Click to Subscribe
▶  More from Ancient Combat
The Economics of an Old Hate
White and Black Chattel on the Old English Plantation

While searching online for information on George Washington's white servants, I came across article after article by modern American blacks critical of the old white servants as racists for not wanting to socialize with black slaves. By 1800, it was accurate to refer to white servants and black slaves, whereas before they were all bondsmen and bondswomen. The Revolution against Great Britain, during which unfree whites sided with the revolutionary rich and the unfree blacks sided with the British, only to be abandoned by their British liberators [one British General did evacuate his black supporters to Nova Scotia] along with the Indians, set in motion the wheels of liberty for unfree whites north of Virginia yet convinced elite white Americans that their black property could not be trusted. From Virginia to points south, blacks were rounded up and chained, and whites—even those who had fought as revolutionary soldiers—were disarmed and put back on the plantation to finish out their terms of service.

The writers of these articles may be seen as projecting modern hatreds backward in time, but their era is one of ignorance, of viewing the experience of the white servants and black slaves of 1800 Virginia through the prism of 1865 rather than through the prism of 1675. They present the correct unbiased information that Washington planned on replacing his black slaves with German servants. Although his wife did not carry out his wishes upon his death, there was the real fact that Washington knew that the importation of blacks was scheduled to end in 1804, which meant that one would have to enslave people from birth, people who had been born in Virginia, people whose parents the slave owner knew, and this was viewed with distaste. One would no longer be bringing in Christians from a state of heathen slavery into a state of Christian slavery but be enslaving Christians at birth.

Washington referred to black slaves and white servants as one, as "stable people." He was switching to German servants so that they could be cheaply housed with blacks, for since Bacon's Rebellion of 1675, white and black bondsmen had been housed separately to prevent them from joining in revolt again. The German servants would have a language barrier. This was the same reason why in 1680, slave holders switched to purchasing Africans rather than blacks purchased from English-speaking Barbados. Demonstrating that the segregation originated from the white elite slave owners who were not represented on the pirate ships, blacks were welcome aboard majority white pirate ships as equals and even elected to captain. In Culpepper's Rebellion of 1701, blacks and whites fought together. In two plots uncovered by authorities in New York City in the 1700s, white servants and black servants were found to be conspiring to burn the city. In numerous Virginia runaway slave listings, Irish servants are implicated as conspirators. Echoing the movie, The Defiant Ones, out of the future, it was a common tactic of runaways for the Irish servant to pretend to be the master of the black slave and to partner up in that fashion.

So why did, around 1800, a hatred of blacks by poor whites come to manifest itself?

From 1710-45 five black militias were armed, raised, decomissioned and re-enslaved by white slave masters in fighting white rebel servants in Carolina.

In the Revolutionary War, white servants fought as Americans as black slaves fought on the British and Indian side. Both were re-enslaved after the war in the south, but only the blacks were rebound in the north. The divide was on the Indian question. Whites were largely released in the north to contend with the powerful Indian allies of the British who had previously served the British as slave-catchers. These free-soil whites left plantation society behind and moved west, suspicious of any attempt by elite whites to move blacks west to set up ever larger plantations and prevent free farmers from competing in the market place against larger scale outfits operating with the benefit of slave labor.

In the south, although poor former servants helped many blacks escape [such as Moses Roper], most poor whites were bound by law to work as slave patrolmen on behalf of the rich after spending all day trying to make a living in competition with these very same elite white slave owners. This was the reason why Nat Turner spared the poor whites. However, between the black slave militias used against whites and the white slave patrols used against blacks in the south, poor whites and blacks had been successfully played off against each other by the white elite. Ironically, the poor whites in the north saw the slave owners as "negro lovers," for they would rather own a black man than do business with a freely hired white man.

And here we are today, working whites and working blacks set at each other's moral throats by the elite white media.

Still the same as it ever was.

Add Comment
MadisoxJanuary 30, 2017 3:58 PM UTC

Greg Johnson doesn't advocate any oppression or genocide of non-nordics, he's written many articles against nordicism. Perhaps you heard him when he was negatively speaking about the ideas of Madison Grant or William L Pierce, Stoddard was a slight nordicist (a bit like Robert E Howard, although he was more a celt-nordicist slightly). but Stoddard never advocated the genocide or oppressionof non-nordics, simply that the US should try to remain a nordic nation. Something which I as a non-nordic white can completely understand pre-1965 it made sense.

As for whites/aryans, racial categories are a mixture of art and science. Whites from different backgrounds (given enough time) could eventually create a working country (e.g USA 1950) but this isn't the case with the rough estimate of "Aryans", and Jews maybe have white characteristics but purely from a pragmatic viewpoint it's worth kicking them out and back to Israel.

