Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
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.
What makes you think it's 1% or 2%?
You obviously have only read a few letters, despite your claim to the contrary.
The numbers and information that Fogel produced in 1974 have been critiqued and addressed as faulty time and again. I personally would not put any faith in the veracity of that book.
Actually, the book is pretty good on the whole. There are some parts of it that are weak due to the methodology, but most of the book is solid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas2nd
You are treating slavery as merely a moral issue and frankly, you're judging by today's standards, not those of 1860. Everything I've read agrees that American bondage must be placed in the framework of the time. That is not a defense it's realism.
Then you should understand that the vast majority of the world, and the majority of the United States at the time knew that slavery was immoral. Robert E. Lee called it a "moral and political evil." The attempt to deflect criticism of slavery by claiming it's judging by today's standards is one of the weakest because it's completely wrong and ahistorical. Why do you think Jefferson wrote that he trembled for his country when he contemplated that God is just and his justice could not sleep for long?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas2nd
The Union treaded heavily on it's moral right to eradicate slavery through war... after the war started. There was plenty of time before the war to have eradicated slavery if that was the true purpose. That did not happen.
Texas2nd
Non sequitur. It wasn't the Union who seceded. The confederates were the ones who seceded and started the war, and they told us they did so in order to protect slavery.
Wild deviation here, for which I'll apologize in advance -- but I'm gonna do it anyway. If there was no slavery in Illinois or Wisconsin. How was a wife for Dred Scott purchased?
Larry, I do not fail to grasp your point, I merely disagree with it, that in which you state that I have grossly over generalized the reasons southern soldiers went to war.
When I make my claim that the majority of southern soldiers fought in support of slavery, the institution and the maintaining thereof, I am not trying to detract from their honor or their bravery. No man, from the North or South, past or present, can ever do so.
I get the impression that many on this board who have sympathy for the southern soldier, seem to think that I am calling all of these men 'evil' because of their support of slavery, active or inactive, something they viewed as normal, right, and justified. They were not. They were products of their time and culture.
You make an observation that an unsuspecting reader may assume that all participants in the war were walking about worrying about slavery. Larry, how often do you think about Federal Income Taxes? Gasoline prices? The War in Iraq? The upcoming Presidental election? Not every waking moment of every day. None of us do.
I am also very sure that the ordinary soldier, be he from the North or the South, was much more concerned about his next meal, the quality of the meat he saw all too rarely and the number of worms in his hardtack. He more than likely was concerned about his pay, drill, how stupid his officers and NCOs were, if he got a letter from home and a death in the family. No, they didn't eat, sleep and breath it every day of their lives, but it brought them to the war, it concerned them enough to comment and place themselves on record how they felt and how things should be.
But in the end, getting down to the question they were taking up arms and killing their fellow countrymen, they cannot escape the reasoning for secession and the concern they had for their families or society concerning the continuence of the institution. It was a factor in their daily lives, whether they owned slaves or not, whether they saw them or not on a daily basis.
While it may not have commanded their every thought or directed their every action, it was a part of the fabric in their lives, the war, and the consequences of such. In my own opinion, the largest factor.
I agree that many men, from their own individual perspectives, with honor and thoughts of home and family, fought to protect their way of life. But the evidence must include slavery as an underlying factor to all of the above. For I truly believe without slavery in the South, not one gun would have been taken from any mantle of any Southern home.
I wish to further state that I think your intent is to suspend history, but that your view on it is different from mine. We have known each other too long to apologize for our differences and views and that neither of us need concern ourselves with soothing words to cover long-established convictions. My respect for you runs too deep for that. Honest differences are just that, in my opinion, honest.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Wild deviation here, for which I'll apologize in advance -- but I'm gonna do it anyway. If there was no slavery in Illinois or Wisconsin. How was a wife for Dred Scott purchased?
From the Dred Scott v. Sanford Supreme Court case:
=====
In the year 1834, the plaintiff was a negro slave belonging to Dr. Emerson, who was a surgeon in the army of the United States. In that year, 1834, said Dr. Emerson took the plaintiff from the State of Missouri to the military post at Rock Island, in the State of Illinois, and held him there as a slave until the month of April or May, 1836. At the time last mentioned, said Dr. Emerson removed the plaintiff from said military post at Rock Island to the military post at Fort Snelling, situate on the west bank of the Mississippi river, in the Territory known as Upper Louisiana, acquired by the United States of France, and situate north of the latitude of thirtysix degrees thirty minutes north, and north of the State of Missouri. Said Dr. Emerson held the plaintiff in slavery at said Fort Snelling, from said lastmentioned date until the year 1838.
