Calling All Sons and Daughters of Antebellum Planters

[Hat-tip to Lee White]

For those of you looking to connect with your planter heritage may I suggest joining the National Society Sons & Daughters of Antebellum Planters, 1607-1861.

What’s it all about?

To identify and honor the memory of ancestors who were “planters” within lands today comprising the 48 states of the continental United States between 1607 and 12 April, 1861; To collect and preserve records, documents and relics pertaining to the history and genealogy of such “planters”; To produce and distribute publications of all kinds relating to the history and genealogy of such “planters”; To study and apprecaite the rural and country life led by our ancestors in all of the original colonies and territories from which the 48 states of the continental United States are derived; To inculcate true patriotism and a strict devotion to historical truth; And to engage in other elated educational, historical, genealogical, patriotic, literary and social activities.

Who can join?

Membership is available to men and women 18 years of age or older who are lineal descendants of a “planter” living on land today included in the 48 states of the continental United States between 1607- April 12, 1861.  A “planter” is a large farmer, one owning not less than 500 acres of land. A rancher would be included in this definition.  The 500 acres or more, does not have to be in one plot or in contiguous plots or even in the same county or same state. The property of one spouse may be aggregated with the property of the other spouse even if legal title is vested in a trustee, but aggregation is permitted only where the applicant descends from both spouses.  Also eligible are collateral descendants of a “planter” brother or sister of the whole blood of a lineal ancestor, both residing on land in one of the 48 states of the continental United States between 1607 and April 12, 1861.

Why am I not surprised that in an organization such as this you will not find one reference to slavery.  Perhaps the descendants of the men and women responsible for creating the planter’s wealth can join under the category of “collateral descendants.”  And before some of you get into an irrational tizzy over what you perceive to be another anti-South post please keep in mind that slaves generated wealth for planters in both the North and South.

Searching for Black Confederates: The Civil War’s Most Persistent Myth

“Levin’s study is the first of its kind to blueprint and then debunk the mythology of enslaved African Americans who allegedly served voluntarily in behalf of the Confederacy.”–Journal of Southern History

Purchase your copy today!

14 comments… add one
  • Linda Alcott Maples Jul 11, 2017 @ 7:47

    It’s just your heritage. So grow up to all those nay-sayers! Jeez!!


  • Woodrowfan Apr 30, 2012 @ 6:00

    Heh. I’d qualify (on my Mom’s side.) I doubt they’d want me though as I’m one of those damn left-wing yankees.

  • James F. Epperson Apr 30, 2012 @ 3:04

    I’m not sure I would qualify. As near as I can figure, the Eppersons were small farmers outside Lynchburg, and before that had been overseers in Tidewater. Oh, but one of them married a Gilliam, and the Gilliams owned a large spread near Five Forks. So maybe I do qualify … (Not that I intend to join.)

  • Chrisitne Smith Apr 29, 2012 @ 9:00

    I think that part about the “whole blood of a lineal descendant” would probably disqualify sons and daughters of former slaves who were of “mixed racial heritage”. To me, having worked with genealogy for 30+ years, that phrase would mean no dilution of the blood along racial lines, ergo only white ancestors both direct and collateral could belong, because they were of “whole blood”! I may be wrong, but I’m just sayin’….

    • Michael Douglas Apr 30, 2012 @ 5:51

      The “whole blood” requirement seems to be for collaterals, not lineals. And while that term likely does carry an assumed element of racial specificity (for some folks anyway), it technically has nothing to do with race. It’s intended to exclude half and step siblings. And in this case it refers to collaterals of the qualifying ancestor, not the descendants.

      • Kevin Levin Apr 30, 2012 @ 6:07

        I tend to think you are right about that.

  • Chrisitne Smith Apr 29, 2012 @ 3:30

    Well, I guess that leaves me out. My gg grandfather owned 5 slaves in Kentucky on a small farm. Maybe we could start a Sons and Daughters of Small Farmers Who Owned Slaves But Don’t Qualify as Planters group. I feel really discriminated against by this group and their planter heritage. *Snark*

  • Margaret Blough Apr 29, 2012 @ 2:44

    They might want to rethink the eligibility requirements & add legitmacy before people like the Jefferson-Hemmings descendants apply 🙂

    • Bob Huddleston Apr 29, 2012 @ 11:07

      My mother was a DAR. Many years ago, I remember reading the application form. Among the requirements was the clause that one had to be trace the line through legitimate marriages. Thereby neatly excising the descendants of any pesky slaves who may have supported the Revolution. Mother’s ancestor, BTW, was a true sunshine patriot and fair weather soldier, a Connecticut militia ensign who served in state for a few months.

  • Pat Young Apr 28, 2012 @ 13:29

    Many descendants of enslaved people will be “lineal” descendants of planters.

    • Michael Douglas Apr 28, 2012 @ 21:28

      Bingo! One particular (I have three that I now of) g-g-g-grandfather’s land holdings might qualify me for membership. 🙂

  • Virginia S. Wood Apr 28, 2012 @ 13:17

    This is a four-weeks-late April Fool’s joke, right? Jeebus.

    • Kevin Levin Apr 28, 2012 @ 13:18

      Whatever makes it easier to digest. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *