Southern Aristorcracy

[Hanny]

lets see what youve now introduced now, the 20 slave rule, lets see if i can do the maths on that for you, that 62 law applied to 4/5000 whites who excerised that right to be exempt, so the 5000 exemptions from 62-65 is holding down population of 3.5 million a year, any takers on the parcitpation ratio required in a prison to maintain order?, or who about number of troops per head of population when its in a state of civil unrest?. How a about the police to population index, ie most people are willing to obey the law, so how many police do you need per head of pop when that is the case.
clearly your confused about maintaing law and order over populations.

So not wrong but more right with every post you make. Is this an example of posting material that is contary to the facts you mentioned?, you sure would be the person to know exactly what they entails.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
the prime field hand was the most under represented group of runaways, (7% of total, artisans/craftsman 80%, who were often hired out of plantation and thus had more abuility to escape)) he had no skills to be self suffiecent should he make it away, so im unsure your starting from a point of any acuracy.

Cash
He's far more accurate than you are. Field hands were laborers. They could survive by being laborers as long as they could make it to free territory.

Another fact thing i guess, as a prime field hand he earnt 15% more as a slave than did free white labourers, there is no economic advantage to being free, in fact there is the 15% loss of income, and is denied entry into any legaly binding contract to work, denied the right to stay in most states. Since the ocupation of every FSA is know, 7% of them were field hands, 80% were artisans, and field hands under represented as runaways for the very good reason that even if they escaped they had no skill base that was in demand, the free states had plenty of unskilled labour, what those states lacked/wanted was artisans and skill based people.
Which free terr do you mean?, when Wilmot did the provision for free soil he said "I would preserve to free white labour this fair country, a rich inheritance where the sons of toil, of my own race and colour, can live without the disgrace of which association with negro slavery brings upon free labour" those later states all denied them the right to do as you suggest, Ill state law, "All free Blacks were required by this law to register themselves together with the evidence of their freedom in the county where they intended to reside, and it also prohibited the employment of any Black or Mulatto who had not been so registered." On 17 January 1829, this act was supplemented by another which declared that any Blacks or Mulattoes found within the State without the necessary registration papers were to be "deemed runaway slaves," arrested by the Sheriff, and if not claimed, were to be sold "for the best price he can get." Not satisfied with these laws, the Illinois legislature passed yet another act "to prevent the immigration of free negroes into this state" and added that any Black person found in violation of this law should be fined and sold into temporary servitude to pay the fine and cost of prosecution. Thus, as one writer put it, Negroes "seeking homes on the prairies... were put upon the block." The provisions of this statute were finally added to the State constitution in 1862 with these words: "No negro or mulatto shall immigrate or settle in this state after the adoption of the constitution." In 1863, the supreme court of Illinois declared that the purpose of these laws was "to prevent the influx of that most unacceptable population."
1857 constitution for Oregon:
No free negro or mulatto not residing in this State at the adoption of this constitution, shall come, reside, or be within this State, or hold any real estate, or make any contracts, or maintain any suit therein; and the legislative assembly shall provide by penal laws for the removal by public officers of all such negroes and mulattoes, and for their effectual exclusion from this State, and for the punishment of persons who shall bring them into the State, or employ or harbor them.

Free soil means free from negros and the unfair wage competition of them as slaves,Stephen Douglas was merely stating an historical fact when he declared in 1858 that "this Government was established on the white basis. It was made by white men, for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and never should be administered by any except white men." And only the white men amending the constition changed that to include non whites.

Cash
Slaves in the seceded states normally needed a Union army close by in order to take the chance of running away. This is due to the fact that the slave patrols were still intact, and there were still armed whites on the lookout to keep the slaves in line.

Nice avoidence of any use of maths,are you tired of shooting your own argument down with your own numbers?. So how many of these slave patrols and armed whites are there then?, is that why the CSA armys are so small dispite having a extrodinary high call up ration of white males to them?. Who exactly makes up this untapped hidden army of armed whites?, one would normaly asume that since most had been called up for war service this uber secret army would be at most 10% of what it had been right?. Or if your logic for enyering the 20:1 slave rule holds for you whole line of argument, there must be 175,000 men in the slave patrols and exemption, since 20:1 is the intent of the act to allow coercion of 20 by 1 white, so when the CSA armies were being bled dry, you claim there was a vast reservior of armed whites holding down the negro poulation, and it must be 175k or so to hold down 3.5 million, so how comes no book ever mentions this level of misuse of human resource by the south?.
whats your best guess to what would happen if 90% of US open prison gaurds left, how many unwilling prisoners would also leave? and how would the remaining 10% of guards prevent them?.

Cash

Like I said before, you are apparently unaware of the "20-slave" rule. There was an intact system to keep the slaves under control, which is why the slaves didn't take the risk of running away unless there was a Union army in the area.

Nope, not unaware, it just does not support any practibale argument that it operated in the manner of coercion you suggest, it is only possible to conclude that millions of people were apathetic or unwilling to do anything about the condition, because the level of pyshical coercion precludes holding them down by force, because there simply was too few to do so. The 1;20 rule is the ratio of how many whites are required to coerce negros right, thats one intent of the act, that implies 100k population base to be coerced. whats the rational for the millions of others who dont need to be coerced?. If as you say the slave patrols were intact, why have the 20;1 exemption law passed in the first place?, your line of reasoning, is unsound, and the maths behind it, frankly absurd.

[Hanny]

Cash
Do you just make this stuff up as you go along?

Odd you of all people should ask that. The answer is of course no, i post mostly from USA/Uk education works used to teach. The numbers i use are those of the US Census, who provide the 1850 mullatto figure of 7.7% and 10.4% in 1860 of total negro population, which then is used in us educationto expalin, " The fact that between the 23 decades between 1620 and 1850 of contact between whites and balcks, only 7.7% of the slaves were mullattoes suggests that on average only a very small % of any slaves born each year were fathered by white men. This inference is not contradicted by the rise by one third during the last decade of the antelbelum period to 10.4 as it must be remebered that the mullattoes wer the progoney of not just white and pure black but of unions of mullattoes and blacks. under common definition, a person with 1/8 ancestory of another race was a mullattoe. Consequeantly the ofspring of two slaves each who were each 1/8 white was classified as a mullattoe, as was the ofspring of any slave, regradless of the ancestry of his or her mate, whose granfather was white. a demographic model of the slave population is presented in the technical appendix shows the US Census data on mullattoes cannot be used to sustain the convention that a large proprtion of slave children must have been fathed by white men.
This is supported by gentic studies, i have Sforza and Openhiemrs who show 1-2% admixture of gentic transfer between cacasian and negros. This which i also refered to, and you dont understand, my use of a phylogeography term, its the level of genitic drift of genes between two groups over time, and i should have perhaps made that more clear as there is no reasson why you should undertand it. The amount of caucasion genes present in afro Americans is remakable small, the all white pop of the Uk has the same level of negro genes for instance, and we have not been negroid for 40,000 years. Humans are not fruit flys, it takes a along time for genitic material levels to change between isolated groups when brought together again, once you have the gene and donmt use it, it just goes dormant, we have women what we call english rose complexion, meaning that they burn easy in the sun, because they lack the specic gene to tell the skin to tan, because they lack the ancestry to have included that in ther gentic make up. The number of human life spans between 1860 and 2007 is really rather small, to small to see genitic drift in a menagingful manner.
this is the kind of thing im talking about.
http://www.bioethics.umn.edu/afrgen/...genealogy.html

Cash
"According to Mark Shriver, professor of genetics and anthropology at the [Penn State] university, DNA testing reveals that 5 percent of white Americans have some African ancestry and 60 percent of black Americans have white bloodlines."
http://www.wralpheubanks.com/work4.htm
"The majority of black Americans have white ancestry dating from the time of slavery."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ma/blacks.html

