Southern Aristorcracy

[Hanny]

originaly posted by Trice
So how many of the several hundred thousand slaveowners were freeing their slaves in their wills, and were they freeing all of them or just a selected few?

Iirc its around a third of all manumisions, ie of all emanicpated pre war about a third are from death of owner granting emcipation, and some were willed onto relatives or sold for death duties etc, but as far as i recall emancipation by death of owner was resposible for a roughly a third of all emncipations.

originaly posted by Trice

How many of the four million or so slaves living in 1860 would have been freed this way in your opinion? Were there more slaves being freed by their masters in, say, Virginia in the 1850s, or more slaves being whipped, sold South, etc.?

It was not designed to do that so the question is rather moot, however any slave taken across a state line could apply for freedom after residence in a new state after one year.

originaly posted by Trice

(To help you out, VA was a net exporter of slaves in the 1850s, profitting handsomely from the rising prices for slaves, particularly prime field hands, that were driven by the Cotton expansion in the Deep South and the high slave death rates, higher than the slave birth rates, in certain counties of LA and SC.)

yes indeed, VA and Maryland white and black population moveing interregionaly created new citizens for other states,1820 they had 35% of the negro populatio, in 1860 only 15%, some 800,000 slaves had moved to other states, Ala, Miss, Tx and La getting 75% of them, importing states rose 3.6% faster in pop terms as they would have done without this interegional movement, which occured because owners moved labour to where it was most cost effective to utilise it, when freed the reverse was found to occur with free citizens. Of that 800k only 125k were sold, the rest were already slaves moving with masters and familys together.

originaly posted by Trice

Ozark Iron John may have had ancestors who felt compassionate about their slaves and tried to care for them. I hope that he did. But if the average slaveowner in the South had truly been trying to put the best interests of their slaves to the fore in a forthright manner and was intent on freeing the slaves, slavery would have been in the process of disappearing in the 1850s. Southerners would not have been demanding the expansion of it into new territory, advocating the reopening of the Atlantic Slave Trade to get more slaves, or pushing for the acquisition of Cuba, Mexico, and Central America as new slave territories. Slave sales and prices would not have been booming. Aggitation to enforce the Fugitive Slave Laws would not have been tearing the nation apart.

Your confusing party politcs with morality and social policys, the extension of slave states for entry into the Union was the tried and tested political answer to maniatain balnce in the senate of free and slave state, formulatd since the NWT a a means to have equal representaion, that was the concern of politicians, since the south lsot 200k whites emoigrating out of the salve states into the west becausae they could not economicly compete bwith the planation system argues strongly taht not all southern sociuety was happy with the situation. slave prices were booming for the simple fact that there market price was tied to the price of cotton, since cotton price was boomiong so was the price of a slave and there is direct economic data to show that relkation in "Conflict and Comprimise" by Ransom

originaly posted by Trice

So if you want to push this point, put it in perspective for us. Show us the freeing of slaves against the selling of them, the abuses in the plantations against the acts of kindness, the viciousness of the slave trader and the overseer against the concern and fine treatment of the "good" masters. Let us see the parts of the problem revealed one against the other. Do not simply point to isolated incidents and claim the rest of the situation should be minimized.

well, yes thats the way to do it, but im not sure he lacked perspective in the first palce and we are all guilty of not fully presenting pespective, even when we post long and hard.

What your asking of him is a thesis level work, i hope your up to doing th same when you post.

[trice]

Quote:
???
Since I wasn't talking about divorce, the causes of family breakups, or the fate of infants left on their own for any reason, I really don't know why you address this to me. It seems to have nothing to do with what I said.

Originally Posted by Hanny

I must have mistaken this part of your posts intent then, for it was that i was primarily directing a comparison to.

It appears that you have taken a single sentence out of the middle of a paragraph and acted as if the rest of the paragraph, the rest of that post, and all the previous posts did not exist. You then use it completely out of context to justify the direction you wanted to go in. So yes, you were completely and totally mistaken, and yes, your post had nothing to do with what I had said. Thanks for clarifying that.

Also, a large part of your post to me seems to be replies to things said by other people, not me, without any attempt on your part to clearly indicate the quotes are from someone else. Again, this has nothing to do with me or what I said. That will confuse people as to who said what. It will also make it look like I said things someone else actually said. It is, intentionally or not, deceptive and inaccurate. Please correct this or make a post signifying that you understand it and pointing out who you were actually replying to.

Regards,
Tim

[larry_cockerham]

Originally Posted by Ozark Iron John

I don't think you all are catching my drift. I'm not an advocate for slavery. It was an awful thing. It was bad for just about everybody involved. I'm not even too sure that it was good for them blue-bloods that owned all them slaves. It certainly didn't work out too well for 'em in Hati.

My people didn't own too many slaves. 12 or 15 is about all and they weren't "exploiting 'em" either. They was all living and working together. Most definetly my paternal ancestor "owned" the land and property, but that didn't mean he didn't get his hands dirty. He worked hard. In the fields and in the mill. He didn't set up on the porch sippin' Mint Julips. There just wasn't that kind of wealth here at that time.