My preference is not one white nation, it's a separate nation for all white peoples, as well as non-whites (but I'm more concerned about whites). So a white US for white Americans, a white Cananada for white canadians, a white England, Ireland, France, Scotland, Italy etc.

I'm not tied to the concept of "white", as I agree it has negative colonial connotations but it's what we have to work with, another could be European descended.

Here's a good essay by Greg Johnson, who is certainly not a nordicist like William Pierce. . Here rallies against nordicism and against aryanism.

"Aryanism is an even more problematic attitude than Nordicism. Again, Aryanism is the view that Indo-European language and culture are normatively white. At its most childish, Aryanism leads to the false inference that Basques, Finns, Hungarians, and Estonians are “not white” because they do not speak Indo-European languages. Equally childish is the inference that non-European Caucasians (Persians, Armenians, Indians) are somehow “us” because they speak Indo-European languages. The reductio ad absurdum of Aryanism is a European who feels more kinship with Persians and Hindus than Hungarians or Finns because of common linguistic roots. Of course, due to colonialism there are also millions of Africans, Amerindians, and Asians who speak Indo-European languages and even carry European genes. Logically, the Aryanist should also prefer these people to Basques or Estonians, but let us hope they shrink back before this absurdity. Europeans can learn a great deal about our own pre-Christian language and culture through the study of Aryan offshoots among non-Europeans. But those who bear these languages and cultures today are still non-Europeans — not “us.”

There is no reason to presume that Indo-European language and culture are normatively European. The Aryans were a branch of the European family that split off from the main stem, evolved a distinct language and culture in isolation for untold millennia, and then migrated back into the European heartland, as well as into the Near, Middle, and Far East".

He answers some these questions in Why white nationalism?
MadisoxJanuary 29, 2017 4:13 PM UTC

Very interesting article,

but I'm going to have to disagree with a few things.

While blacks and whites may have been pitted against each other for the cynical exploitation of both, the only way we're going to achieve a system where whites aren't exploited by other whites is in an ethnically homogenous society. We need a high average IQ, and a high level of social trust. Whereas with blacks and whites living together the common culture becomes confetti culture, as cultures are expressions of our race's instincts. (

Also, I'd say that it's no longer the "white" media in charge, try to look at board of the New York Times, Jews make up the plurality. They're the driving force, they were the driving force behind the civil rights movement as well as the lobbying to change the US's immigration laws.

I think the best thing to do is the give the blacks a few states of their own, cut out a few city states and leave them to their devices ( Chicago, New York, Portland) , let California secede and maybe give some of the mestizo states back to mexico. Leaving a smaller, but whiter and stronger America.
responds:January 29, 2017 9:35 PM UTC

I agree that the homogenous society will be less exploitive of the majority and that the Hebrew element in America has been largely a force for exploitation and social fragmentation, all the way back to the Dutch Jews who trafficked white slaves here circa 1620, to the Vice President of the Confederacy.

However, it is a fact, that all Semitic peoples are Caucasian—meaning white. If you wish to build a society that excludes Berbers, Moors, Jews and Arabs, you must first abandon the catchall macro-ethnic term, "White" which has been used to exploit Caucasians throughout the modern period.

If you go to Aryan, then you must include Indians of the top castes, Pashtun Afghans and Iranians.

I know that the idea proposed by white nationalists is to include all "whites" except for Jews for now and then purge out Non-Nordics later, with the status of Alpine and Med peoples a subject reserved for those who buy Stoddard's racial outer dyke theory. This is disingenuous and I am appalled that Greg Johnson has promoted this idea in one interview I heard online.

Although I am no WN, I propose the Aryan route, with delineated status limits on non-Nordics and an Islamic exclusion rule, as Islam is an ideology of racial negation, and a Jewish exclusion rule as Jews belong to a unique ethno-religious "tribe" that has a roughly 1000 year history of undermining host societies in order to promote it's survival as a polity without a homeland, and the refusal to stop this practice once a homeland was reestablished—which demonstrates tribal malice. Some other religions and ideologies would have to be excluded on a case-by-case basis.

The problem with the term white is it is a term that is taken to mean Caucasian [even though none of us are white, but shades of pink and beige] and that this fantasy designation—supposed to invoke sentiments of cultural purity—was the very tool that British empire builders and slavers [including Jews] used to elicit loyalty and military service from the Europeans folk they hated, despised and are currently discarding.

I too, would like to see California Succeed and New York as well—for these are not—I terms of culture and morality—members of the United States, but proto-nodes of a global macro-polity, the evolved ideal that the British were working toward when they developed the cults of White Supremacy and The White Man's Burden, a puppet show aimed at getting us stupid palefaces to go along with the rising of Gloriana, the Secular, Global Goddess who would eat all of her young in the moral cradle.