Wachovia's Ties to Slavery
 

Wachovia: Predecessor Banks Owned Slaves

By TIM WHITMIRE

The Associated Press
Wednesday, June 1, 2005; 4:50 PM

CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- Two predecessor banks of Wachovia Corp. owned slaves before the Civil War, the nation's fourth-largest bank said Wednesday as it made an apology to black Americans.

"We are deeply saddened by these findings," Wachovia chairman Ken Thompson said in a statement. The Charlotte-based company said it contracted earlier this year with The History Factory, a historical research firm, to investigate the predecessor institutions that over the years have become part of what is now called Wachovia. The decision came amid a welter of local and legislative initiatives aimed at requiring banks and other companies to investigate their pasts with regard to slavery.

Thompson said the research revealed two ancestral banks _ the Bank of Charleston (S.C.) and the Georgia Railroad and Banking Company _ owned slaves.

The bank said incomplete records make it impossible to know how many slaves were owned by either institution, but that specific transactional records show the Georgia bank owned at least 162 slaves and the Bank of Charleston accepted at least 529 slaves as collateral on mortgaged properties or loans.

The Charleston bank acquired an undetermined number of these individuals when customers defaulted on their loans, Wachovia said.

"We apologize to all Americans, and especially to African-Americans and people of African descent," Thompson said.

"While we can in no way atone for the past, we can learn from it, and we can continue to promote a better understanding of the African-American story, including the unique struggles, triumphs and contributions of African-Americans, and their important role in America's past and present," he added.

John Boyd, the president of National Black Farmers Association, said his group has been picketing and lobbying Wachovia and other banking giants for eight years, urging them to investigate and acknowledge their historical involvement with the slave trade.

"We challenge other banks to come forth and step up to the plate and acknowledge their past, like Wachovia did," Boyd said Wednesday. "We feel as though this is a step in the right direction."

Earlier this year, another leading bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co., acknowledged that two of its predecessor banks had received thousands of slaves as collateral prior to the Civil War.

The New York-based bank made the disclosure in a filing with the city of Chicago, which two years ago passed an ordinance requiring companies that do business with the city to research their history to determine any links to slavery.

Wachovia spokeswoman Carrie Ruddy said the bank undertook its research because it is working with the city of Chicago to rejuvenate public housing there.

"That partnership brought the need for the research to our attention," she said.

Similar ordinances have been passed in other cities, including Philadelphia, and a North Carolina House committee approved a bill this spring that would require companies that want to do business with state government to disclose any past financial links to slavery. That measure has been bottled up in the Rules Committee for nearly two months. If the measure does not pass the House by Thursday, it cannot be considered again until 2007.

Boyd, who farms near Baskerville, Va., said his group and other black interest groups want major banks whose predecessors profited from the slave trade during the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries to take concrete steps to ease the economic and educational disparities that plague black Americans in the 21st century.

"(There) needs to be a more concise program where they're executing educational opportunities," Boyd said. "Because of these actions and the brutal acts of slavery, there should be an educational fund where African-American students can use these dollars to go to college and further their education. ... A lot of the issues we face today as African-American farmers rotate around the issue of education."

When JPMorgan, the nation's second-largest bank, apologized for its contribution, the company said it was setting up a special scholarship fund in Louisiana to try to make amends.

Thompson said Wednesday that Wachovia intends to partner with community organizations to try to further awareness and education of black history, but did not specify any plans.

Wachovia published the full report by The History Factory and specific findings on each of the banks, as well as a timeline of acquisitions that led to the present-day structure of Wachovia, on its Web site.

Conglomerates like Wachovia are made up of so many banks that they bought that I don't see the point of doing this.

Heck most of these large banks are public and have shareholders - many of those shareholders have had ancestors that owned slaves, etc.

I can understand finding out for historical reasons which old banks were involved, but why bring up these current corporations? I'm just not understanding what the point is. I know in Chicago they did the same with JPMorgan.

-Rudey

Just another scheme to get $$$ for the large and growing industry devoted to continuing racial strife.

I think it's important for corporations and America as a whole to realize that a lot (if not the all) of this country's wealth was created by slave labor.

Why not? Is it hurting anyone to have this information?

Potentially.

It hurts the new banks that have little ties to the old banks.

It hurts the shareholders - many of whom are descendants of slaves.

