are trying to make a point and bring people on board to your point of view. Sadly in this article you failed to do so, which is sad because it had a lot of good points.
SusieT says
I was thinking the exact same thing. Like a previous poster who mentioned eye witness accounts and ships logs that are genuine historical documents.
J.matheson says
Well said
Robert Smith says
Why weren’t the Scottish Covenanters listed here in this article, they were transported to The Carolinas and the Caribbean islands. They were not criminals, simply wishing their civil and religious liberty. Many perished in the voyage of attempted voyage, like those who were taken from their ‘prison’ at Greyfriars Churchyard and ending up drowned or murdered off the coast of Orkney.
They were nothing but slaves to the Stuart despots.
In any case most of the poorer people’s condition in the UK, was nothing better than slavery or serfdom, until very recent times.
John says
You talk utter nonsense.
Graham Stewart says
Interesting read but a poor conclusion.
You state “it is becoming increasingly difficult for ‘white slaves’ promoters to continue to insist that Scots were victims, not profiteers.”
The evidence clearly points to both being true. The two things are in no way mutually exclusive, and as a historian only the facts matter rather than who was right or wrong based on our current moral interpretations or some misplaced idea of guilt and innocence in that respect.
Laurie Pettitt says
I have been researching the story of the Scots sent to America after the Battle of Dunbar.
Much of the story about Slavery is untrue. People, especially hard up Colonists were not going to pay £30 for just another mouth to feed. In the Records of Massachusetts, you see contracts between Indentured Servants and their Masters and there is a list of people coming out of their Indentureships. Whatever the result, people were sent abroad. Some fared well, some fared worse.
It is often necessary to us a bit of ‘Sardonic Humour’ with the Scots because they often have a different take on History than the rest of us. ie. Scottish MP describing the Battle of Flodden. The men who were massacred by the English were: Defending their home and families! Cromwell’s invasion in 1650 was quite uncalled for. We were just making an agreement with Charles II to invade England and impose our system of worship on her.
Put into context… The Pogroms in Poland. Tens of thousands of Jews thrown out of homes and towns egged on by the Roman Catholic Priests.
Laurie Pettitt says
I have been looking at the 1650 Rebellion in Barbados and the ‘other’ Earl of Carlisle (Hay) If the mass of Irish prisoners from Cromwell’s invasion of Ireland were there at the start of the Rebellion, it would have boosted the Royalist Strength. It would be early 1652 by the time the Scots from the Battle of Worcester turned up in Barbados or Massachusetts. The ‘John and Sarah’ was supposed to have taken provisions to Barbados after leaving Boston.
As yet, I cannot find reliable time lines so any help would be appreciated.
Graham Campbell says
A tour de force Stephen, as always – well written cogent argument backed up by facts. Thank you once again for your outstanding service to the truth about Scottish and Caribbean history.
William says
How did you say that this was a “myth”.But then say it’s true and it did happen but it was said it wasn’t as bad as normal slavery….even tho it’s still slavery so…it’s kinda saying “it’s not as bad because it wasn’t someone of an opposite color” that’s kind of contradicting to the whole point.Especially saying it’s a myth.How would that make it a myth?
Sarah says
I think what he meant was its a myth in the sense that they weren’t treated like the blacks. they were viewed as employees, not farm animals. It was still harsh but not inhumanly barbaric
Edward Burns says
Sarah, the harsh reality is that much of Scotland was regarded as a backwater, particularly the Highland s and there, the Feudal system lived on. People (as serfs) were born to the land. The Lairds enjoyed progenitor privileges (to take the Bride on her wedding night). Floggings were common as were hangings. To imagine that this Feudal system would be transported, intact, to the New World is not a failure of imagination. It was a lived reality.
Tash says
Essential reading at a time when Scottish nationalist rhetoric is determined to paint white Scots as victims of the British empire instead of the enthusiastic participants they were.
Craig MacDonald says
Tell that to all the highlanders that were caught in the highland clearances. The people that were enthusiastic slave traders were the same Scots that gave up their right to be Scots when they became British. It was these same people that fought for Britain in 1746 and went on to slaughter the wounded prisoners at Culloden. They are still the same ones that march in July to show their Britishness. The fact that some idiots think that the people of Glasgow and Scotland don’t know their part in the Slave Trade obviously have never been to the city, as many of us know our history. The fact is that history does not define who we are now, and only someone without any knowledge of humanity would presume so. Are you now going to attack all of those Africans that were enthusiastic about the Slave Trade or are you as ignorant of Africa as you are of Scotland?
Tash says
I’m certainly not ignorant of Africa as I am partly a descendent of African slaves. Your denial is the same as all the other denial of white privilege. But bad things happened to us, too! But those other white people started it! But Africans invented the slave trade anyway so it’s all their fault! I am tired of this country Scotland insists it is free from racism and perfectly tolerant. PoC who have actually lived Scotland can tell you that the same problems exist as anywhere. ‘History does not define who we are now’ is not an excuse that white people get to use when they benefit still from the divisions caused by slavery, by Blacks being portrayed as less than human, the wounds of this have not gone away for us.
Tash says
You can’t just choose to label yourself ‘Scottish’ instead of ‘British’ and pretend like giving it a different name means that these things didn’t happen. That’s just words and word games. These things were real and people from Scotland did it.
L. Farquhar says
It wasn’t just blacks being portrayed as less than human; they were legally declared to be so in the 1661 Barbados slave code.
But I refuse to adhere to a social construct that was perpetrated by the elite for the purpose of making money. We can’t say all blacks were good and all whites were bad, because race is only one thing that makes us different from each other and many other details determine more about who we are as people. It is like saying the “original sin” is a valid concept; you know no more about these “whites” who you claim to have privilege than any other person. “White privilege” is a myth…it’s the privilege of elite families, many of whom may still have it.
The same families who benefited from the African slave trade also benefited from the clearances and from the genocide of the First Nations in North America. But history has many people who chose a different path; we are not predestined to carry on the sins of the past. Until we all start treating everyone as individuals we are destined to conform to these social constructs. You don’t know the family history of every single person of Scottish descent, let alone every “white” person.
Tash says
Black people are still discriminated against today, across the world, as a DIRECT RESULT of the slave trade, of the myths created by Europeans that we are subhuman, to justify selling us and raping African continent. You have no idea what that is like. How dare you tell us to get over history when we still have to live with those consequences. White privilege is what you do NOT have to experience, as a white person, because you are just a person. You are not judged by your skin because you are the default.
clare says
Well said,
over 230.000 mostly irish children were sold into slavery by the bankers Society of Lloyds in 1802 to american leaders and their plantations, by 1850 with their parents either murdered or starved by a mercenary force of over (100.00) in ireland till 1851. Quote from lebor Clann glas, the green race.
So the bankers done it,
Divide and conquer
We are all homosapian colour does not matter,
One love
Wren says
Enough lies …Scots history is that they blame the English for everything! Pretend that they are Irish and steal culture in order to promote themselves! The Truth is the opposite, they were at the heart of colonialism and slavery and they developed orange order ! Who,s influence is still being felt in Ireland and America with links to KKK The Scottish American find the truth to hard to accept and constant place them with Irish…stop doing that.Look at hate spread in northern Ireland by Ulster Scott’s and learn your history rather than make it up which is an inherited trait.
A .MacDonald says
Reply to Wren. A few corrections needed here –The Orange order was started by Irishmen in Ireland. Scots are well aware that some of their own fought on the English side during key moments in History – e.g. many were Hanovarians during the Jacobite wars ( as well as many English being Jacobites) Scots never “pretend to be Irish” – why would we when we are so proud to be Scottish?And we have our own strong culture- why would we steal Irish – or any other – culture? That is a ridiculous and unfounded statement.
Yes – Scots were at the heart of colonialism and slavery , but that does not take away from the fact that a good number also suffered enforced indentured servitude. Scots know their history and in no way “blame the English” for everything. Scots know that many Scottish landowners were just as responsible for the Highland Clearances as the British Government of the time. Many Scots were responsible for the atrocities committed after Culloden – we know it wasn’t totally “the English” but the facts remain that the key decision making around those and other historical incidents too numerous to mention came directly from the British government based in England. Please be careful when you make sweeping statements such as “Scots history is that they blame the English for everything”- what utter rubbish. Get your facts straight.
notracistwren says
Sad racist comments by “Wren”. So sick to continue to hear racists spout things like “make it up which is an inherited trait.” I don’t understand how someone can be so filled with hate to justify white slavery and in the same comment degrade a group of people as being genetically flawed. This person is just sick and all we can do is pray for someone with that much hate towards a group of people to learn better. Hopefully their children can separate from their parents and learn to live a life of tolerance and understanding.
L. Farquhar says
This was an interesting article but I have trouble with the selective use of anecdotal evidence to prove the point that all Scottish benefited from the slave trade. I live in Nova Scotia and I have more Scottish ancestors who were transported as indentured servants than the number of cases cited here.
To suggest that life under British rule was a cake walk for either the Irish or the Scots is to completely negate the known history. Through journals, documents and family histories I can tell you that even those who left voluntarily were simply given a choice between being landless peasants there or leaving, however at least two were given the choice between leaving or dying simply based on their last name. Others were transported for hard labour. I should also point out that 7 years indenture was the payment for the cost of transportation, and that was much shorter than some of my ancestors’ contracts, at least one of which was for life. None of them were released from these contracts until they were impressed into military service during the American Revolution and none of them were allowed to marry until their military service ended. It did work out well for them however. They were left in Nova Scotia and many were given land…not great land but at least it was something, and they became subsistence farmers. Others became privateers.
While I am not equating this to the Atlantic slave trade, it was by no means a humane trade. And while some of those in Glasgow may have benefited from the slave trade, these were the same people who chose to side with the English rather than to fight them. No doubt many of them were of English ancestry, and not from ancient Scottish families.
Laura says
Right, because the English working class had it so good in the 19th century…
Craig MacDonald says
You are right sir, white people don’t truly know how it feels to be black or judged on the colour of their skin but many do know how it is to be downtrodden and beaten by society. The author of this piece is using narcissism of small differences to create a divide of those that suffered at the hands of their oppressors. We cannot change what happened back then but we can change how things are today. As I said to my Chinese friend she is as Scottish as I am. she feels Scottish the same goes for anyone regardless of colour or creed. There will always be those that try to divide people to create disharmony including the author of this article even if we give them the benefit of the doubt that, that was not their intention. I would try and look around and see a number of people that don’t see colour and have friends of all races. I was once accused of being racist because I did not have any coloured friends in Scotland and should get some, the racism in that statement shocked me. I have many coloured friends all over the world and the thought that I should look at someone’s colour just to make friends is disgusting. Perhaps things will get better when people stop referring to the past and to themselves as a colour. It may seem strange to you but here in Scotland a lot of people separate themselves on religion and it was/is as bad as race hate in the US, we still have segregation in our schools due to religion. The world is full of people who get on really well together, it is only those that hurt us personally that we remember and make assumptions on all those we view as similar.
notracistwren says
“white people don’t truly know how it feels to be black or judged on the colour of their
skin ”
But you just judged white people based on the color of their skin. Don’t presume to know another man based on the color of his skin. Racism is wrong. And the hateful idea that it is ok to say racists things about white people is disgusting.
L. Farquhar says
I find it hilarious that you have already decided what my skin colour is, and that my view is biased because of it.
I’m not going to but into the black vs white dichotomy which was imposed by Slave traders for the purpose of making money. There are so many other races, and so many have intermarried…who among us is going to be the race police and decide to which each of us belong.
I’m also not going to forget that each person has a history unique to themselves which is made of their own life experiences and those of their ancestors. You can’t blame an entire race or country or region for the actions of a few, nor can you absolve them of all wrong for the what a few good people did. It’s just a small leap from where you’re standing to saying things like “all black Americans commit crimes” or “all white people are rich.” Making such sweeping statements in modern times is just as ridiculous as making such statements about the past.
Laura says
Sweeping statements about the English (the actual multicultural nation of the UK) are apparently fine, though.
L. Farquhar says
I think that is often the issue…the assumption that everyone lived like kings in the 18th and 19th centuries. You only need to read Charles Dickens to realize that wasn’t the case. Most of the people were either peasant farmers or trying to stay out of the poor house in the 18th century.
CL says
I am white Scottish myself. I am very much opposed to bigotry of all forms.
I denounce my countrymen’s involvement in the slave trade. I am pro-independence. While it is true that Scotland is under the yoke of UK sovereignty, we do need to denounce our partaking in the oppression of non whites. I’m not anti-English, I have an English grandmother. Scotland was forced into the Union in 1707.
Generally, Edinburgh (where I live) is a somewhat diverse but very tolerant city, and I am proud of that.
