Honoring The Memory Of Our Ancestors

A portion of my family's genealogy was chronicled by my late cousin Houston D. Snowden, several times removed from myself as they say, which resulted in the book, From Whence Cometh being published in 1980. Cousin Houston documented five generations of our family through one of our ancestors.

This book begins with an autobiography written by his great grandfather, John Baptist Snowden, born into slavery in 1801 in Maryland. The second part of the book is written by my cousin's grandfather. In the final part of the book, it was my cousin's intent, as he says in his own words, “.... to help the present generation know some of the highlights ....”, and in this attempt, he has included biographical sketches of his paternal grandparents and their children and grandchildren.

My maternal grandfather and his nine brothers and sisters, listed in the book, provide the closest genealogical link spreading toward one of the branches of the family tree that leads to myself.

This book, now out of print, was a gift to me from my late dear aunt, Aunt Pauline Elizabeth Jones, the eldest sister of my Mom, Mary Barbara, two years before my aunt's death.

This book had always been a much treasured possession of my aunt's and when she gave it to me, I was honored she trusted me with one of her most precious belongings.

In chapter one of the first portion of the book, John Baptist Snowden, one of my family's enslaved ancestors, in the first sentence identifies his maternal grandmother as an African woman from Guinea, stolen from the southwest coast of Africa around 1767 or 1768, named Sarah Minty Bannikee. She was sold upon her arrival in America in the state of Maryland, for a few hogshead of tobacco and renamed Sal.

I was saddened to learn that although the book provides invaluable information about our family, the majority of the book documents the family members whose common ancestor was John Snowden, the only known grandparent on the paternal side of John Baptist Snowden's family. The first chapter is the only chapter that gives details about the only ancestor known to our family to have lived free in Africa.

I am truly happy my cousin had devoted the years he did to create this historical document for our family. But, among myself and my cousins, when the book was discussed and mentioned, what caught my attention was the mention of the African woman that I heard was in the book.

I recall the late fall afternoon, somewhat with shame, that my Aunt Pauline and her son, my first cousin Harold, were in my home in 1995. My best and closest friend, my Mom, had passed away after a brief illness and my aunt and cousin had dropped by to pay their respects and visit.

I had not seen the book nor heard any details of the story of Aunt Sarah until that day during Aunt Pauline's visit. Aunt Pauline began to retell the story, about the relationship that identifies a white Englishman as the man who fathered Aunt Sarah's two daughters.

Reminisces by Aunt Sarah's grandson tell of her delight in speaking of her home in Africa, its customs and beauty and her fine singing voice, causing those who heard her to, “...listen with breathless silence as if held by some magic power.” There is no information given about the two daughters fathered by the Englishman other than their names, Fannie Bannikee and Kate Bannikee.

In the book, the words of Ancestor John Baptist, the grandson of Aunt Sarah, describe that it was according to the “law of man” that the marriage of a white person to a colored one, as African people were called in those days, was illegal.

Aunt Sarah's grandson describes that despite this reality, “....we believe they were man and wife, before God, united by bonds of love and affection....”. He also states that these same laws, however, “....have nothing to say when the white man lives with his colored mistress and begets children which the law does not acknowledge as heirs.”

As I've stated, Aunt Pauline and Harold were over my house. Aunt Pauline was talking about the loving relationship that the man she called Uncle Thomas had with Aunt Sarah. It is unclear whether Thomas had purchased and claimed ownership of Aunt Sarah.

I know I was deeply saddened, distraught and emotionally drained over Mom's death and my nerves were on edge but that does not excuse my behavior. I listened to my aunt go on and on about this love between Aunt Sarah and Uncle Thomas and how well he had treated Aunt Sarah, the things he gave her, yada, yada, yada. Before I even thought about it, I snapped at my aunt, asking if this white man had ever freed Aunt Sarah, saying if he hadn't done so, it seemed to me that he hadn't treated her that well!

I'm still distressed years later for having spoken to my aunt in that manner but, my aunt knew me to be a plain speaker, as was she and my outburst did not harm our relationship. I cannot justify my behavior but, I would like to share my reasons for being so infuriated by my aunt's statements.

There seems to be some sort of mental disconnect or illusionary, delusional process that occurs when we, in modern times, speak of or think about slavery. Maybe it is the inevitable exercise of those not of a period, imprinting concepts and motives on periods that could not have been and were not fully explored or chronicled by all involved. I am speaking of the concept of love.

I have listened to a family of African descent here in the States and their family's hundreds of years old oral tradition that traces their family's descendants into the family of George Washington, one of the original so called founding fathers and the first president of the United States, with Washington having fathered a child with an enslaved African female known as Venus. The family has been attempting to document this link between themselves and the descendants of Washington through genetic testing.

After it was acknowledged and reported in 1998, that DNA evidence appeared to show a genetic link to Thomas Jefferson, another so called founding father, and confirm that at least one of Sally Hemming's children but, most possibly all six of Sally Hemming's children may have been Thomas Jefferson's, the white descendants of Washington declined providing biological material for DNA analysis.

Sally Hemming, who at the time was a teenager, was an enslaved person whom Thomas Jefferson inherited from his wife and was believed to be the half sister of Jefferson's wife, with Sally Hemming said to favor Jefferson's wife, with a hint of color, as a result of a union between Sally Hemming's mother and Jefferson's wife's father.

When the stories of Sally Hemming and the family descended from Venus, believing to share ancestry with Washington are told, several accounts have spoken of the bonds that existed between these enslaved women and those who held them captive. The accounts point to items that were owned or conditions that seem to denote some form of privilege as indicators of affection shown to these enslaved women.

I ask this question. Given all the possible outcomes that may have resulted in events that would have been disastrous for those women and any and all women of African descent, if they found themselves the object of some white slave holder or white man in general's advances and the women sought to reject the white man's advances, can the emotions or feelings of the enslaved women ever be truly known?

As long as one individual in this alleged couple, the white slave holder in this supposed loving relationship, held the life and death of the other component of that couple in his hands, and that of all those in her circle she calls family and as long as he held the power to allow families and alliances to stay in tact, with the enslaved fearing being sold away, brutal punishment and any of a variety of known and unknown forms of actions, among those being death, meant to assure the compliance of the enslaved woman to the advances of any white man, her responses or the responses of any enslaved woman of African descent to the advances of any white man cannot be said to be that of freely given love and affection.

I'll only address one reason that seems a clear, simple motive for actions on the part of the slave holder to provide better living quarters, furnishings or any perceived accommodations superior to others of the enslaved community, if any were actually provided for any enslaved woman of African descent who found herself in this unfortunate set of circumstances, and that reason is comfort.

Consumed with carnal desire, giving no thought to any of the enslaved women's souls that shriek a silent scream each and every time he steals her most intimate embrace, Massa or his brothers, sons, nephews, cousins or any of his visiting companions, stroll into the quarter to have their way with whomever they choose to violate whenever the occasion suits him.

It makes sense he wouldn't want to lie on that piece of burlap sack stuffed with straw or corn husks, used as a bed by the enslaved. He wouldn't care to sit on the bare ground in the dust. Any number of conditions including, the cold, biting wind, endured by the enslaved, as it whistled through the gaping holes between the logs or boards of the small structure where he finds his intended victim, would not be to the liking of any white man that showed up to claim from an assumed possession that which she possessed.

In December 2000, the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, announced that in observance of Black History Month in 2001, it would display two documents that showed payment made to men identified as the owners of enslaved men of African descent known only as Tom, Peter, Ben, Harry and Negro Dick. Two of these men were said to be owned by the architect of the President's house in Washington D.C.

Much was made of the fact that no placard or document honored these individuals' participation in what is considered in some circles an important and major event, questioning the omission of these persons role in an event that shows the involvement of members of our race, side by side with others, helping to build the nation's capitol.

If we, as African people, thought for a few minutes about the circumstances under which we labored as enslaved people, there would not have been a need to ask why nor would there have been any confusion about why we were not acknowledged.

The majority of people of African descent that lived and died for centuries in the United States were considered, by those who called themselves slave holders and to the rest of the nation and the world, livestock property.

Once one wraps their mind around this reality, it becomes foolish to think African people would be acknowledged or recognized through some special commendation for their part in building anything in this country as an enslaved people.

Does anyone expect to see all the names of the horses, mules, oxen or any other form of livestock that may have been used while building anything in the United States listed in some place of honor? Of course not!

And it is for this reason, it is beyond rational comprehension for those of us who live in the present to look back into the past, into an institution that denied African people their humanity, during the most brutal, dehumanizing reality of our existence and interject, in the majority of cases, fabricated love stories between those who were enslaved and were believed to be livestock and the property of those who bedded them, to be used as any personal possession would be used, solely for the owner's pleasure and amusement.