lets look at what youve found, you did read those links right? which isnt really what i was talking about but lets not quibble and play with what we have got. Its a maths question actually from zero inter breeding to 60% of ancestory who did, from 1620-2007.
From 1620 to 1860 the rise was to 10%, and from then to now its 60%. So in the first 240 years you got 10% admixture, and since the war, 150 years this increases to 60%.
i dont disagree with that in broad terms, since it contradicts nothing i posted, im unsure what else to say, its taken 400 years to get 60% of people haveing some mixed ancestry, hardly a sprint, more of a slow walk, and upto the war was a crawl on all fours.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1711650,00.html
Mark Shriver, an assistant professor of anthropology and genetics at Penn State university, conducts geographical genetic tests on his students among others. He describes himself as white but his own tests reveal that his DNA is 86% white but also 11% west African and 3% indigenous American.
http://multiracial.com/site/content/view/451/27/
Dr. Mark D. Shriver
Among the other sixteen team-members and collaborators of this study, who work for colleges and private research laboratories throughout the United States, Canada, and England, is Dr. Rick Kittles, a geneticist at Howard University in Washington DC (see photograph below). The study analyzed DNA samples from 3,000 individuals in 25 locations. In the graph above, the vertical scale does not represent susceptibility to any specific disease. Instead, individuals were plotted bottom-to-top based upon how dark was the person’s complexion (as measured by the reflectance of the inner upper arm). Darker individuals are plotted higher than paler ones. The team’s intent was to see if dermal melanin correlated with percentage of African genetic admixture, and so might be a predictor of, say, skin cancer. The cloud of points displays a visibly distinct slope rising from lower-left to upper-right. This demonstrates that, in general, the more African genetic admixture you have, the darker your skin.[11]
Note that Shrivers data sample is lower thatn ones you say in Fiogel that are from a larger sample and are untrustworthy.

Afro-European Genetic Admixture as a Function of Ethnicity[13]
In the scatter diagram above, each point (representing one individual) is plotted vertically to depict Afro-European genetic admixture (100 percent European at the top) and horizontally into four groups representing endogamous group membership or ethnicity. The groups, from left to right, are: 147 Americans of the White endogamous group, 264 Americans of the Black endogamous group, 135 subjects from Zaire (formerly Congo), and 159 subjects from Nigeria.[14]
Three points of interest present themselves upon your examining this graph. First, as in the prior chart, there is genetic admixture overlap between Americans of the Black and White endogamous groups within the range of from zero to thirty percent African genetic admixture. As in the Shriver study of skin tone, some so-called “White” Americans have over twenty percent African genetic admixture and some so-called “Black” Americans have little or none. Indeed, other studies have found that approximately 5.5 percent of members of the U.S. Black community have no detectable African genetic admixture.[15]
Second, the Black and White groups are not symmetrical. The mean African admixture among White Americans is low—roughly 0.7 percent African and 99.3 percent European admixture.[16] To put this in perspective, this would have been the result if every member of the U.S. White endogamous group alive today had a single ancestor of one hundred percent African genetic admixture seven generations ago (around the year 1850). Of course, African alleles are not distributed evenly. Seventy percent of White Americans (like 5.5 percent of Blacks) have no detectable African genetic admixture at all. Among the thirty percent of Whites with African genetic admixture, the admixture ratio averages to about 2.3 percent, the equivalent of having a single ancestor of one hundred percent African genetic admixture from around the year 1880.[17] Black Americans, on the other hand, have significant European admixture (averaging about 75 percent African and 25 percent European).
I urge you nto read what shriver actualy sdoes say, not reply on a para quote by someone else on what he says.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
The US laws says the women who bear children become slaves. The probable white on blacks producing ofspring in the south was under 1% of all births using availble census data, and it was ilegal top do it btw, and the social stigma of it in the planation cirles means they were less likly to be the ones doing it, negro prosititutes numbers in southern cities pre war are almost non existant, they numbers of poor white prostitutes was considerable, showing what was in demand, ie not negros.

Cash
Wrong on all counts. First of all the US law at the time said that the status of the children depended on the status of the mother. If the mother was free, the child was free. If the mother was a slave, the child was a slave. Mothers who bore children weren't enslaved.

Yes thats what i said. The question asked was what happens to the children of slave women iirc, and thats what i answered. its easy to say im wrong when you dont reacall the question being asked and only look and the answer given, but it does say a lot about more about you, than it syas about the acuracy of the comment you refer to.

Cash
As to the number of births producing offspring, your position is contradicted by the people who saw it firsthand.

How does a limted number ( in proportion to total numbers involved) of first hand acounts of mixed blood children, which number as a % of the US population is shown in US census data to be, so a number value of it can be adduced, mean my maths is wrong?. Whats next, Jesus walked on water because we have an eye witness acount says they saw it?, is superior to the laws of science?. The census data shows how many mixed race chlidren were born in any year, how many eye witness acounts does it take to make that data wrong in the land you like to call reality?.
So you introduced a nice link and some numbers, and told me i was wrong, when i posted "The probable white on blacks producing ofspring in the south was under 1% of all births using availble census data" and your evidence im wrong shows that number to be far slmaller than i suggested, i must get a US dictionary, because wrong sure dont mean what you keep telling me it means in the rest of the english speaking world.
simple question, if its under 1% per year as i said but lets use 1%, how comes in 400 years the total mixed ancestry is only 60%?, any maths you want to use to show why i was wrong would be apreciated, if you cant, please refarin from entering evidence that supports what i say and claim it shows im wrong.
Lastly, when you bclaimed that fogels sample base was critiscoed because it was to small, your apparantly are happy to ignore the census record of every person born and their parentage contained in the US Cenus data, because of the number of eye witness acounts contradict the mths this show to be the case, best you forget pointing out what others statistics limitations were, because you sir, are using a far smaller sample base to support your claim that fogel was.

cash post 135 and 136

I shall ignore for you say nothing,and an im right your wrong match serves no usfull purpose i can think off, its why you have come to such concluiosns thats only of intrest. ill just point out one thing though,

While Fogel did some good work, his methodology was flawed because he was overly dependent on a couple large plantations.
What is really that simple is that Stampp has stood the test of time, Fogel's methodology has been exposed as flawed, which is why many of his statistics can't be used, although his book isn't entirely worthless either.

The several oo of planations used prodoced 90% of the nations cotton, there was nothing wrong with this methodolgy.

[Hanny]

Trice This is about as misleading and incomplete a use of a few statistics as I have seen in years. I have to assume you went no further than a quick glance at a table somewhere, and decided nothing more was needed to understand the facts.

US War Deopt record of negro enlistment into service and time acepted into service, and returns in service during the war period is the record i used, you know the one you used to get 18ok negros soldiers without bothering to look at what date the Union had x anumber of negro soldiers and where they came from.

To begin with, you seem to have the impression that the number of colored troops listed next to a state name means the men enlisted came from that state.

No i dont do impresions, i gave US War Dept figures.

Now I am sure you know that the 15-49 age group is larger than normal military age for that day and time, so please explain how these states were credited with substantially more enlistments for USCT than they had age 15-49 Black males in their territory at the start of the Civil War. Where did the men, non-existent according to the 1860 Census, come from?

Thats because enlistments into USCT was not based on citizenship of a state. so your not even in the ball park, each regiment acepted any negro into its ranks, necause they were not state raised regiments.The 1st Kansas Coloured Volunteers, the first coloured regiment raised in a northern state, though most of it’s recruits were escaped slaves from a southern state, Missouri, became the 79th USCT, for instance.54th Massachusetts Infantry. Formed in May 1863, it being the second coloured regiment raised in a northern state, the regiment actively recruited in Canada West and had many canuck free negros, since over a 1000 free men of cour from canadia served in all thge USCT they alone go a long waty to showing what you think is an oddity for you, The 38th U.S.C.T compised of slaves from Va, NC and free men of color


Adult Total population Male population population over 10 years 10 to 49 years
-
All races 9,101,450 6,299,697 2,837,819 Confederate states Border states 3,211,897 2,235,217 1,019,340 Free Union states 19,086,250 13,846,835 6,128,138 Total 31,399,597 22,381,749 9,985,297 Whites Confederate states 5,447,220 3,779,721 1,712,064 Border states 2,650,243 1,849,012 850,552 Free Union states 18,860,008 13,675,972 6,057,644 Total 26,957,471 19,304,705 8,620,259 Slaves Confederate states 3,521,470 2,425,751 1,088,464 Border states 432,586 291,043 131,708 Total 3,954,056 2,716,794 1,220,172 FreeL blacks Confederate states 132,760 94,225 37,291 Border states 129,068 95,162 37,080 Free Union states 226,242 170,863 70,494 Total 488,070 360,250 144,866 Note: Border states are Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri.
Source: Table A.6.1.
initial manpower edge of better than 3 : 1. This advantage would become even greater when the Union eventually began to enlist blacks, including freed slaves, to fight against the South.33 A final element in the balance of manpower between the two sides were the 850,000 potential soldiers who lived in the border states (Figure 6.1). Both sides eagerly sought to tap this valuable manpower resource.
Although we can only guess where these men served, it is likely that no more than 3° percent went to the South while 7° percent went to the North. This would add about 25°,000 men to the southern pool and
33 By the end of the war, almost 200,000 blacks were serving in the armed services of the United States. Of that total, about half were southern blacks (Hattaway and Jones, How the North Won, p. 17).


Very clearly you dont actualy know much about USCT, try here and get back to me with a better argument.


http://www.coax.net/people/lwf/usct.htm

CIVIL WAR SOLDIERS AND SAILORS SYSTEM
SEARCH BY SOLDIER'S NAME

SEARCH REGIMENTS



Approximately 164 regiments, 10 batteries of light artillery, independent units, Pioneer Corps, and unassigned USCT units were organized in the Confederate States by the Union Army or as state militia in the North. The vast majority were redesignated as United States Colored Troops after the establishment of the Bureau of Colored Troops on May 22, 1863. NOTE: The 29th Connecticut Infantry Regiment, 54th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment, 55th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment, and the 5th Massachusetts Colored Cavalry Regiment maintained State designations throughout the war.

Between 178,000 and 200,000 Black enlisted and White officers served under the Bureau of Colored Troops which was established by General Order No. 143 on May 22, 1863.

Approximately 94,000 men were ex-slaves from states that had seceded from the Union. Approximately 44,000 were ex-slaves or freemen from the border states, and the remainder were recruited from the northern states and the Colorado Territory, many who were ex-slaves that went north on the Underground Railroad.

Charles Tyler Trowbridge was said to have been the first person to enlist Colored soldiers in the Union Army. He did so in the Spring of 1862 while serving on the staff of General David Hunter, during the organizing of the 1st South Carolina Volunteers. The unit was not mustered into the Union Army and was disbanded in August 1862, except for one company, and was re-organized later in the Fall of 1862.

The Cincinnati Black Brigade was organized in September 1862. The men served in three regiment for three weeks. Unarmed and without uniforms, the men built roads and fortifications in Northern Kentucky.

The Louisiana Native Guards were the first black soldiers to be officially mustered into the Union Army.

First engagement against the Confederates occurred on October 27 & 28, 1862 at Island Mound, Missouri by the 1st Kansas Colored Volunteer Regiment before being mustered into service. The regiment was organized in August 1862, mustered into service January 13, 1863, and later redesignated the 79th United States Colored Infantry Regiment. Most of the enlisted men were ex-slaves from Arkansas and Missouri.

The second engagement involved the 1st South Carolina Colored Volunteers at Township, Florida on January 26, 1863.

The largest number of regiments were organized in the following States: Louisiana - 36 regiments (approximately); Kentucky - 21 regiments; Tennessee - 18 regiments; and Mississippi - 11 regiments.

Louisiana furnished 24,000 men; Kentucky - 23,000 men; Tennessee - 20,000 men; and Mississippi - 18,000 men.

The 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry Regiment was mustered into service on May 13, 1863, approximately eight months after muster in of the Louisiana Native Guards.

Numerous men from the Midwest and border states along with ex-slaves from the south traveled great distances to enlist and serve with the 54th and 55th Massachusetts Infantry Regiments, and the 5th Massachusetts Colored Cavalry Regiment.

The United States Colored Troops participated in 449 engagements of which 39 were major battles.

Eight regiments from Louisiana fought at Port Hudson, Louisiana from May 22 to July 8, 1863.

The 9th Louisiana Volunteers, 11th Louisiana Volunteers and the 1st Mississippi Volunteers suffered extremely heavy losses during the Battle of Milliken's Bend, Louisiana, June 5 thru 7, 1863. (The units were redesignated respectively the 5th U.S. Colored Heavy Artillery Regiment, 49th and 51st U.S. Colored Infantry Regiments.)

One of the most significant engagements in the West occurred on July 17, 1863 during the Battle of Honey Springs, Indian Territory. The approximately 3,000 Union force included the 1st Kansas Colored Volunteer Regiment, the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Indian Home Guard Regiments, and white State Militia units against approximately 6,000 mostly Texas Confederates. Other American Indian units also fought with the Confederates. The Confederate forces were defeated.

The Union forces were defeated during the Battle of Olustee, Florida on February 20, 1864. Heavy losses were suffered by the 8th U.S. Colored Infantry Regiment, 35th U.S. Colored Infantry Regiment, and the 54th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment.

Over 10,000 U.S. Colored Troops were recruited and trained at Camp Nelson, Kentucky. Thousands of ex-slaves gained their freedom at the camp and the Union Army established a refugee camp for these individuals throughout the war.

Hundreds of Afro-British North Americans from Canada enlisted in 19 regiments of the United States Colored Troops. Others came from the Caribbean and some African countries.

Twenty-two regiments of U.S. Colored Troops participated in the Siege of Petersburg, Virginia from June 15, 1864 to April 2, 1865.

Thirteen U. S. Colored Infantry along with white units engaged the enemy at Chapin's (Chaffin's) Farm, Virginia on September 29 and 30, 1864. Thirteen members on the U. S. Colored Infantry Regiments were awarded the Medal of Honor.

The 5th United States Colored Cavalry Regiment suffered losses of 114 enlisted and 4 officers during the Battle of Saltville, Virginia on October 2, 1864.

The 3rd United States Colored Cavalry Regiment (organized in Memphis and northern Mississippi as the 1st Mississippi Colored Cavalry) participated in the second Grierson Raid from Memphis, Tennessee to Vicksburg, Mississippi commencing on December 21, 1864 and ending on January 13, 1865. Brigadier General Benjamin H. Grierson led three Brigades on this successful expedition.

Harriet Tubman, a nurse, spy and scout, formerly a conductor on the Underground Railroad has been described as "the head of the intelligence service in the Department of the South" and as "the only American woman to lead troops black or white on the field of battle." The South Carolina raid under the command of Colonel James Montgomery and led by Harriet Tubman destroyed millions of dollars worth of commissary stores and cotton... and freed over 800 slaves and confiscated thousands of dollars worth of property.

Eleven regiments of United States Colored Troops (8 from Louisiana, 1 from Mississippi, 1 from Missouri, and 1 organized in Louisiana and Mississippi) fought in the Mobile, Alabama Campaign (Battle of Fort Blakely) from March 31 to April 9, 1865. Two of the regiments served in an engineer brigade under the headquarters command

Orders was issued on December 3, 1864 authorizing the formation of the Twenty-Fifth United States Army Corps. The Corps was the first and only Army Corps in the history of the country made up almost entirely of black infantry regiments, 30 U.S. Colored Infantry Regiments. In addition, 2 U. S. Colored Cavalry Regiments and a Battery of U. S. Colored Light Artillery was assigned to the Corps.

On April 9, 1865, three U. S. Colored Infantry Regiments from the Twenty-Fifth United States Army Corps (29th, 31st, and 116th) were positioned along the advance line of 17 Union regiments that moved from the west towards Appomattox Courthouse, Virginia to prevent the Confederate forces from escaping westward. Three other U. S. Colored Infantry Regiments (8th, 41st, and 45th) also assigned to the Corps were positioned in the rear.

Thirty-six Black Confederates, mostly slaves were paroled at Appomattox on April 9, 1865.

The 62nd U. S. Colored Infantry Regiment (Missouri) participated in the last major engagement of the Civil War at Palmetto Ranch, Texas on May 15, 1865, over a month after General Lee's surrender at Appomattox, Virginia.

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by ole

Ditto. Don't forget Hanny. I'll even toss in Battalion, although it's not often I can determine where he's coming from.

Without these stalwarts, we'd have no reason to question our own convictions. This board would devolve into a mutual admiration society and I'd be having a nap now.

I'll drink to that.
Ole

Thank you Ole, emagine the chaos a Bttn of Hannys thrown in would cause!!.

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by cash

Their labor was stolen from them and used for the benefit of someone else. They weren't compensated for that labor. It doesn't matter if someone somewhere else was worked to death, they were still being exploited.

Poor whites, when they worked, at least were compensated for their labor, and they supported the slave system.

Regards,
Cash

Exploitaion is the basis of every market economy, it cannot function with exploitation.

"$20 mainatance allowance" a slave comes from the attempts by economist to work out white per capia incomes for whites, its the $ value in 1840 in Goodman/meyers study of 1958, its the $ value given to slaves as the cost of income to slaves from pecuniary rewards by owners per annum, cost of tools, housing and food and clothing.

"If slaves are included as income earners, the level of per capita income in the South would be 25-35% less than figure 3:2 shows, slaves recieved a substitance allowance as income, which is taken to worth $20 per year in the estimates of figure 3:2. If we allow for this substitance, the two measures of income gives some idea of the exploitative order of magnitude of slaves by there white master."
Conflict and Comprimise: The social and Political economy of slavery, Emancipation and the US Civil war.
later studies goes on to show that in 57 this $ value was $30 per annum, $40 in 1870 as sthe negros avareage per capita income, and so on.

inother words slaves were expoited and recieved $20-30 compesation for this exploitation,k and when free, recieved $40, justa different set of whites reaped the expoitative income they generated, not white labour lords, but white land lords, whoi happened to not be southern citizens as when they were slaves.