Duncan Stewart says
Upon first coming across your article, I was searching for quite a different subject; a form of slavery in Scotland induced by a law enacted in 1606? If I am not mistaken, this law enslaved all Scottish colliers and salters (including their families) to a life of slavery in which the owners of the various coal mines became, in effect, slave masters compleat with overseers! This would not make them much different from their fellow privileged plantation owners in the American south. It would also seem to suggest that the fact that there were white Scottish slaves in the very heart of Scottland sort of makes your whole article…well… moot. By the way, do you think I could sue the Scottish parliament for damages since my ancestors were part of the group of enslaved colliers? And, yes, to the best of my knowledge, they were all white.
Ricardo Enriquez says
Author is WRONG! Just because they were not “chattel” in the Americas DOES NOT mean they weren’t, and should not be considered, slaves. Indentured servitude and the other forms of forced labor to which some people were subject is so dehumanizing – IT IS SLAVERY!
Also, claiming that Scots were slaves is NOT automatically a call to distract from Scottish involvement in the African slave trade. STRAW MAN!
Bob McCandless says
I agree with you. Slavery enforced by debenture is equally loss of freedom. The author should try looking at the colliery laws in Scotland where people and their families were tied to the master and could not leave unless given a certificate by said master.
The people of Scotland ,especially the lower classes were no stranger to servitude which was enforced ruthlessly. Not perhaps with the lash, but with penury and hunger for those who stepped out of line. Utter piffle of an article.
” oh Jean, you are being sent away abroad for 20 years service ok”
No problem there . I despair.
Nick bagshawe says
John Blackman, freed from his indenture by the terms of the will of his master Richard Gore in Joseph Barbados in 1673. Would he have been scots?
Ne Oublie says
Here I am, just trying to learn more about my Clan’s history and I’ve stumbled onto a page about slavery. It’s always hilarious to see “white people” being the ones to blame for slavery, like every single white person has benefited from another persons exploitation but I guess it’s easier to target a colour for blame. “facts are boring when I can just point a finger and blame that person!”
It seems my lot were too busy stealing cattle, trying to legalise Kilts and dying from STDs to get involved. Spent the last 2 hours looking for any history of my Clan’s involvement in the slave trade but I can’t find any, and my mother’s side were street urchins and later miners from Newcastle but never mind that, white people bad!
One day the 1800’s will be a thing of the past. It’s not likely but one can hope.
tryLess says
i think you missed the point; might explain why you’re so upset
Mal says
White people are not bad. I think what upsets poeple in general is that the whole country has wiped itself clean from slavery. When we think of slavery we don’t think of the UK, but the US.
Thing is slavery helped build this country. The money they made from profits built this empire. And yes we all benefitted from it because compared to people in third world countries, you might be considered working class but you have access to “wealth”. So yes everyone benefited in the long run. You might not have benefitted directly by receiving coins in the bank because, well, capitalism.
Now the problem is people of colour and foreigners of all sorts are always being discriminated against. “Go back to your own country”, “You’re taking all the jobs”, “Your taking our money, benefits” – it all stems from the gov not teaching the country and its people where the UK wealth came from. There is a reason why all these foreigners are coming here for a better life. Its because the British Empire took everything. Till this day Africa is overexploited, from resources and labour. There are children in the Republic of Congo as we speak who mine for iron ore, the element that makes sure we can use phones and laptops today.
It is not about white people. It is about white government, admit, acknowledge, apologies and amend. If we don’t teach the real history of what happened, these false teaching will continue (Africa is poor, foreigners are here to seal our jobs etc). We need to unite and be free. If we all unite all that is left is misogyny and capitalism. We can do this!
paulboh says
Some observations about your article:
1. Generally, I searched your article for primary references and came up lacking. While it is always helpful to review blog-type views, you have included a rather snobbish dismissal of those who are not historians. This lends a very biased first-impression to the article.
2. For whatever reason, you essentially have ignored the Cromwell years. By doing so, you may have missed some important gaps in the distinctions you have drawn.
3. The slant is most evident in the apparent view that numbers define the notion of slavery. There need be no defense on behalf of the Scots in this regard. Those who have been enslaved, regardless of their number, still count.
4. The article presents a rather shameful analysis of the fundamental point: defining slavery. By shameful, I mean there really isn’t an attempt to define it. Yes, the article tip-toes around the definitional edge, but never seriously tackles the issue. Instead, the article seems to rely upon its own set of assumptions and presumptions.
5. The brief effort to cast the analysis under the glare of “white supremacist” deflection is a disturbing generalization that can easily be seen as an effort to “throw tomatoes” rather than a serious consideration.