The bone I've got to chew is with them Southern Aristocrats that started the whole thing. They hyped it up and made it like it was sooo good. But it weren't. It may have been good for them, or some of them, but for the vast majority of US, it wasn't good at all.

Do you all know about Fort Pulaski? Savannaha, Georgia. April 1862. Southern Aristocrats. Blue-Bloods. Fire Eaters. Cowards.

I growed up out here in the west folks. My heros were Travis & Crockett and General Anthony McAuliffe. Them scumbags at Fort Pulaski just rolled over and played dead. I ain't got no respect for 'em at all.

Ozark, you have done a fair job of expressing my sentiments as well. My sphere of reference is the area where the state lines of Virginian, North Carolina and Tennessee converge.

[larry_cockerham]

Gentlemen, this is from my Bourne family file, located in Grayson County, Virginia late 1700s. I suspect this is a more nearly typical relationship between Owner and Slave in that part of the world. Curious to see what you think?

"At the time William Bourne settled here, there were no mills nearer than over the Blue Ridge in North Carolina, at the foot of the mountain, then called 'Over the Hollow'. The grain to be ground for bread had to be carried in sacks on horses. There was only a bridle path across New River and mountain - frequently on the old Indian trails. William Bourne would make these trips with his negro men, each with as sack of grain to have ground for bread (mostly corn). At one time, on their return from the mill, one man caught his sack of flour against a limb near the path on the mountain, tore the sack, and spilled some flour. From that circumstance, the place was called Flour Gap. It still bears that name. It is the only place for crossing the Blue Ridge. The first road across that part of the Ridge was at this place; trimmed out in a straight course up and down the mountains.

These trips to the mill had to be made in the fall of the year; and, at one time, when the men had gone, there fell a deep snow, and kept them longer than usual, and the family was without something to eat. Rosa Bourne got up early one morning, called a negro woman and said to her, 'We must get something to eat.' They took the rifle gun and butcher knife, and started out; and soon found a large deer, sleeping in the snow under a fallen tree top. Rosa raised her gun and fired; the deer jumped up, struck his head against a limb, and broke its neck. She, with the negro woman, ran with the butcher knife and cut the deer's throat, dragged him to the house on the snow, and the family lived on venison and hominy until the men returned with meal and flour.

In that day, all the clothing was made out of wool, cotton and flax. Leather was tanned in a big trough, for shoes and moccasins; nails, hinges, and all tools were made in blacksmith shops. At one time, William Bourne, when he was a member of the Legislature in Richmond, went down in a wagon loaded with fur skins and sold them. A negro woman and little girl were put on the block for sale; he bought them, paid for them and sent them back home in the wagon. The woman's name was Granny Beck. The girl's name was Aimy. I have heard Aimy say that she and her mother were sent for one evening to go and stay all night with a woman. Sometime after dark, someone came to the door and called. This woman told her to open the door; she did so, and two men came in a caught her and her mother, tied cloths over their mouths, carried them off and put them in a ship, and brought them over the ocean. They came from Africa and proved to be very valuable servants.

Granny Beck, after she came here, took charge of the cattle and stock out on the range; salted and looked after them. She could not count the number, but if one of them was missing she could tell it. She would describe its color or its size, etc., and would hunt until she found it.

Aimy was the house girl, waited on her master and mistress as long as they lived, and was very much attached to all the family.

William Bourne, in his last will stated that 'Aimy has been a faithful, good servant, and has raised for me 18 children. She is not to be sold or taken in, in the divide.' With his children, she would be free to go where she pleased."

[trice]

Originally Posted by Hanny

Iirc its around a third of all manumisions, ie of all emanicpated pre war about a third are from death of owner granting emcipation, and some were willed onto relatives or sold for death duties etc, but as far as i recall emancipation by death of owner was resposible for a roughly a third of all emncipations.

Please note that your post here does not have anything at all to do with answering the question. It is totally divorced from it, amd makes no attempt to address what I was saying.

It was not designed to do that so the question is rather moot, however any slave taken across a state line could apply for freedom after residence in a new state after one year.

In what fantasy world do you imagine this chance was a realistic probability? We are talking about 1860-era slave states. This is in the aftermath of the Dred Scott decision, which said that a slave remained a slave no matter where he went. Slave-catchers are raoming into the North, immune from local laws, and the accused are unable to testify in their own behalf while the "commissioners" are paid twice as much for ruling a black person should be sent back as an escaped slave as they are for decaring he should not be. So, yes, a slave could always ask for his freedom: tell us what the actual results were, and don't try to insult our intelligence by distorting the situation into unrecognizability.

...

Originally Posted by Hanny

well, yes thats the way to do it, but im not sure he lacked perspective in the first palce and we are all guilty of not fully presenting pespective, even when we post long and hard.

