Didn't the Arkansas Clintons or the Illinois Rodhams have any slave-owning ancesters?

[carpe diem]

I find it quite interesting that NONE of the numerous stories that have come out over the last couple of days about Obama's slave-owning ancestry have mentioned the Clinton/Rodham family trees. Even the Edwards and McCains family histories have been noted, but no one apparently has any info on the former POTUS and FLOTUS! It's REALLY hard to believe that these histories haven't been done, but for some reason, no one wants to include them in any of these stories. And such a coincidence, they come out now, just as Obama surges among Black voters and is going to Selma for Civil Rights celebrations. Really interesting!

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2026232,00.html

Obama told of family's slave-owning history in deep South

An amateur genealogist has revealed a surprise in the family tree of the black contender in the race to be the Democrats' presidential candidate

Paul Harris in New York
Sunday March 4, 2007
The Observer

It is a question that few thought a man aiming to be America's first black President would ever have to answer: did your family once own slaves?
But that question is now likely to be asked of Senator Barack Obama, who is bidding for the 2008 presidential nomination of the Democratic Party, in part on the appeal of his bi-racial background.

As the son of a black Kenyan father and a white Kansan mother, Obama has seemed to embody a harmonious vision of America's multiracial society. However, recent revelations have thrown up an unexpected twist in the tale.
...............

The news comes at a time when Obama is engaged in a fierce battle with Senator Hillary Clinton to woo black voters in their bids to get the Democratic presidential nomination. It also comes ahead of appearances by both Clinton and Obama today in Selma, Alabama, to mark the anniversary of a famous 1965 civil rights march. This is hardly the best time to be exposed as the descendant of slave owners.

Reitwiesner has posted his research, which he warns is a 'first draft', on his website, wargs.com. However, the news is unlikely to be a serious political problem for Obama, despite the fact that some black commentators have accused him of not being a real black American. Nor is he likely to be alone in finding out that his white ancestors once owned the ancestors of his fellow black Americans. America, like Britain, is caught in the grip of a frenzy of genealogical research. Dozens of websites have sprung up, allowing fast and easy access to all sorts of historical records and prompting many Americans to research their family trees.
................

Obama's campaign team have handled the news of his family's slaving past a bit more casually and a lot less emotionally, issuing a statement saying such a family background was 'representative of America'. That is certainly true. Slavery was the economic bedrock of the American economy in the South before the Civil War. It would come as no surprise that anyone tracing their family roots back to the pre-war South would find that his descendants had owned slaves.

But more edifying discoveries can come from looking at the past too. Another of Obama's ancestors, his great-great-great-grandfather, Christopher Columbus Clark, fought for the Union army in the Civil War. As a result Obama can also lay claim to relatives who risked their lives to end slavery. 'While a relative owned slaves, another fought for the Union,' said Obama spokesman Bill Burton in a statement. Perhaps it is just another case of Obama's complex past showing that he can have it both ways.

[Erika]

1. Obama IS America with keenful insight n/t

[robinlynne]

2. umm. why dont you check out the bush and cheney family histories instead...

[carpe diem]

4. because i'm not interested in the bush/cheney family histories right now...

at this point in time, i'm curious about the media's fascination with slave-owners in Obama's familiy but apparent complete lack of interest in Clinton family history...

[dorktv]

3. Personally I thought this was a stupid story.

[kikiek]

5. Yeah keep the story alive in the press. Insinuate other dems are behind it without any evidence.

Then let's form a circle and start shooting.

[carpe diem]

7. i doubt anything posted on DU keeps anything alive in the press...

they take their slant from RW sources only...and where did i suggest that other dems were behind it? i just made an observation and found it an interesting /curious phenomenon...if the fact that there is this discrepancy looks suspicious (IMO), why pretend otherwise? it could just be laziness by the press, but so many articles...

[kikiek]

9. There is nothing suspicious about it other than you're trying to tie people to it

without any evidence.

[carpe diem]

12. which people would that be? n/t

[dsc]

6. None of Hillary's ancestors were in the US at the time that we had slavery

I can't find Bill's geneology. On edit Clinton's ancestors were in the South at the time of slavery but many whites in that era didn't own slaves.