6. I cannot comment on the distinctions of cruelty you describe, as you provide no reference points to justify the distinctions. However, it is mere fool’s gold to rely upon Cromwell’s apologetic distinction that the servants signed indentures. This disregards the involuntary nature of the indentures — goodness, have we forgotten that many were forced into the indentures as a form of banishment punishment by Cromwell? I think the critical point here is that you have failed to studiously consider whether there are degrees of slavery and if so, the significance of those degrees.
7. I do find it troublesome that so many want to join the bandwagon of slave history; yet, I find it equally troublesome that articles, such as yours, suggest an undercurrent that slavery can be owned only by African Americans. Hogwash! The degrees of slavery do not lessen African Americans’ sufferings, but instead expose the extremity of their sufferings.
In conclusion, I am one of those you described. I am not a historian so my seven years of collegiate education do not qualify me in your eyes. Frankly, slavery is in the eyes of the beholder and the definition found in the looking glass of memory. I do not express a view either way here except to say that this article is just another of many apologetic dismissals without much substantiation. In the spirit of Wendy’s, I suggest, “Where’s the beef?”
Orian Hutton says
‘Slavery is in the eyes of the beholder’. So history is no longer interpreted on facts, but on feelings, instincts, beliefs, grudges. It is like talking to conspiracy theorists.
Stephen Mullen made it quite clear that he was talking about chattel slavery as versus indentured servitude. Yes, both were a form of bondage, but one was a contract that had a limited time period and was even entered into willingly by many who wished to reach the New World, but had no other means.
Rick Bauer says
In practice, Orian, Mullen is making only a semantics argument; there were few differences in practice for many “indentured servants.” Covenanters “Barbado’ed” by Cromwell were sent to work to their deaths. Hailing from a cool climate, the fair-skinned prisoners were poorly equipped to handle the sub-tropical heat and sun. Many withered and died quickly. The 200+ Covenanters who drowned with the wreck of the Crown of England were locked below decks because as property they were worth more dead than alive. Let me ask, “Were these Scots any less dead than drowned Africans?” The reports of my own ancestors journey on the Henry & Francis, show the conditions below decks were every bit as squalid and cramped as a slave ship. Slavery in all forms is an abomination. The genocide of the Killing Times was an abomination. And what Mullen has done in his essay is inexcusable for an honest historian: he’s written Cromwell’s genocide out of history.
Orian Hutton says
It may seem to be a matter of semantics, but language is important in discussion or understanding becomes more difficult, if not possible, to achieve. By any dictionary definition or academic teaching I can find, chattel slavery is considered as being different than indentured servitude with some few areas of overlap. Simply put, slavery is about owning a person; indentured servitude about owning a contract.
That doesn’t mean that contracts weren’t abused or that people didn’t suffer and die as indentured servants (and not just Scots or Covenanters). Indentured servitude could be used as a form of punishment for what were seen as crimes at the time. Prison, transportation, indentured servitude: as punishments all were grim. Still, I think I would choose these over hanging or genuine slavery; at least there was a hope of survival and an end to the servitude. And many actively sought indentured servitude as a hoped for way out of poverty. How many Africans sought slavery and what hope did African slaves have?
No-one is saying that being an indentured servant couldn’t be cruel, but apparently your ancestors survived and long enough to marry and have children whom I presume were free men and women. No-one fought a Civil War in America to abolish indentured servitude. Even the 13th amendment to the American Constitution accepts ‘involuntary servitude’ as acceptable for a ‘crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted’. So in 1865, slavery was abolished, but indentured servitude could still be forced upon someone as a punishment. However we may now view the Covenanters actions today, they convicted of a punishable crime back in the 17th century. And most punishment back then was pretty grim.
G. Thompson says
I do not claim to be a historian by education but I have and do study the time period of the English Civil War re: the Scot Prisoners transported to the Colonies by Cromwell. I am descended from several of them. Cromwell wanted the prisoners gone, he didn’t want to feed them so he sold them for a few pounds “under contract”. They remained loyal to Charles II so when Cromwell died, ironically on the anniversaries of the Battles of Dunbar and Worcester, most of the men had already been freed when Richard Leader left New England and went to Barbados. They were able to build families, farms, and businesses including a shipping trade with Barbados and South America.
I find the records and history books to be seriously lacking. Were any of the prisoners from the Cromwell days sent to Barbados? Is there proof?
Daniel says
Good balanced overview of complex period and history – a shame so many comments appear to be from people who struggle with nuance and complexity, and would prefer something that suits their personal narrative more.
Roifield Brown says
As I was born in England to Jamaican parents one from Scottish slave holding descendants this article has an especially personal resonance, thank you.
Natalie says
My ancestor was inscripted into the Monmouth Rebellion at the age of 15. He was captured by the British and sent on the “Henry and Francis” ship to NJ. He revolted and escaped before they were going to be sold as slaves. This was in 1685. My Campbell line has been in the Americas since then. So, yes it happened. There are privy council records and ship records to prove it. He was fortunate. We can’t pretend it didn’t happen.
Orian Hutton says
What records say that he was actually going to be sold as a chattel slave, rather than as an indentured servant? The point of this article was to distinguish between the two. It would be interesting to know if anyone was actually sold as a chattel slave, i.e. became someone’s property for life, as did their children and their children’s children until abolition. As a Canadian, I know of no such cases, so proof that it occurred in the US would be genuinely appreciated, as would what happened to those who didn’t escape in the ship’s records and privy records you have seen.
Interesting, too, that this would seem to be a case of an English Campbell, as the Monmouth Rebellion was also known as the West Country Rebellion and very localised in that part of England. If your Campbell is a Scotsman, do you know how he came to be down in Dorset and Somerset and his reasons for rebelling against James II? He must have been Protestant, if nothing else.
Rick Bauer says
I, too, am a descendent of passengers on the Henry and Francis, Annabel Gordon and George Brown. The records of the voyage show the captain had turned for Jamaica to sell his human cargo as chattel. Only a storm kept him from doing so. You can look it up. During this time there was often not much difference between chattel slavery and indentured servitude. Many Scots were worked to death before they ever earned their freedom. The Covenanters who found freedom hated the Crown and slavery, and that hatred fueled the American Revolutionary war and the abolitionist movement. This is why Dr. Mullen’s assertions that those who disagree are racist are so absurd — those white slaves weren’t racist, they were quite the opposite.
Stephen Mullen says
I don’t even use the term ‘racist’ within the text.
You have simply invented that.
Orian Hutton says
Thank you for this. Your final paragraph particularly resonated with me as I spend a lot of my time trying to counter some of the myths in Scotland’s history. I realise with some that nothing will open their minds to another perspective or possibility, but it is worth trying to offer the facts to those still curious. A belief in a historical myths is rather like a belief in a conspiracy theory and as hard to budge.
Sinclair55 says
1739, 24 year old Norman MacLeod of Bernera with his ship “William” goes around the the north end of Skye and Southern Harris. There he scoops up more than 100 to be SOLD in Pennsylvania. All with the knowledge and support of a couple of Clan Chiefs. He doesn’t make it further than Donaghadee in the North of Ireland and none of these people who were in FACT to be sold into slavery made it home, some dumped on various islands because they were to young, too old, to pregnant. This was not indentured servitude. The numbers, compared to African slaves was small but these endevours did sadly exist.
Orian Hutton says
A famous incident, perhaps because it was so unusual and viewed with such contempt. These things did happen, but I think the point in this discussion is that such acts were carried out by a few individuals and not an accepted general policy carried out by governments, as is now sometimes portrayed as part of the blame game. He was known in his own time as An Droch Dhuine, so can hardly be accepted as evidence that the powers that be approved of the selling of Scots into slavery.
J R Tomlin says
So indentured servants were not slave? Does that only apply to Scots or do you include the 2 million Indians were transported to labour in European colonies, as a substitute for slave labour, following the so-called abolition of the British slave trade. I am pretty sure the millions of indentured slaves who never returned home a large portion who died during their indenture would disagree. They were treated like slaves with the same lack of rights. That makes them slaves, whether they were white or brown. Scottish slavery was not limited to Norman MacLeod of Bernera with his ship “William”. Scots sold into indenture was only ‘unusual’ if you pretend that Cromwell did not exist and that many of the Scottish Jacobites taken prisoner did not end up indentured slaves.
As far Burns, it is nice to know that you can centuries later see into his mind. He certainly corresponded about taking a job in the colonies. The fact is that he did not do so and frequently spoke out against abuse of human rights.
Reisen says
“The Trans-Atlantic slave trade was the largest slave trade in existence”
Siri, what is the ‘Arab Slave Trade’? That slave count is around…oh…17 million at the minimum. As we all know, only white people ever sold slaves.
Robert Fisher says
Pathetic worm wouldn’t even print my comment.Why?Because there’s no political agenda in it that you can slag off or agree with?So on a site called The skeptical Scot no-one is allowed to be skeptical.You political little crackpots, time is nearly up.You’ve pushed it and now opinion that differs from your must be hidden eh?Shows what you really are…Pro-censorship.Sad when the chattering class gets telt and just canny handle it.We’re all meant to agree with one bullshit political way of thinking or we’re irrelevant.Ive read a lot of history and it’s pretty obvious that the story always goes the same way.Chase power…grab power..Then fail to hold power when the people turn against you.Cheerio Ozymandius.
David Gow says
We don’t engage with nor publish comment written in such a bilious, offensive manner: by all means take issue but in a civilised manner
Brendan Quinn says
I was told Scots enslaved Scots. In the past. Is this true
John Fowler says
Thanks for a refreshingly dispassionate account that reinforces my own belief that history is never just black-and-white, if you’ll excuse the pun.
As I’m sure you know, even within Scotland itself in the bad old days, the treatment of indentured Miners was atrocious, virtual slavery. Scotsmen oppressing Scotsmen.
David Campaign says
I’ll leave a reply to the article under this comment because I can’t see where to add a new one.
“ An English concept, chattel slavery was established by the Barbados Slave Act of 1661 which ratified enslaved African peoples as property with no right to life.”
I’m surprised by this claim.
Didn’t the Romans, Greeks, Arabs, Portuguese, Spanish etc all have personal ownership of slaves?
Stephen Mullen says
They did, but classical slavery was not the same as chattel slavery. As noted, the latter form was unique and was established by the English in 17th c. Barbados.
Would advise Alan Watson’s Slave Law in the Americas (University of Georgia Press, 2012) for a nuanced explanation of the differences between classical and chattel slavery.
Biff says
You ignore written FACTS that there were captured Scottish that were brought to the US and sold as slaves. It was just shown in researching Micheal Moore’s ancestry as his ancester was one of the ones and the historical document presented by the host specifically uses that terminology. No matter how much you want to demean white people they were enslaved around the world for millennia as well as in the Americas. No myth except your attempt to subvert FACTS!
eb0man says
If one actually bothers to look at the actual shipping maunfests of above mentioned Cromwellian prisoners, Each one is labelled as “SLAVE”.
NOT “indentured servant”…”SLAVE”.
I, for one, put FAR more faith in original, primary sources than in the “politically correct” revisionist claptrap that we fed daily by a media driven by avarice and not by the search for the truth.
They were SLAVES . Period. Full stop. End of story.
But this is nothing new.
Slavery has existed as far back as 6,800 B.C. in Mesopotamia, which certainly pre-dates the grandiosely over publicised servitude of the United States. There may have been negroes among the Mesopotamian slaves, but given that these were, for the most part war trophies and armies were certainly segregated, this is highly unlikely. And yes, they were often bought and sold by the wealthy.
So, perhaps it’s time for EVERY one of these groups to quit feeling sorry for themselves… Past time , really…
FYI, did you know that there are almost as many non-blacks (most of whom are Caucasian) living in poverty in the U.S. as the total number of blacks?
FYI did you know that there are 3-5 times as many non-blacks (again, most of whom are Caucasian) living in poverty in Canada as the the total number of blacks?
These figures are available to anyone who bothers to look.
If you wish to talk about a “myth” try the MYTH of “White Privilege”.
John Brown says
The Journal of Negro History #52 pp.251-273 states, “The sources of racial thought in Colonial America pertaining to slave trade worked both directions with white merchandise as well as black.”
Thomas Burton recorded in his Parliament Diary 1656-1659 vol. 4 pp. 253-274 a debate in the English Parliament focusing on the selling of British whites into slavery in the New World. The debate refers to whites as slaves ‘whose enslavement threatened the liberties of all Englishmen.’
The British government had realized as early as the 1640’s how beneficial white slave labor was to the profiting colonial plantations. Slavery was instituted as early as 1627 in the British West Indies. The Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series of 1701 records 25000 slaves in Barbados in which 21700 were white slaves.
George Downing wrote a letter to the honorable John Winthrop Colonial Governor of Massachusetts in 1645, “planters who want to make a fortune in the West Indies must procure white slave labor out of England if they wanted to succeed.” Lewis Cecil Gray’s History of Agriculture in the Southern United States to 1860 vol.1 pp 316, 318 records Sir George Sandys’ 1618 plan for Virginia, referring to bound whites assigned to the treasurer’s office. “To belong to said office forever. The service of whites bound to Berkeley Hundred was deemed perpetual.”
The Quoke Walker case in Massachusetts 1773 ruled that; slavery contrary to the state Constitution was applied equally to Blacks and Whites in Massachusetts.
Statutes at Large of Virginia, vol. 1 pp. 174, 198, 200, 243 & 306 did not discriminate Negroes in bondage from Whites in Bondage.
Marcellus Rivers and Oxenbridge Foyle, England’s Slaves 1659 consists of a statement smuggled out of the New World and published in London referring to whites in bondage who did not think of themselves as indentured servants but as “England’s Slaves” and “England’s merchandise.”
Colonial Office, Public Records Office, London 1667, no. 170 records that “even Blacks referred to the White forced laborers in the colonies as “white slaves.” Pages 343 through 346 of Historical Sketch of the Persecutions Suffered by the Catholics of Ireland by; Patrick F. Moran refers to the transportation of the Irish to the colonies as the “slave-trade.”
Ulrich B. Phillips, Life and Labor in the Old South explain that white enslavement was crucial to the development of the Negro slave system. The system set up for the white slaves governed, organized, and controlled the system for the black slaves. Black slaves were “late comers fitted into a system already developed.” Pp 25-26. John Pory declared in 1619, “white slaves are our principal wealth.”
The white slave did not fetch a good price at the auction blocks. Bridenbaugh wrote in his accounting on page 118, having paid a bigger price for the Negro, the planters treated the black better than they did their “Christian” white servant. Even the Negroes recognized this and did not hesitate to show their contempt for those white men who, they could see, were worse off than themselves.
Ro says
outstanding scholarly research , thank you
Kim says
I challenge this article. Yes there were white slaves. You need to research factual, educated sources, then site the sources in your work. Don’t use opinion based so called facts as a source
Ian Beveridge says
Politically correct bullshit. Unfortunately the content is so disgustingly puerile and immature that it does not deserve wasting time on a critique. We know “indenture” was not “slave” – it was frequently much worse!
Gareth Wardell says
A sad piece of revisionist history written for what aim? To make Scots suffer guilt and feel regaining nationhood not a worthy cause? And who is the author? He begins with a conclusion and works his evidence to that end.
Ian Glennie says
Read about Aberdeen’s White Slave Trade and ‘the stolen children’
https://doriccolumns.wordpress.com/slave-trade/
As to Mysticism try a little by one of the greatest and most ‘divine’ mystics.
“The Stolen Child”
W. B. Yeats
1865 – 1939
Where dips the rocky highland
Of Sleuth Wood in the lake,
There lies a leafy island
Where flapping herons wake
The drowsy water rats;
There we’ve hid our faery vats,
Full of berrys
And of reddest stolen cherries.
Come away, O human child!
To the waters and the wild
With a faery, hand in hand,
For the world’s more full of weeping than you can understand.
Where the wave of moonlight glosses
The dim gray sands with light,
Far off by furthest Rosses
We foot it all the night,
Weaving olden dances
Mingling hands and mingling glances
Till the moon has taken flight;
To and fro we leap
And chase the frothy bubbles,
While the world is full of troubles
And anxious in its sleep.
Come away, O human child!
To the waters and the wild
With a faery, hand in hand,
For the world’s more full of weeping than you can understand.
Where the wandering water gushes
From the hills above Glen-Car,
In pools among the rushes
That scarce could bathe a star,
We seek for slumbering trout
And whispering in their ears
Give them unquiet dreams;
Leaning softly out
From ferns that drop their tears
Over the young streams.
Come away, O human child!
To the waters and the wild
With a faery, hand in hand,
For the world’s more full of weeping than you can understand.
Away with us he’s going,
The solemn-eyed:
He’ll hear no more the lowing
Of the calves on the warm hillside
Or the kettle on the hob
Sing peace into his breast,
Or see the brown mice bob
Round and round the oatmeal chest.
For he comes, the human child,
To the waters and the wild
With a faery, hand in hand,
For the world’s more full of weeping than he can understand.