What your asking of him is a thesis level work, i hope your up to doing th same when you post.

No, just normal effort to justify what you say in open debate. My teachers started pushing me to do so sometime around seventh grade, and were hard at it by high school. Heck, we kids used to provide more evidence than this in arguments about who was a better centerfielder: Mays or Mantle? People provide such support all the time in online forums.

Regards,
Tim

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by trice

Quote:
???
Since I wasn't talking about divorce, the causes of family breakups, or the fate of infants left on their own for any reason, I really don't know why you address this to me. It seems to have nothing to do with what I said.



It appears that you have taken a single sentence out of the middle of a paragraph and acted as if the rest of the paragraph, the rest of that post, and all the previous posts did not exist. You then use it completely out of context to justify the direction you wanted to go in. So yes, you were completely and totally mistaken, and yes, your post had nothing to do with what I had said. Thanks for clarifying that.

Also, a large part of your post to me seems to be replies to things said by other people, not me, without any attempt on your part to clearly indicate the quotes are from someone else. Again, this has nothing to do with me or what I said. That will confuse people as to who said what. It will also make it look like I said things someone else actually said. It is, intentionally or not, deceptive and inaccurate. Please correct this or make a post signifying that you understand it and pointing out who you were actually replying to.

Regards,
Tim

Actually your reply to Ozark was about individual anecdoatal acounts and you wanted the bigger picture, which i went onto describe for you, but aparantly you dont want that after all, your a difficult man to please.

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by trice

Please note that your post here does not have anything at all to do with answering the question. It is totally divorced from it, amd makes no attempt to address what I was saying.

Uou asked a specific quation to which there is a specific answer, the number your looking for was around 33% of all emncipated southern slaves were done by death wills.

trice
In what fantasy world do you imagine this chance was a realistic probability? We are talking about 1860-era slave states. This is in the aftermath of the Dred Scott decision, which said that a slave remained a slave no matter where he went.

Im using the federal law system that allows such things, there are 000s of such cases in USSC records, it was the basis of DS in the first palce, MO had granted DS freedom on those grounds. i can post other such cases for you if you like, it was after common place in almost every state.

Trice
Slave-catchers are raoming into the North, immune from local laws, and the accused are unable to testify in their own behalf while the "commissioners" are paid twice as much for ruling a black person should be sent back as an escaped slave as they are for decaring he should not be. So, yes, a slave could always ask for his freedom: tell us what the actual results were, and don't try to insult our intelligence by distorting the situation into unrecognizability.

No under the constition they had every right to do so.

Clearly im referncing things that are new to you, so ill post tommorrow the US court rullings on a number of then for you. How many would you like?.

Trice

No, just normal effort to justify what you say in open debate. My teachers started pushing me to do so sometime around seventh grade, and were hard at it by high school. Heck, we kids used to provide more evidence than this in arguments about who was a better centerfielder: Mays or Mantle? People provide such support all the time in online forums.

Regards,
Tim

Perhaps you can reply to the substance of my posts then, rather than compain about presentation?.

[Texas2nd]

L. Cockerham,
That is typical of what I find too.

OI John explains it well when he points out the typical slave owner did not have hundreds of slaves.

Probably, in those situations everyone on a smaller farm worked together and they prospered or starved together.

There were 46,000 slaveholders in the South in 1860 who owned slaves and 88% of all slaveholders were not planters. 72% of the 88% owned 10 slaves or less. These numbers are from a study of the nature of slavery written by George M. Fredrickson, Professor of History, Stanford University.

Oh and 12% of the 12% that were planters were Unionists who, claimed reimbursements from the Federal Government after the war for as much as $10,000 for lost property! Just felt a need to be a little tacky... wonder if those Unionist left anything for thier dear and beloved exslave servants...off topic I know! Never mind.

Texas2nd

[larry_cockerham]

Texas, thanks for your support in this notion.

If you will re-read the last line of my post on Granny Beck, you'll see that my kind and benevolent ancestor William Bourne Sr., even at his death had a fondness to the black ladies for their service, but wasn't quite ready to say: "you are free, no strings attached..." That is the rub in this sad situation we call slavery. It wasn't easy to give up, apparently addictive, at least to the folks with the upper hand. I expect that would have evenually happened eventually without the 'assist' of the war, but perhaps only a little less slowly.

I'm curious that you report such a high percentage of small scale slave owners. That perhaps re-inforces my notion that this dumb war wasn't FOUGHT totally on the basis of preserving slavery. (STARTED .... a different word and certainly a factor by the boys with more slaves and money, political clout, etc.) I'm still a supporter of the notion that protecting land from an invading army was a lot more incentive than a slave or two who weren't expected to stray too far from what was their home.

[william42]

Well, with TX2nd, Hanny, OI John, Battalion, and Larry, we may just have a fair fight on this board for once. Welcome to all the new folks. Be advised to keep your heads down til the smoke clears here. Haven't seen it quite so noisy in a while. It's really a friendly board. Really it is...


Terry