[kestrel91316]

13. Clinton's people were POOR. They probably couldn't have

afforded slaves even if they had wanted them.

[carpe diem]

19. plenty of 'poor' people had a slave or two...

you could trade for one if you didn't have $...

[kestrel91316]

23. Plenty of poor folks DIDN'T have them. Like most of my

southern ancestors.

[barb162]

25. That's not true. The Clintons were REALLY poor; could never

have afforded a slave. Most Southerners never had slaves.

[amandabeech]

21. Out of the curiosity of a bit of a family geneaologist, do you have

info on Sen. Clinton's heritage? I thought that with the English last name, she might have some ancestors who were here at the time of the Civil War. An ancestor or two going back that far is fairly common in those of us with an English, Welsh, Scottish or Scotch-Irish last name. I myself have a great-great uncle who fought with a Michigan regiment. As is usual in the U.S., others came here later.

[dsc]

28. I found a link at Wikipedia

none of her great grandparents were born here. The earliest her relatives seem to have arrived is in the late 1860's. They also all were northerners.

[amandabeech]

41. Thanks for the info.

English coal miners moving to Scranton, PA, the home of hard (anthracite) coal makes sense. Scranton was a really booming place at that time. Now, of course, very little coal is mined there and it is falling into decay.

[Ninja Jordan]

8. Bill Clinton's birth name is "Blythe"

FYI

[Bluestar]

10. So what?? My family owned slaves

My ancestors are from Missouri (a slave state) and there are slaves buried in my grandmother's family plot. What difference does this make? Does it mean that I support slavery? I don't understand this thread.

[kestrel91316]

14. Hell, the whiners probably want you to give all your money

away to the descendants of slaves.

I guess I should, too. WAAAYYYYY back in the early 1700s in Maryland a couple of my ancestors had slaves. At this late date, BFD. My family couldn't have benefitted anytime recently, both my parents came from POOR.

[barb162]

26. "I don't understand this thread."

I don't either.

[kestrel91316]

11. In all honesty, is the slave-owning status or slave status of

ANYONE'S ancestors politically relevant???

I find it interesting because I like history and genealogy. But why obsess over it?

[jwirr]

15. As an armature genealogist I know that many families who originated

from the south have ancestors who owned slaves. I don't think it influences their political leanings today. At least it does not in the ones I know of.

[Virginian]

20. If you could find a slave owner in my ancestry it would be a surprise to me.

I know this is more local than regional because the more rural areas may have had small farms with a few enslaved people working on them. My ancestors came over as indentured servants and stayed primarily in small towns where they could find work.

[jwirr]

53. Some of ours were indentured servants also. And yes many of my

Quaker ancestors did not have any slaves when they lived there.

[carpe diem]

16. I don't think it's relevant at all but...

if you check Google news, literally hundreds of stories have appeared on the Obama family slave owning in the last 24 hours. Now, I haven't read them all, and many are repititious, but NONE, so far, mention Clinton/Rodham family histories. McCain and Edwards, yes, but no Clintons/Rodhams or Blythes for that matter. I just found it odd...

[kestrel91316]

22. I think with the internet this crap just balloons all out of proportion

in short order...............

[MGKrebs]

36. But it's not like they are negative stories. It's just a curiosity.

Like the Sharpton/Thurmond story. No need to try to infer something negative and then transfer the artificial negativity.

[Catherine Vincent]

17. Clinton's ancestors were poor and couldn't afford slaves.

n/t

[carpe diem]

18. back in those days you didn't have to be rich to have slaves...

(it's not like they had to pay them)...almost anybody could scrape a couple of dollars together and buy a slave or trade something for one...my family was and is poor but my great great grandfather on my mother's side was 1/2 white and his white father was a dirt farmer who "owned" a couple of slaves, including the one he got pregnant...

[Libby2]

27. Baloney

Poor people did not own slaves.
They could barely feed their families.

Keep an eye on Ancestry.com, sometimes they have a free trial offer.
Look at the census records, you will see who owned slaves.