ETA: But I'm not saying it hurts or doesn't hurt. I just was interested in the intention. I think it should definitely be researched as a matter of history for sure.

-Rudey

Definitely not all and quite a bit of the European and global wealth is. Perhaps the UN should consider reparations.

-Rudey

A little education never hurts.

It's more important that we realize the truth, and the above is not the truth.

Would it also be appropriate for me to apologize for ancestors that I never knew or profited from who also owned slaves?

It serves no purpose, and at some level is dishonest since you can't rightfully apologize for something you never had a part in.

Its not true that a lot of the wealth in this country came from slave labor??

Hmmm...so are you saying that since we are far removed from slavery we shouldn't recognize its impacts on modern times??

Apologizing equals recognizing its impacts on modern times??

To apologize means recognizing that it did happen and that corporations that are still in existence profitted from it. So in a way it does affect people who were never enslaved or owned slaves.

The enslavement of Africans in the United States was/is a human rights issue that has never been fully addressed in the ways other crimes have. We continue to skirt around the issue because we are "so far removed" from it. Ignoring the fact this particular form of enslavement continues to affect American society.

Sure, slavery helped some individuals and some companies accumulate wealth - some 150 years ago.

Since there is no definition of "a lot", your statement can be partially true.

The biggest and most negative way slavery affects American society today is the way it is used by some so-called leaders to promote victimization: "We can't expect to be successful, 'cuz we're victims."

Is this wealth not passed down throughout the years?

Wachovia didn't profit from it. Again, a lot of the public corporations have shareholders which include Black Americans - part owners in these banks.

-Rudey

They acknowledged that 2 of the banks they assumed did so they are accepting responsibility (for lack of a beter word).

I wonder how many Blacks folks will keep their shares?

Why was this divulged? Was it forced like the Chicago/JPMorgan event?

And I guarantee it will most. In fact quite a few of them don't control what shares they buy if they are in unions that invest pensions. Most probably won't care I'm guessing regardless since Wachovia is not that bank.

-Rudey

I'm not sure if they were forced to or if they just wanted to avoid any backlash.

"decision came amid a welter of local and legislative initiatives aimed at requiring banks and other companies to investigate their pasts with regard to slavery."

Now, let me prod you for a bit. Why do you think Wachovia and JPMorgan, 2 large banks, were "pushed" to release this information?

-Rudey

Because members of our society are interested in this information. :D

Why not about other types of companies? So basically why are banks targeted for this and why are banks so high profile in the news?

-Rudey

Oooh. I think other types of companies such as insurance companies have been targeted. I think Lloyd's in London was examined?? And there are studies on how some national monuments were built by slaves.

This is true. If you look at some of the South's most wealthy families you'll see that on down the line they owned slaves. And if you look back far enough, you'll note that many corporations profited from the slaves. Maybe not directly all the time, but they still profited whether directly or indirectly.


But then again a lot of this country's wealth is also a result of World War II and us lending money to France and England. War, in itself, made this country wealthy.

Lets cut to the chase. You are not looking for an apology. Apologies have already been made. The people running Wachovia were not even born 150 years ago. The people that deserve the apology are all dead. We already knew that slavery took place and businesses profited from it. What you really want is 40 acres and a Bentley.

:confused: Did I miss a memo??

70yrs after the incident in Rosewood were a White mob ran Black families out of a town the state gave 2.1 million to their descendants. Are you saying they shouldn't have recieved anything?

Was that like, when blacks in LA burned down half the city after the Rodney King verdict? How much in reparations were paid to all the white/asian business owners?

The individuals that were run out of town should be able to take legal action against the individuals that ran them out of town. You on the other hand probably want the rest of white America that had nothing to do with Rosewood pay reparations to the rest of Black America, who also had nothing to do with Rosewood.

Re: Wachovia's Ties to Slavery
 

I'm not surprised. It takes a good headstart to get to fourth largest. I appreciate that the higher ups have the social awareness to make a statement on it.

We have a responsibility to be vigilant in remembering how our society has become what it is. The apology is no longer directed only toward those who were directly involved. It is a show of respect for those involved AND those today who continue to feel the effects.

There are, today, people in this country who do not realize how that we still have work to do.

You are making verrrry little sense right now. So I suggest you return to your corner and rethink your argument. Thanks.

And reparations isn't solely about money I wish people would remove that from their minds.

This is utter nonsense. Apologizing is not 'recognition' of any aftereffects of enslavement, and it is NOT a step toward curing these ills. Apologizing, in and of itself, is nothing but an appeasement. You should be pissed about this, if you truly believe in this cause, because it EFFECTIVELY ENDS THE DISCUSSION AND ALLOWS THE ISSUE TO GRIND TO A HALT INSTEAD OF PROGRESSING TO AN END.

Also, you've never addressed Rudey's point about why banks have been well-researched compared to other institutions. "I think there was a study about monuments" is not an effective retort, but rather a strawman for the issue.

Also, if reparations aren't about money, why is an exchange of money even included in the requests? If it's about curing societal ills, let's actively work toward curing the effects - handing someone cash does little to destroy ingrained inequity. [ETA: my point here is that the money should probably go to better use in programs that actively address the issues that are connected to slavery, instead of lump-sum payments to individuals. I don't know what those programs would be, so maybe the money should go to researching a better understanding of that, as well.]

Apologies from a conglomerate that purchased a bank 150 years ago that allowed slaves as colatteral also serve to do very little to solve inequities.

Let's put this another way - if every person who in any way ever had any contact with owning of African slaves were to give a heartfelt apology, would that end the issue of slavery's lingering effects on African Americans in the US?

Of course not. So let's get to the actual point here.

Who said that apologzing was the end all to be all?? It's a START and an important start at that!

And there are several books written about the usage of slave labor to build national monuments. One is The Debt by Randall Robinson if you want to be more specific.

I need you to read before you respond to my comments. I said reparations isn't SOLELY about money. Most people, white folks in particular, think that the government is going to ask them to come out of their pockets to give Black folks money. That is not what organizers/supporters are simply asking for. They are asking for funding for programs/foundations to help level the playing field.

Why is it whenever dicussions about inequality are brought up on GC people get ridiculously defensive and refuse to admit that wrongs have been done to particular groups of people in this country? And refuse to see that something that may have happened 150 years ago CONTINUES to affect the country?

You and I have different definitions of 'important' - and in fact we may disagree on the meaning of 'start' but I digress. This apology smells of wasted effort, and very little return on this effort to directly impact the plight of black Americans.

No one has made any comments to the effect of "money from my pocket" in this thread. I can appreciate your frustration and your ranting, but I'm trying to address exactly this point - can you, or anyone else, provide a systemic approach for leveling this playing field? Why don't we address this topic directly, and with our full attention and resources? HOW, not why.

Until we have such an approach in hand, we are simply being wasteful by seeking out inconsequential 'victories' of this type for African Americans. We don't know what war we're fighting - and it is 'we', as the issue affects all Americans.

Wait, I'm being defensive here? The irony button is blinking.

No one has 'refused to admit' that slavery existed, that slavery was horrific, and that the enslavement and any aftereffects are confined to the black population for all intents and purposes.

Instead, I'm trying to address the problem - whacking Wachovia over the wrist and wringing out an apology (for purchasing another bank, at that) simply doesn't smack of advancement to me.

One more time: if we're going to find a solution to this particular problem, this sort of apology will not be a major portion of it, and questing for such apologies does little or nothing to impact the plight of black Americans.

Recognition of a problem is often the first step, no? When you don't recognize something how can you work to solve the problem? That's where the apology comes in.

In Robinson's book (which I don't have on hand at the moment) outlines one of the many proposals. If anyone is geniunely interested in these issues I think they would encourage our government to make serious moves. There have been other instances in our country's history where groups have been given reparations, so why is this conversation so difficult to have when it comes to Black folks? Is it simply because the people who were actually enslaved have passed on??

And madmax did make a reference to money out of pocket

Exactly

And a big CO-SIGN on this as well. Great posts, Epitome.

Webster's II New Riverside Pocket Dictionary (revised edition):

"Reparations. War payments required from a defeated nation."

Until someone tells me which war we lost, I oppose reparations.

S: (n) reparation (compensation (given or received) for an insult or injury) "an act for which there is no reparation"
S: (n) reparation ((usually plural) compensation exacted from a defeated nation by the victors) "Germany was unable to pay the reparations demanded after World War I"
S: (n) repair, fix, fixing, fixture, mend, mending, reparation (the act of putting something in working order again)
S: (n) reparation, amends (something done or paid in expiation of a wrong) "how can I make amends"

:D :rolleyes: