Southern Aristorcracy

[ole]

Starting to get a bit hairy here, guys. Can we ratchet it down a few clicks? It's getting interesting and I would like to see it continue before Ami takes notice.

Warm is good. Hot is not.

Ole

[trice]

Originally Posted by Texas2nd

Unionblue,

If your interested, I found another very interesting percentage in this source..."75% of the white population had no slaves..." he states that "the South was unique in that the majority had no direct economic connection with nonwhite servitude..."

Thats from George M. Fredrickson's Comparative Study of American and South African History (1981).

His footnotes cite the 1860 census as his source.

It is well known that only about 25% of the free families in the slave states actually owned slaves. The man in charge of the 1860 census pointed it out, so it has been known for close to a century and a half.

The major reason for this was the cost of slaves. With "prime field hands going for over $1000 and the general price of slaves in a strong 15 year upward trend, the average man in the South could not afford to own slaves. Slaveowners were, as a general rule, people who had money available to them.

For example, about 25% of NC families owned slaves, making the state right near the average. By contrast, a full 100% of the members of the NC state legislature owned slaves according to a study I came across years ago.

This was a matter of great concern to Fire-Eater leaders like Yancy, Rhett, and Pollard. There is an exchange of letters between Rhett of SC and Pollard of VA in 1858, discussing the need to re-open the Atlantic Slave Trade in order to increase the supply of slaves and drive down the price to make them more affordable to the average Southerner. Rhett and Pollard were afraid that the high prices would create a Northern style rich-poor divide in the whites, so they wanted to increase the size of the slave-owning class to form connections and alliances.

It was extremely difficult to be successful in the South and not own slaves. When you had money, you probably bought slaves; even if you didn't own a plantation and lived in town, you would probably want house slaves.

Regards,
Tim

[Texas2nd]

Trice,

Yes, I know... but did you catch the other percentages. 72% of that 25% owned less than 10 and were not planters.

Thought it might change you perspective just a wee bit. They were not in the fields, according to this scholar. There are other sources that support this as you have pointed out.

Also, I have a hard time imagining that 75% who had "no direct economic benefit" fighting and dying for slavery.

If facts and figures mean anything to you than these stats should.

Texas2nd

[Texas2nd]

Cash,

Your imagery is heart wrenching and I'll be the first to tell you that slavery is/was evil. Here are some other ideas for you to consider, when relaying the realities of slavery.

There were laws to protect slaves in the South.

For the most part, the Bible thumping ministers who told the Southerners they had a duty to perpetuate slavery decried excessive whipping and beating. Southerners were told to treat slaves as children.

American slavery has been studied inside and out. The best comparison that I've seen is to that of a caste system.

If you believe it was a paternalistic pattern of behavior see the thing about treating slaves as a child. There's more...

Latter part of the 20th century scholars that consider for study the signigicant number of American slave narratives published before and after the ACW, and also the Federal Writer's Project of the WPA's 2000+ narratives, have suggested that the slaves themselves were unable to share thier true feelings because they were not free to do so...slavery is a state of mind as much as a physical reality. Compilations suggests that the interviewed were responding to the interviewers expectations. And yes thats tragic.

The latest works on American slavery are revealing that the long years of bondage have to be viewed within the specific social circumstances and cultural traditions of the Africans who were slaves. Note I did not write the environment they lived in...

More tomorrow.
Texas2nd

[trice]

Originally Posted by Texas2nd

Yes, I know... but did you catch the other percentages. 72% of that 25% owned less than 10 and were not planters.

Thought it might change you perspective just a wee bit. They were not in the fields, according to this scholar. There are other sources that support this as you have pointed out.

Also, I have a hard time imagining that 75% who had "no direct economic benefit" fighting and dying for slavery.

If facts and figures mean anything to you than these stats should.

Yes, most slaveowners were not fabulously wealthy. I knew that long ago, and it is no surprise to anyone who looks at the available information. Slaves are closely associated with economic status, so why would you expect poor people to own them?

There was, for example, supposedly only one person in the South who owned more than 1,000 slaves: Wade Hampton of SC.

But that does not mean that people who did not own slaves had no economic connection with them. Many Southerners rented slaves (yes, even house slaves) on a temporary or permanent basis, either in direct cash transactions or on a barter basis. This is well known, but will not be shown in US Census figures.

Slavery also figured in the economic hopes and dreams of any ambitious Southerner of the day. If you are trying to become wealthy, or well-to-do, or successful -- all normal and important concepts in the South of the day -- than your plans for the future almost certainly include owning slaves. Southern society looked down on white men who worked as hired men, so if you wanted to expand your farm into a "plantation", where would you find the labor to clear the land, plant the crops, etc., beyond what your own family's hands and sweat could do?

Once you were successful, where would you get the help for your wife and daughters around the house? Free white women were not so likely to serve as your cook, maid, etc. when they had to do the same chores themselves. We know it was rare to see whites in such roles, so why be surprised to find blacks in them.

Since a large part of the slave population will be female, or if male too elderly or too young to work in the fields, why be surprised to find they worked elsewhere? Stonewall Jackson owned slaves (6 in the late 1850s), but was never a "planter". The same is true of others. Why be surprised that a lawyer or a doctor or a newspaper editor was not a planter and so his slaves did not work in the fields?

Beyond all that, there is always a group in any society that likes to have people below them to look down on or kick around. This is what Senator James Hammond of SC refers to in his "Mud Sill Theory" speeech in the US Senate in 1858.

Then, of course, there really were people who understood, consciously or unconsciously, that they were sitting on a time-bomb with slavery. One aspect of this was the prospect of a slave revolt, fed by tales and memories of what happened in Haiti around 1800 or in the Nat Turner Rebellion in Virginia. After the John Brown Raid on Harpers Ferry, the South was awash in rumors and hysteria about this, with tales of Abolitionists plots, militia groups organizing, Edmund Ruffin distributing "John Brown Pikes", and a wave of lynchings. Another aspect was the sheer uncertainty of change when and if those millions of slaves were freed: what would happen? Would chaos, economic and social, result from freeing the slaves? If the slaves were freed, would the individual states become responsible for their welfare and have to raise new taxes on their people to pay the costs?

Demagogues played these fears up, economic and social and personal. Fear affected these people, fear of the unknown, and it is clear those who owned slaves were affected by it as well as those who did.

Issues like these and others struck at the people. They are not limited to only those who owned slaves and in some cases were major worries.

Regards,
Tim

[Hanny]

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.

Ok, so when you replied with the Stampp work as a reference, you dont think that Stampps conviction that negros were held to to sevice in perfect submision through aplication of cruelty, and therefore any who were concerened with welfare of negros found it difficult to show it because it prenvented the object of slavery which was total submisioin to the white master, and any famiiarty/kindness etc, simply destroyed the objects intent, ie slaverys object was to aquire total submision and that was only achieved through diliberte and calculated cruelty. What stampp problem was that he was decribing slavery in terms of Gulag style work camps of prison and inmates, not the social fabric of southern slavery is it was in the main. From this basic standpoint, or comment on the social condition of slavery as practised, he then concludes the entire negro race was slothfull, because the white owners impressed upon them "his innate inferriority and a paraylizing fear of white men" because that was how they resisted, they did not rise in rebelion and be cut down, they were instead subtle, so subtle that white never noticed it as subversion and resistance, they shirked, they played at being unwell, they were delibertaly stupid, they stole and so on. He made this leap on slave attitudes and parctice because he was unaware of the pecuniary reward sytem and focused on the punishment side of the question, he did not know why slavery was protible, only that it probably was, and that slaves were inefiecent compaered to free whites, Fogel won the Nobel przie for empiracaly answering these qustion, and others as well, slaves were more efiecent than free white, and explained why/how this was, that free whites worked longer hours to achieve less output and exactly how and why slavery was profitable and what wealth it generated.
So he (Stampp) filled his book with the worst examples of white on black treatemnt to make his point, and show cause for conlusions, which of course if you paying attention he had opened the door for others to show the true condition of slavery, how it opertaed by reward over punishment, that punishment was rare and reward was common, and that per capita every slave in 1860 was wealthier by 15% than if he was free and doing the same work.
So lets be clear, this is your reference to counter the anecdotal behavoir mentioned in many instances in all of southern litertaure, let alone the basic premise that willing obiedence is always superior to that which is forced, one that pulls together all the worst excess in over a century to make its point, and uses a statsiatical samll sample to make a general comment on all slave society.
No doubt one could cite the collected works of AH when asked about the moral way to treat ethnic minoritys. But why not instead cite a social historian who actualy had a good explanation of the social structure and working of slavery?.
What Stamp missed was that slavery, indeed every commerical enterprise based on expoitation, is not total submision as in the Gulag and Nazi deaths camps, but optimal submision, ie the largest product at the lowest cost, with some this ment the use of force, with far more it ment the use of rewards, force was used cruelly, but optimaly, because slavery does not have to be cruel to work. But stampp comes before the time when it was possible to calculate the rewards sytem of slavery, and why its not a good book on slavery as it simply does not understand the condition of slavery, it meerly pointed the way fpor others to do that.

Trice
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.

I was in the process of splitting the post in sections per poster with heade for ech poster, and had trouble with the 15k limit per post, as i was responding to when i had a problem with getting access to the board for edditting, ive had this problem here before i dont know the cause, i had it on Sat and could access this thread at all, but could do on on other threads, (but untill a new post is made, for a reason i dont understand, i cannot edit or post on a thread untill it is), so when another post come on i was able to finish the editting, you saw it in its unfinished form and repied, noticing the lack of clarity, i edited so all could easily see who was being replied to, and instead simply put each posters name in rather than continue with my original intent of splitting it into replys per poster as seperate posts. I apologise for the confusion, but plead mistigating circamstances out of my control.

[Hanny]

Terry
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...

We are all friends of course, a few harsh words and a sulk before bedtime is about as bad as it could get right?, i guess you could get a finger ache, maybe a paper cut or spill your coffee, and at the best we all could read something intresting, or amusing, or new to each and increase our understanding or see a viewpoint we may not otherwise have, not a bad way to spend your time.

Mat
Hanny, welcome back.
If you are somehow suggesting slavery wasn't so bad, a sweet deal for the enslaved, I think you're going to have a tough time with that.
If you're saying that slaveowners thought or acted in what they thought was a charitable way towards their human property, OK. But that doesn't make it so.

Hi Matt, hope your well.
Well alive and a slave sure sounds a sweeet deal compared to being free but dead, or free but unequal and free to starve to death. Dont you think?.
"Had an abundance of dat somthing called frredom, but dat freedom aint nothin, less youn got somethin to live of n and aplace to call home. Dis livin on liberty is lak young folks livin on luv after dey gets married. It just dont work." i dant do a very good 1860 female, i can do a better a pretty good J Wayne though.
Freedom is not cheap either, the black NCO who lead the 54th in a protest ovewr being payed day labour wages instead of regular Army pay, tried for the crime of mutiny and executed, freedom, like slavery, also costs, and so it should.

[Hanny]

Trice
You are being deliberately obtuse here, Hanny. I do note that you have now gone back and edited the post I referred to, and it now includes specific references to who posted what. Obviously, you know that I was correct in pointing it out to you or you would not have made the change.

So the answer to my question is no you dont want to pick up on anything i mentioned then. Again, sorry for any confusion given when editting the post, its unfourtunate that you were online and replied, while i was still in edit mode, hopefully there is no confusion as to who said what still remaining, and again you are correct to point out that you replied to posts that were not cleary showing the posters name over any entry, and found it less that perfectly clear who had said what, and i have amended the post acordingly.

Trice
The post of mine that you were replying to (#97) was made to Texas2nd, in reply to something he had said in post #84 in this thread. Yet you say I was replying to Ozark Iron John, and you replied to three statements from one of Ozark Iron John's posts in a post to me, making it seem I had said them when I had not. Again, it is obvious in your edit pointed out above that you understand this, yet you are still criss-crossing who posted what. Once again, I am not responsible for things you mix-up and confuse for yourself.
If you read the posts, completely and in context, my meaning is clear and it has nothing to do wtih what you have imagined or want to talk about.

Again clearly my mistake, you cleary dont want to talk about anything i posted, and i mistakenly got the wrong impresion about what you actualy wanted to talk about.

Trice
Your statement only says that 1 out of 3 of emancipated slaves was freed by death wills. If three slaves were freed, 1 would be done this way, you say. But that was not my question nor does it have anything to do with my point as was very clear. It is simply you trying to go off on a tangent and turn the discussion to something else. Go ahead if you will; just do not claim it has anything to do with me, for that would be deceptive.

How can your question "

Cash
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?

not have been correctly answered?, your point is very clear you want to know the ratio or absolute number of emncipations through the death of the owner, makeing slaves free from deed of will. You will have to help me out here if that not the question you asked and i answered, what is the question if its not that?.

Trice
How many of the four million or so slaves living in 1860 would have been freed this way in your opinion?

Is this the obtuse bit?, since emnacipation through deed by will existed to provide freedom as per Biblical law for emncipation of those held in bondage,it quickly becaame a statute law in the US from its earliest conception, it had no design to end slavery as an instituition, but to follow scripture and allow manumision of tghe condition by any individual who wished to do so. So the answer to your question is that in 1860 the number of slaves emancipated by deed of will would be in proprtion to the number of slave owners who died, which is statasticly higher in the war years of course, and produce in all probabilty the same ration of further emancipations, in other words the number of slaves made free by the death of there owners in the war could be adduced in general terms by looking at the % of slave holders average number of slaves owned, out of taoal CSA losses giving an indication of order of magntitude of slaves made free.

Trice
Please note that you are misrepresenting the facts here.

Really which facts am i misrepresenting?, i love a good mystery, lets see if we can find the critters shall we?. Puts on deerstalker hat and reaches for magnifieng glass.....come Watson the game is afoot!.
[quote] Trice
Scott first filed suit in 1846 and lost in 1847.[quote]
Scott brought suit against Emersons widow and heir in the circuit court in MO ( he who had bought and owned Scott in 34, moved from Mo to Ill where slavery was banned by the NWT with his slave, Scott there he purchased a wife( in Wisconson) for Scott and returned to Mo, sciott lost in 46 because he could not prove he was owned by emerson widdow,) in MO Scott using the law i said he could use, residence in another state for one year, brought suit for freedom for wife and now 2 daughters and himslef, on the basis that the owner of that property had willingly and voluntary taken his proprty onto free soil for one year, Judge agreed made everyone free in 47. Dont see how being made free counts as loseing watson......perhaps i missed something?.

Trice
A second trial was allowed by the judge.

In 1850 the MO Sc rulled he was not free. In 52 the SC of MO again rulled that the first court was wrong because it lacked jursdiction over Wisc/Ill and that the law of MO appied instead, and that ment no your not free and upheld the 5o rulling returning him the slavery.

Trice
A jury did give them their freedom on the basis of "once free, always free" , the Missouri State Supreme Court overturned that decision in 1852, ruling that Scott and his wife were still slaves because "Times now are not as they were when the previous decisions on this subject were made." Obviously, by 1852 the Missouri State Supreme Court believed that what you are claiming no longer applied, and it would appear they were referring to the uproar known as the Compromise of 1850.

No, the court upheld the 50 rulling. The courts both refernced the rule of law wherby any chattel property that had been aquired under the laws of a certain place whwere the owner was domicile, these propriotry charteristicas remain, even though the thing had been removed to another jusdiction which might otherwise establish title or distribute rights, the MO SC found 2:1 that this applied to human chattel property, goes onto other cases as being case law in Strader v Grahem also in 52, in which muscicions owned by a Ky man were hired out to Ohio and become free after stying for a year, and the owner sued the hirer for loss of proprty, and Tanney found that the NWT provision had been supresceded by Ohio state laws, and dismissed the suit for compensation, so you see after DS in 52, others were filling for freedom for residence in one state for a year and obtaining freedom.
MO SC makes no such finding as you believe, Gambon of MO said in his rulling, while not amkeing DS Free because of a lack of jursdiction to do so, "In this state, it has been recognised from the beggining of government as a correct position in law that a master who takes his slave and resides in astate or Terr for a year where slavery is prohibited, therby emancipates his slaves".
later Tanney in 57 as SCOTUS rules the SC of MO rulling a nullity because it lacks jurisdiction, says SCOTUS is the only court that has jurisdiction in these cases.

Watson, note in 57 SCOTUS upholds the right of any state to pass laws allowing freedom to slaves, it upholds that states had delegated to the constition that proprty rights in people ment untill the constition was amended, they remained, in law, property and not citizens regardless of any state law to the contary because the Constition is the supreme law.
Frankly watson, i dont think youve grasped DS as it applies in law, even Madison who commented that the negro true chartcer in the Union was property would have agreed with Tanney.
Stalks of looking for a fellow called Moriaty....falls over VA satutues at large 1795, repealled 1866"Slaves that shall herin after enter into this Commonwealth, and remain for one year, shall be free,or so long as at different times, shall amount to one year, shall be free."
slaves (blacksmiths etc) brought to work at Tredager in Va were made free after one years service during the war, hey thats after DS.

[Hanny]

Trice
The Dred Scott case was then brought to the Federal courts, starting in 1854. The Scotts lost, and the case was appealed. In 1857 the US Supreme Court presented the Dred Scott decision, declaring that everything you are saying did not apply, throwing out the laws that pointed otherwise, such as the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and the Missouri Compromise of 1820.

Different case, not an appeal at all, res juditaca ended DS suit with MO SC rulling, but did not prevent the same suit if the ownership of the property was different, and allowed the same plantiff to bring the same claim against the new owner of hier of the original owner, so not an appeal at all, so a completly new and different case began, Sandford was now the owner of Scott and was domicile in NY, DS as a citizen of Mo, DS asked for fredom on the same law i said he did, owner argued that DS was not a citizen able to bring suit in federal court, being a descendent of African negros and as such were bared from becoming citizens under the constition. Note only free citizens can bring suit, DS was being treated as if he was free by even being in court, you note further Watson that he was using the same law to ask for freedom and the defense had changed to one of constitional prevention, because of legal precedent already showing that 000 had already and still were becoming free by moving and statying in other states/terr for one year.
SC NC
state v manuel 1838
"Salves manumated here become freemen, and therfore if born in NC are citizens of NC, and all persons born within the state are born citizens of the state"

Trice
Before you start citing cases, take heed of what Chief Justice Taney said in his 1857 Opinion: "It is needless to accumulate cases on this subject." Anything you might cite from before that date is worthless in the discussion at hand because of this -- not because of me, but because of the US Supreme Court -- just as the Missouri State Court in 1852 is telling the jury and the lower Missouri Court that what went before that was now worthless. Things had changed, and you must acknowledge that -- and also realize that I was simply telling you the facts here, and well-known, long-established facts at that.

Tanney was simply stateing the constition cleary prohibts any slave from becoming a citizen in the Union, with all the rights and privaleges that brought, he simply restated what ever SC had ever rulled on this.

Tanney was clear, negros ""are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States," and that "they were at that time [of ratification] considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them."
he was not saying anything new, According to John Quincy Adams, "The condition of the blacks being in this Union regulated by the municipal laws of the separate States, the Government of the United States can neither guarantee their liberty in the States where they could only be received as slaves nor control them in the States where they would be recognized as free."
US Law Dictionary, 1857 "All natives are not citizens of the United States; the descendants of the aborigines, and those of African origin, are not entitled to rights of citizens.... [The] Constitution does not authorize any but white persons to become citizens of the United States; and it must therefore be presumed that no one is a citizen who is not white."
Every Northern state, from (except Nj and Ill) had on its books a law to allow freedom for any slave who pertioned for it after one years residence, and was granting these freedoms upto 1860, some states made citizens of them most did not, every southern state (except SC) had the same laws and was emancipating slaves on request with owners aproval for residence in a state or terr other than the owners domicle for one year, most made them citizens, some did not, upto 1865.
Facts are stubborn things, you cant be a citizen in the federal Constition if your a descendent of slaves was what Tanney was rulling, he was not rulling that any state can decide who can be a citizen of that state, the constitionn clearly tells us this is a matter for a state to determine, he was rulling that no slave has the rights of the constition even when free. And he sure was not rulling on states laws on emncipation either, which again was a matter reserved to the states.
The fact your telling me is that SCOTUS rulled that MO SC was wrong because a something had changed?, when SCOTUS plainly rulled MO SC had rulled while in error of jurisdiction, as per the judiciary act, and under the constion, which had not changed at all, property remains proprty regardless where it it is in the Union, and there is no provision in the constion to change its status in law in the constion when that propert is human chattel, so watson, note SCOTUS is not apllying any new law (whatever it is you fail to make clear btw, for the good and suffiecent reason that no such change in the law was passed no doubt) but that existing law had not changed since ratification of the Constition, property rights in people under the constition had not changed, and property cannot be a citizen of the USA, and property cannot be taken from any citizen of the states in the Union without due process are bot defined in the Constion as right. Lastly and to be clear, no DS rullings changed the ability of slaves to bring suit for freedom under the established laws in every state, for the good asimple reason that no new laws had changed that right, all that was rulled on was that when free they were state citizens, not granted the same rights as others who the constition applied to, ie whites only.

Nothing had changed, SCOTUS simply followed every SC, the SC always rulled a negro was not a citizen under the constition.
A free Black man sued for the right to vote in Pennsylvania. The State supreme court replied:
...[A] free negro or mulatto is not a citizen within the meaning of the Constitution and laws of the United States, and of the State of Pennsylvania, and, therefore, is not entitled to the right of suffrage.... But in addition to interpretation from usage, this antecedent legislation declared that no colored race was party to our social compact. Our ancestors settled the province as a community of white men; and the blacks were introduced into it as a race of slaves; whence an unconquerable prejudice of caste, which has come down to our day.... Consistently with this prejudice, is it to be credited that parity of rank would be allowed to such a race?... I have thought fair to treat the question as it stands affected by our own municipal regulations without illustration from those of other States, where the condition of the race has been still less favored. Yet it is proper to say that the second section of the fourth article of the Federal Constitution, presents an obstacle to the political freedom of the negro, which seems to be insuperable.
Chief Justice David Daggett Connecticut supreme court
The persons contemplated in this act are not citizens within the obvious meaning of that section of the Constitution of the United States which I have just read. Let me begin by putting this plain question: Are slaves citizens? At the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State was a slave State.... We all know that slavery is recognized in that Constitution; it is the duty of this court to take that Constitution as it is, for we have sworn to support it.... Then slaves were not considered citizens by the framers of the Constitution....
Are free blacks citizens?... To my mind it would be a perversion of terms, and the well known rules of construction, to say that slaves, free blacks, or Indians were citizens, within the meaning of that term as used in the Constitution. God forbid that I should add to the degradation of this race of men; but I am bound, by my duty, to say that they are not citizens.

Trice
Not according to the Missouri State Supreme Court, Federal Courts, and the US Supreme Court during the decade before the Civil War. This is all a matter of clear record you are trying to ignore, although I do not know why you would bother to make such an effort.

Bizzare, those same courts told former slaves they had to return when there master or there agent came for them, you know like the Constition tells them the must say to property, life the FSA telles everyone they must and was upheld by all states SC, so it would help if yoour posts bore even a passing relationship to fatcual reality. your posting nonsense when you claim state law trumps the constition .
Try the case of Thomas Simm, 1851, owner finds his property and obtains 300 armed deputys and the mayor, and 200 federal troops to make sure it is returned to him, sells him in Charleston, new owner takes him to Vicksburg to work as a stonemason, escapes to Grants lines in 63 and arrives back in Boston at his former home, with a special pass from Grant, in time to watch the 54th mustered into service.
the 3 places you mention all supported the return of properety and the right of a citizen to go anywhere to reclaim it.

Trice
Clearly not new to me. Again, I urge you to take heed of Chief Justice Taney's words in the Dred Scott decision: "It is needless to accumulate cases on this subject." He has already thrown out for you anything before that date in 1857, so don't bother citing anything from there. The only cases that would do you any good would have to pass through the courts AFTER Dred Scott in 1857. That only gives you the period from 1857 to 1860, so let's see what you have.

I have looked at your quote, it has no weight, bearing or practcal relavence in law, to the case or anything in particular.
Oh after DS you want, when i made no mention i was talking post DS, meerly on what grounds many gained emncipation, and on what grounds DS brought suit. Is this a attempt to frame the debate on grounds i did not chose?.
It must have esacped your notice that the state laws of emancipation were not part of the suit in DS, and therfore DS changed nothing in there regard, and your ober dicta comment is that and nothing more, a remark in passing with no weight of law, does not mean what you want it to mean and is a waste of everyones time.
It further escapes your notice that the object of stare dacis, which is to maintain legal precedent, to keep the scles of justice steady and that when any descion is contary to precedednt and maififestly unjust or absurd, it is not bad law, it is not law at all, and none are obligated to observe it. If your version is that DS changed the states laws on emcipation by aplication by slves for freedom, it would have violted natural law, legal precdent since 76, elabortaed natural law, and legal tradition going back to Magna Carta, so im afrain thats the last critter i can think off.
Just how many former slaves were returned by DS to the condition of slavery then eh?, and exactly which law was used to emncipate DS and family a few years later by Dr. Chaffee the last owner of DS, a Republcan Sn who payed for DS highly expense court courts eh?, another critters squared away watson, he made him free because he lived in a state other than the one Chafee lived in for over a year!!!.
I dont think DS is your thing, tanney followed leagal precedednt when he rulled that negros were not part of the compact and could not be citizens, Northern courts had been telling negros that for a generation. The US naturilzation laws explained that to every negro, only whites can become a citizen, and the author of the legilstion of US Citizenship said when asked later in life if the negro was inted in the PA Congress to be included as part of the all men, "I must know, and perfectly recoloct what i ment by it.In answer,i say that at the time i drew that Constition, i perfectly knew, there did not exist in the Union a black or colured citizen, nor could i then have concieved it possible such a thing could exist in it., not withstanding all that has been said on the subject,i do not know believe one exits in it" Pinckney 1821.

[quote] Trice

Not presentation, Hanny, just very mundane requests for people to back up what they say as free and open debate requires. My complaint, if any, is about your attempts to deny well-known facts, and to go off on tangents of your own while claiming I had said something I never did.

Facts always require intpretation though, some facts are more persauasive than others, and so on, so what well known fact had i denied that shines out the most then?, since my education is substainatialy different from yours, different country and generation as well i think, etc, what i take for granted you could esily see as denial of acepted wisdom.
James Randall, "the ownership of Scott and his family was technically transferred by a fictitious sale to Mrs. Chaffee's brother, J.F.A. Sanford of New York, so that an abolitionist should not appear in the Federal courts in the role of slaveowner."
Now what on 26 May 1857 happened to DS?, two months after the case, he was made free by Chaffees husband, a wealthy Republican abolitionist, who had made his political point and then agreed to emncipate DS.

[Hanny]

Cash
Not according to the 1860 Census. Which Census in particular are you referring to?

That would be the next census, or more post/prior the states emancipation, I was looking at Historical statastics of the USA when i was typing that, for much earlier than the 60 census.
Rhode Island adopted a plan of gradual abolition, by declaring that all slaves born in that State after March 1, 1784, should be free. Her census figures stand thus: 952 in 1790, 381 in 1800, 108 in 1810, 48 in 1820, 17 in 1830, and 5 in 1840.
Connecticut passed laws at the same time similar to those of Rhode Island: her slave population was 2,759 in 1790, 951 in 1800, 310 in 1810, 97 in 1820, 25 in 1830, and 17 in 1840.
New York in 1799, passed an Act making free the future issue of her slaves after the males had attained 28, and the females 25 years. Another law was adopted in 1817, declaring them free on the 4th of July, 1827. She held within her borders 21,344 in 1790, 20,343 in 1800, 15,017 in 1810, 10,088 in 1820, 75 in 1830, and 4 in 1840.
simply put, the North sold of the prime assets before the date set to make them free, leaving an unsustanable body of people to wither and die, as it lacked the wage earning part of the family group, as they, as the cenus age shows, were largely not present due to have being sold.
This is not new, it comes out of studies into why free northern blacks lived less years than whites in the years upto the war, the answer was of the unusual age range of northern free blacks, lots of yound and old, not many in mid life,means the death rate of principle age groups likly to die was over represented. Not that free blacks in the north were somewhow unable to live as long on avarage as whites.

Cash
So far you're the one who's been posting material that is contrary to the facts.

I am?, im shocked, do you want my little pinky or my first born?, perhaps my facts are not as persausive to all the facts you know and have not got around to posting, oto, maybe your just not aware of my facts, dont like the conclusion they support and simply *want* them to be unfacts.

Cash
You are aware, aren't you, that Fogel has been contradicted by a number of subsequent studies, such as Berlin and Davis? You are aware, are you not, that Fogel's methodology has been criticized because he was overly dependent on certain plantation records, which dramatically skewed his results? Seems some of his statistics can't be trusted.

You are in error in your conclusion, thats not the same as being factualy wrong, ToTC got some stick for national extrapolation from a stastistical small sampling when it first went to print, what they did not know was that the fuller detail was still being worked on and was presented in Without consent or contract, which on those specific extrapoltaiosnused state wide data sets rather than natioanl, this change of methodogy was underway to provide sharper focus but not ready for print. So you should be aware that the findings in ToTC were then refined and more detail emerged in WCOC and did not contridict TOTC meerly put it intp more clarity, and those early findings were robust enough not to require any editting in any re print since because they were broadly speaking correct, and the supporting and refining dat for that is present in the statistic addendums to each work.
So the statistics are sound, because they are very robust, dispite close scruitiny. You are of course refering to extrapolations of 000 of documented cases in one state, onto a macro picture, when pre war opinions of cruelty to slaves was based on scores of docmented cases of such from since records began, and taken to be the norm in 1860 by commentators. some things dont change.Btw subsequeant studies broadly agree with Fogel and engerman findings, they dont contradict the thrust of the premise meerly differ to the extent of its findings.
So when you say contradicted, its not that he was wrong in the broad thrust of the argument, but that the actaul level of average dietry intake per slave was not a high as he thought, but still higher than the average white, not that free farms were less efiecnt that the plantation slave farms by x but by y, and so on, not that the broad findings were wrong, in fact subsequent studies built on and improved Fogels work and made it more acurate, so contradic does not mean the oposite of what Fogel argued, only the degree of accuracy of the argument has been challenged and in some cases show to be less acurate. this was only possible because of Fogels work that ovwerturned acepted wisdom on many issues, sibsequesnt economist have built on it and, as one might except, do not always agree on the exact levl/number value etc, but they all follow the main thrust of the arguments.
Just to satisfy my curiosity, which studies specificly contradict TOC contents?, what exactly in TOTC statistics dont you trust?.

Cash
Even Thomas Jefferson broke up families. He wrote that he considered it a fair punishment for slaves who attempted to run away to sell them away from their families. A common reason for running away was being separated from their families.

No one denies some familys were broken up by sale, Jefferson on occaision sold slaves to balance his acounts at years end, but put into perspective, its rather like the same amount of people kicked to death by mules in the WBTS as a % chance of it happening to you, you know its posobilty, when it does happen to you its big news, but its not common, nor was jeferson breaking up of familys common.

Cash
Wrong again. You apparently have never heard of the "20-slave" rule. Whites who owned or oversaw at least 20 slaves were exempt from military duty in order to keep the slaves under control.

Really how is my maths on your figures wrong?. Answer that question please, dont just make statements.