[Ozark Iron John]

Originally Posted by trice

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.

I have studied history. Alot. Alot more than most folks I know.

I'm sorry for "dat cotton" comment. That was my sarcastic attempt at humor.

I have studied people too. Southern People. Agricultural People.

Farmers take care of their stuff. All of their stuff. Just how many of you all have driven down a country road and seen a farmer's tractor rolled over in the ditch or the roof blown off of his barn? Not too many I imagine. If you did, you probably saw said farmer out their working hard to get that $25,000 tractor or $50,000 barn right or fixed. How much more do you think they care for their livestock? Animal husbandry is a science as well as an art and farmers take it seriously. They CARE about their stuff.

Just how much more so do you think they CARED about their slaves? Alot! Alot More!

I don't cater to that line "they beat and mutilated their slaves". I don't beleive it. I think its revisionist BS designed to garner sympathy for the freedman.

Sure it was tough being a slave in the United States of America. Heck, it was tough being a citizen. It was even tougher to be a woman. I ain't saying they didn't have to work hard. I'm saying considering time and circumstance, it weren't all that bad. Compared to their black brothern in the Carribbean, they had it pretty good.

That's my main point. People want to compare the black African slaves to their poor white neighbors and their Southern Aristocratic owners. I want to compare 'em to those other black African slaves brought to the New World. 5% of the black African slaves sold into bondage by their black African brothers in Africa and sent to the New World ended up HERE! 95% of 'em ended up in the West Indies and Central and South America. Yet all we here about is how bad them that ended up here had it. BS! They had it good and ought to thank their lucky stars.

[Battalion]

Originally Posted by cash

Slavery was an issue for the vast majority of the confederate soldiers. It may have not been an issue for a few soldiers, but the evidence we have indicates even those few soldiers agreed that slavery should be maintained, even if it wasn't an issue for them.

Regards,
Cash

Neo-Radical BS.

The "evidence"-

Prof. Chandra Manning looks thru thousands of Confederate letters (no doubt with some assistance from students) and finds 1 or 2% that mention slavery...and voila-....a book....

I've read many letters written by Confederates and do not remember a single one that mentioned slavery as a cause.

[cash]

Originally Posted by Texas2nd

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

The soldiers had no problem imagining it. Read Chandra Manning's _What This Cruel War Was Over._

Regards,
Cash

[cash]

Originally Posted by 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.

The majority of the legal system was set up to negate those so-called "laws to protect slaves." Slaves couldn't testify against whites, so if the overseer or master broke the so-called "laws" he couldn't be prosecuted unless another white person was willing to testify against him--hardly likely.

The fact is the master had absolute control over a slave and could do with a slave whatever he wished, and the law would let him get away with doing whatever he wished.

Originally Posted by Texas2nd

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.

What is "excessive" whipping and beating?

Originally Posted by Texas2nd

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

The best comparison for someone who wants to defend slavery, I suppose. It was far more than just a simple caste system. It was a brutal, violent system of racial subjugation. Moreover, it was a system designed to enrich some people at the expense of others.

Regards,
Cash

[cash]

Originally Posted by Hanny

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.

As I pointed out, Fogel had methodology problems that negate much of your argument, and scholars like Berlin agree with Stampp and support his conclusions.

"Slavery was about domination, and of necessity it rested on coercion. The murders, beatings, mutilations, and humiliations, both petty and great, were an essential, not incidental, part of the system. To be sure, one could dwell upon the wild, maniacal sadism of some frenzied slave owners who lashed, traumatized, raped, and killed their slaves; the record of such lurid tales is full. But perhaps it would be more instructive to underscore the cool, deliberate actions of, say, Robert 'King' Carter, the largest slaveholder in colonial Virginia, who petitioned and received permission from the local court to lop the toes off his runaways; or William Byrd, the founder of one of America's great families, who forced an incontinent slave boy to drink a 'pint of pi$$'; or Thomas Jefferson, who calmly reasoned that the greatest punishment he could inflict upon an incorrigible fugitive was to sell him away from his kin. Without question, the history of slavery is the story of victimization, brutalization, and exclusion; it is the story of the power of liberty, of a people victimized and brutalized." [Ira Berlin, "Coming to Terms With Slavery in Twenty-First Century America," in James O. Horton and Lois E. Horton, eds., _Slavery and Public History: The Tough Stuff of American Memory,_ p. 6]

Regards,
Cash