[carpe diem]

30. 'Poor people did not own slaves'

that's a very sweeping statement...i guess we'd have to define 'poor'...and there are always, always exceptions

[lynne]

32. Define poor -

- Some of my ancestors would have been considered poor in 1850. He was a wheelwright and did back-breaking physical labor. He didn't have money to buy a home or any land and was not in a position to inherit any wealth. They had a bunch of kids as most did at that time and I have evidence that his aunt had to loan him a carriage as he couldn't afford one. But, he had quite a few slaves based on the 1850 slave schedule.

The idea that slave owners were all wealthy land owners is false.

[barb162]

24. The Clintons were dirt poor and Rodhams were in a non slave state

[carpe diem]

29. This is all speculation...my point is that

I cannot believe that no one has formally traced the ancestry of a former president and first lady...If it is true, that there is no record of the Clintons/Rodhams/Blythes owning slaves, why not just say so in some of these articles...and I still contend that just because one's ancesters were poor, it does not mean that in the entire history of that family, it's not possible someone/somewhere owned a slave or two...maybe its impossible to trace the Clinton/Blythe history, i don't know...I just found it odd that ALL these stories came out at this particular time as if it WERE something that somehow mattered and as if no other presidential candidates ever had slave-owners in their ancestry...but no reference made to the ancestry of the candidate who just happened to be a former FLOTUS and is, for the moment, leading the polls...i just found it a curious omission...

[Alamom]

37. There has been no omission of any kind. Anything that can be found

about the Clintons, the Rodhams, the Blythes, their friends, aides and staff has been researched and printed over & over & over ....


There has been no rock left unturned in the last 25 years or so about the Clintons.

[wyldwolf]

31. dumpster diving?

[carpe diem]

33. huh?

[wyldwolf]

34. you're looking for some trash of value

[carpe diem]

39. my real question is with the seeming discrepancy...

...why is Obama's slave-owning ancestry getting all of this attention and not a mention of whether or not his main rivals family has similar history...i don't believe it's relevant or important but it sure is getting a lot of coverage...

[wyldwolf]

40. could it be Obama's main rivals HAVE NO similar history?

You seem to WANT THERE to be a similar history to take the attention off of Obama.

[carpe diem]

45. as i said before, both edwards and mccains famiy histories were mentioned

in these stories, but no word on the clintons of arkansas...it seems to me if they were doing geneologies of candidates, they would have the clinton/rodham families included even if it were just to note that there did NOT appear to be slave owning ancestors...i thought, if this were something the media thought was important enough to devote hundreds of stories to over the last couple of days, the candidate currently leading in the polls would have her ancestry mentioned even if it was just to say they DIDN'T own slaves...i honestly don't care about the ancestry any of the candidates, hell, i barely care about my own, but since it was a subject getting so much MSM attention, i just why the coverage was almost exclusive to Obama's slave-owning relatives...

[lynne]

35. To answer your question -

- I don't know for sure as you would need to do a complete research of the family line, but there is some interesting information. The 1850 Slave Schedule does show a slave owner by the name of "Wm Blithe" of El Dorado, Union, Arkansas as having one slave girl age 22. I have no idea if that is an ancestor of Bill Clinton's but the name and place is right to be within his family line. Remember that the census is notorious for incorrect and phonetic spellings.

I found no evidence in the 1850 Slave Schedule of any Rodham's owning slaves in the US. There are quite a few Roden's and Rodan's from Alabama, but don't know if that is a misspelling or a different family. We cannot determine if anyone in Hillary's line had slaves unless we also research the family history of all the women who married into the Rodham family as they are her ancestors, too. Same thing for researching anyone's history - without the surnames of the women, we have an incomplete picture.

FWIW, I think the whole owning slave aspect for anyone is a witch hunt but I enjoy family history and your question intrigued me.

[susu369]

38. Don't forget

you have many ancestors - multiplies quickly. One cannot say "Bill Clinton's ancestors were poor" with any accuracy. Some may have been poor, others may not have been.

You start with yourself and you have two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, and so on - the number doubling with each generation. By the time you go back 32 generations you have 8,589,934,592 ancestors.

[lumberjack_jeff]

42. Hillary's geneaology has nothing to do with the Clinton family.

It's all irrelevant, but the Clinton ancestry is especially irrelevant.

[Alamom]

43. BE PREPARED. All of the other candidates have been under the

the microscope for years. Everything that can possibly be spun into something or anything, has been. However, "they" will find more, if "they" can.

Senator Obama is new to this area of politics. He will not get a pass on anything that can be dug up & spun about him. Get ready. The crap is just now starting.

I'm sure you have seen Senator Clinton being taken apart daily....this will continue, but some will get tired or bored and go on to discredit the next and the next and so forth.

There are no rules when it comes to this mess we call "Running for President". Anybody can say & print anything they find and they can make it sound as good or as bad as they want.


I've read this article and a few others about him, his activities, his wife, & his family in the past weeks.

I didn't post this one or any of the others, but someone will....and he may again have "something" about his life that some deem controvercial - the other candidates won't have the same thing, but they will have "something" he doesn't.

This is the way it is......no one makes it to the primaries or general without being picked apart more than once.


If you knew this, I apologize, however, your posts indicated you didn't understand.

[carpe diem]

46. my post indicates no such thing, but i appreciate you apologizing in

advance for your condescension...

[Alamom]

49. Several of your posts indicate exactly that. Re: why, odd, curious omission, ,

a curious phenomenon.......All of these words, phrases and sentences indicate a non-understanding of why the MSM or whomever originated the story, would present information about a presidential candidate's ancestors owning slaves. Also, if the story is presented about one or more candidates, "why" was one left out.



"I find it quite interesting that NONE of the numerous stories that have come out over the last couple of days about Obama's slave-owning ancestry have mentioned the Clinton/Rodham family trees.



why is Obama's slave-owning ancestry getting all of this attention and not a mention of whether or not his main rivals family has similar history...


but since it was a subject getting so much MSM attention, i just why the coverage was almost exclusive to Obama's slave-owning relatives..."



There was no condescension in my reply. I stated the obvious...

[carpe diem]

52. i understand very well that the media scrutinizes candidates...

...your reply suggested that i did not, which was condescending...i was making an observation, with my OP and throughout this thread, which i also thought was obvious, that it seemed that there was a discrepancy in how the major candidates were covered related to this issue..some disagreed, and that's fine...i still think there was and i posted my speculation/theory on the DU discussion board to discuss, and we have...peace

[acmavm]

44. Oh crap, this is really getting petty. I would really think that if either family

had been slave owners, they'd have been pounded with by it now.

And although Obama is not may particular political 'cup of tea' so to speak, this whole issue is ridiculous. It's not like he's got a bunch of people out working his fields. And it's not like some other people I can think of who's family did business with the Nazis while we were at war.

Everyone has been someone elses slave at one time or another. Everyone, every nationality. It's just the history of the human race.

Washington was a slave owner. So was Jefferson. It was 'acceptable' in their times. Anyone who whines and bitches about this better go back to the dawn of civilization and start dealing a fit to the first humans who's feet had just hit the ground (from the trees), because it's been a continual fact of life that slavery exited since the dawn of history, and it exists to this day. (I am referring to the Mariannas, Taiwanese sweat shops, etc.)

[mainer]

47. Don't most American blacks have ancestors who owned slaves?

And don't most black Americans have white ancestors?

[ecstatic]

48. I dunno, but the deafening silence regarding *'s family tree is interesting

Gosh... I know there are ties to Nazis and slave owners, but I'm sure there are ties to a lot more sinister groups as well.

[Forkboy]

51. Now THERE'S a tree that needs pruning!

[ddeclue]

50. Oh brother... who cares?

So now it's Hillary's or Bill's fault if somewhere six or seven generations ago, one of their ancestors might have owned slaves? (Doubtful in the first place). What a bunch of crap..

This is the sort of irrelevant nonsense that makes real voters change the channel. Let's stick to topics that matter: Health care, Iraq, education, terrorism, civil liberties, etc. and not this nonsense.

An Edwards Supporter,

Doug D.
Orlando, FL