In the year 1835, Harriet, who is named in the second count of the plaintiff's declaration, was the negro slave of Major Taliaferro, who belonged to the army of the United States. In that year, 1835, said Major Taliaferro took said Harriet to said Fort Snelling, a military post, situated as hereinbefore stated, and kept her there as a slave until the year 1836, and then sold and delivered her as a slave at said Fort Snelling unto the said Dr. Emerson hereinbefore named. Said Dr. Emerson held said Harriet in slavery at said Fort Snelling until the year 1838.
In the year 1836, the plaintiff and said Harriet at said Fort Snelling, with the consent of said Dr. Emerson, who then claimed to be their master and owner, intermarried, and took each other for husband and wife. Eliza and Lizzie, named in the third count of the plaintiff's declaration, are the fruit of that marriage. Eliza is about fourteen years old, and was born on board the steamboat Gipsey, north of the north line of the State of Missouri, and upon the river Mississippi. Lizzie is about seven years old, and was born in the State of Missouri, at the military post called Jefferson Barracks.
In the year 1838, said Dr. Emerson removed the plaintiff and said Harriet and their said daughter Eliza, from said Fort Snelling to the State of Missouri, where they have ever since resided.
Before the commencement of this suit, said Dr. Emerson sold and conveyed the plaintiff, said Harriet, Eliza, and Lizzie, to the defendant, as slaves, and the defendant has ever since claimed to hold them and each of them as slaves.
=====
In the decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the US Congress had no power to prohibit slavery, to declare a Negro a citizen, or to interfere with the property right of slavery for a citizen moving about in the country. It thus threw out any such provisions in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and the Missouri Compromise of 1820: meaning that slavery had always been permitted in the Federal territory there before they became states, and that a slave-owning citizen of one state could not be deprived of his ownership of a slave by another state (such as Illinois) when he brought his slave into it.
In addition, the sale of Harriet from Major Taliaferro to Dr. Emerson appears to have taken place at a Federal military post, or at least while they were both serving at Fort Snelling. This was in a Federal Territory, not a State, as well as at a Federal military post. Since part of the ruling was that the US Congress could not interfere with individual slave property rights anywhere, any existing laws or regulations prohibiting slavery or slave transactions would have been declared null and void by the decision.
Rhode Island in 1790: 958 slaves, 3,484 free blacks.
Rhode Island in 1800: 380 slaves, 3,304 free blacks.
Rhode Island in 1810: 108 slaves, 3,609 free blacks.
Rhode Island in 1820: 48 slaves, 3,554 free blacks.
Rhode Island in 1830: 17 slaves, 3,561 free blacks.
Rhode Island in 1840: 5 slaves, 3,238 free blacks.
Rhode Island in 1850: 0 slaves, 3,670 free blacks.
You obviously have only read a few letters, despite your claim to the contrary.
Regards,
Cash
The number of letters I've read over the years would be well into the hundreds. I don't recall one that described slavery as a cause for fighting. Most letters speak of personal matters but when a cause was mentioned...defending the South against invasion was it....period.
1%-2% is a guess based on my own accounting of slavery as a causeat 0%.
~
Manning's book is just another Yankee con-job in academic wrappings.
She will be well received in the neo-Radical academic world.
Nope. While it might have happened in the first few years, there just aren't enough slaves available to be "Sold down the river" to have such an impact after 1800. As noted in Cash's post that you quoted from:
Rhode Island in 1790: 958 slaves, 3,484 free blacks.
Rhode Island in 1800: 380 slaves, 3,304 free blacks.
Rhode Island in 1810: 108 slaves, 3,609 free blacks.
Rhode Island in 1820: 48 slaves, 3,554 free blacks.
Rhode Island in 1830: 17 slaves, 3,561 free blacks.
Rhode Island in 1840: 5 slaves, 3,238 free blacks.
Rhode Island in 1850: 0 slaves, 3,670 free blacks.
Also as noted, Rhode Island passed a state law banning sales of slaves out of the state in 1799. I know that several of the states that adopted a gradual emancipation practice (such as NY-NJ-PA) passed such laws a few years after the emancipation was voted in.
So yes, there probably were some sales out of state in the first few years when it was legal, and close to nothing after that.
So perhaps a few hundred were sold out-of-state before 1800. After 1800, the numbers given flatly deny your point. Some other factor, probably economic or political/social, must account for the population figures given.
There was considerable racial tension in the state in those days. Blacks were stripped of their voting rights in the 1820s, but regained them after Black militia helped retain order during the Dorr Rebellion (1842?). Look at the population figures and you will see that black population dropped in the 1820s and 1830s, when they were being harrassed and denied rights -- and rose by several hundred for 1850, when their rights were re-established. In short, the Black population was acting like normal free people, seeking opportunity and justice.
by Texas2nd
Also, I have a hard time imagining that 75% who had "no direct economic benefit" fighting and dying for slavery.
Well it all depends on what you mean by direct economic benifit. If you take a narrow view that the % of slave owners only benifited from slaves output, you clearly get a low number of individuals benifiting, (higher in deep south states and lower the furthwer North you go) while the larger by far majority is excluded from this wealth generation. Two things, firstly the family was the basic unit, so rather than slaves per person, we would be btter asigning slaves per family as the basic metric, this of course makes the range of slave ownership in society a larger value, but it is more acurate as it reflect socity better, secondly, by taking a norrow view that only owners benifited, it ignores the vast number of slaves hired out to non slave owners who lease their output and thus make profit from that for themselves while also benifitting the owner.
or if you prefer, slaverys economic benifit extended throught all of society, and perhaps as much as a third of everyones income was based/derived from slave output, in one form or another, so while ownership was not the norm, profit from its use was.
In 1857 average southern income was $125 and in 1879 $80, southerners blamed this loss of income level on loseing the war and emncipation, which is another way of saying they no longer derived the income generating benifit of slave labour, pre war wealth in southern society was very unevenly distributed, eqaaully post war those same divisions still exitsed, the planation elite lost as much as 45% of their average income.
Quote:
Cash
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.
Ok, first off 70% of overseers were negros in 1860, now lets look at northern states laws then.http://www.slavenorth.com/wisconsin.htm
When the Civil War ended, nineteen of 24 Northern states did not allow blacks to vote. Nowhere could they serve on juries before 1860. They could not give testimony in 10 states, and were prevented from assembling in two.
Ohio supreme court went so far as to declare in 1831 that "color alone is sufficient to indicate a negro's inability to testify against a white man." In another case, the same court declared:
It has always been admitted, that our political institutions embrace the white population only. Persons of color were not recognized as having any political existence. They had no agency in our political organizations, and possessed no political rights under it. Two or three of the States form exceptions. The constitutions of fourteen expressly exclude persons of color by a provision similar to our own; and, in the balance of the States, they are excluded on the ground that they were never recognized as a part of the body politic.... Indeed, it is a matter of history, that the very object of introducing the word white into our constitution, by the convention framing that instrument, was to put this question beyond all cavil or doubt, by, in express terms, excluding all persons from the enjoyment of the elective franchise, except persons of pure white blood.
...Hence, we find, so early as 1804, followed up by another act in 1807, statutes discouraging the emigration of blacks into our State, and imposing upon those among us such conditions and restrictions as would induce the vast majority of them to quit the State. Thus, we have denied them all constitutional right to remain even in the State....
This exclusion of persons of color, or, of any degree of colored blood, from all political rights, is not founded upon a mere naked prejudice, but upon natural differences. The two races are placed as wide apart by the hand of nature as white from black, and, to break down the barriers, fixed, as it were, by the Creator himself, in a political and social amalgamation, shocks us, as something unnatural and wrong. It strikes us as a violation of the laws of nature. It would be productive of no good. It would degrade the white, if it could be accomplished, without elevating the black. Indeed, if we gather lessons of wisdom from the history of mankind — walk by the light of our experience, or consult the principles of human nature, we shall be convinced that the two races never can live together upon terms of equality and harmony
now lets look at Southern states laws for slaves.
John Creswell will provided for the emancipation of several slaves should they select freedom over servitude. If they preferred the former, Creswell?s administrator would take them to a free state or Liberia, whichever they preferred, "there to be free." Creswell?s sister and heir, Zernula Walker, sued on the grounds that slaves were legally incapable of such a choice. Her attorney cited Carroll (13 Alabama 102), which had struck down a similar will. The administrator?s attorney called Carroll "a mere dictum? opposed to the entire current of authority in other southern states." On appeal, Judge R.W. Walker noted that many cases in other states had silently recognized slaves? capacity to select freedom in comparable circumstances. He also observed that Thomas R. Cobb?s work on slavery condemned the Carroll decision for its failure to recognize that slaves were "endowed with intellect." So endowed, they were considered persons "deemed capable of committing a crime," but their civil status was that of "mere property." Creswell?s Executor v Walker, 37 Alabama 229 (1861).
Quote:
Cash
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.
Not acurate and certainly not a fact.
William Tillman hired a slave to Dickinson Chadwick. Chadwick punished the slave to a degree Tillman considered unreasonable. He sued to recover damages for the injuries caused. In the course of his opinion, Judge Stone recognized the authority of a hirer to punish a slave, but noted that there existed a boundary beyond which force became unreasonable. The law could not define the boundary with precision, but it depended upon the nature of the offense, the frequency, and the slave?s attitude while being punished. Masters punished slaves to reduce them "to a proper state of submission, respect, and obedience to legitimate authority." Chastisement should secure the end with as little permanent injury as possible. Tillman v Chadwick, 37 Alabama 317 (1861).
An overseer named Flanigin whipped Jacob and beat him with the whip handle. Shortly thereafter, Jacob died. The physician who performed the post mortem stated that the body evidenced stripes and blows inflicted "with great violence," which, altogether, could have caused death. The judge instructed the jury that they could find Flanigin guilty of first degree murder, which carried the death penalty, or second-degree murder, which carried a minimum prison term of ten years. The jury found Flanigin guilty of second-degree murder. Flanigin?s attorney objected that the charge to the jury implied that the judge considered the prisoner guilty of first degree, but would be satisfied with second degree. On appeal, Judge Collier affirmed the conviction. State v Flanigin, 5 Alabama 477 (1843).
William H. Jones of Perry County beat Isabel to death. The state brought a common law indictment for murder, convicted him in the second degree, and sentenced him to ten years in prison. Jones? attorney argued that the indictment did not conform to Chapter III, Section 7, of the penal code, which covered the murder of a slave by the master. Judge Ormond upheld the conviction on appeal. He noted that there was no difference in principle between Section 7 and the preceding section, which embraced murder by an overseer. Neither section created an offense unknown to the common law and neither inflicted a greater punishment. Hence they were not statutory offenses and could be framed at common law. State v Jones, 5 Alabama 666 (1843).
While intoxicated, Eskridge chastised the slave Maria, who picked up an ax and told him to come no closer. He went inside and returned with a shotgun. When she moved away to the side, apparently in retreat, he shot her in the leg. The leg had to be amputated. He confessed the crime to the doctors who came to perform the surgery. Judge Chilton ruled that the prisoner could be tried for mayhem under Article VI, Section 3, of the Constitution, which made unlawful the malicious dismemberment or killing of slaves. In this respect, both slaves and freemen were "on the same footing." Furthermore, the court said the confession was valid, even though the prisoner was intoxicated at the time. It also ruled that a master could use whatever forces necessary to subdue a slave, but could not threaten life and limb "unless impelled to such by an act of necessity." Finally, the court remanded the case because the charge had failed to clarify whether or not the slave belonged to Eskridge or his wife. Eskridge v State, 25 Alabama 30 (1854).
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
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.
Well it all depends when your talking about, in the walker Bible that was in wide use, untill the King james repalced it and omits these scriptual advice, it laid down the length and thickenss of the rod to use to chastise a slave or women and the number of strokes etc. Also in that age corporal punishment was the norm for teaching children, still more so as punishment for offences.
Quote:
trice
What is "excessive" whipping and beating?
Exceisive beating and whipping is patently clear to all, it would a level that retards the econimic output of the slave and
prevents him/her from aquirering max profit to his owner, by being unable to work or work at lower capacity, its why starvation was not used, instead the average slave ate a healthier diet than the average free white, because he needed to work hardere than the average white, because it takes months to recover from starvation, and can often lead to perment disbility of death and of course a drastic loss of income. if a free man shirked his work, he was fired and risked starvation, if a slave shirked he was punished by a whipping, but not to the extent that prevented him from working, as that would be counter productive. Analogy, as a taxi driveris you dont stop putting watwer in your rad, to make the car more effiecnt by saving on water cost, because a new rad cost you so does the time you dont have the car.
See also ALA SC rullings on this as i have already mentioned.
South Carolina, Judge John Belton O'Neall of the State supreme court said:
Although slaves, by the Act of 1740, are declared to be chattels personal, yet they are also, in our law, considered as persons with many rights and liabilities, civil and criminal. The right of protection which would belong to a slave, as a human being, is, by the law of slavery, transferred to his master. A master may protect the person of his slave from injury, by repelling force with force, or by action, and in some cases by indictment. Any injury done to the person of his slave, he may redress by action of trespass vi et armis, without laying the injury done, with a per quod servitum amisit, and this even though he may have hired the slave to another.
By the Act of 1821, the murder of a slave is declared to be felony, without the benefit of clergy; and by the same Act, to kill any slave, on sudden heat or passion, subjects the offender, on conviction, to a fine of not exceeding $500, and imprisonment not exceeding six months....
The Act of 1841 makes the unlawful whipping or beating of any slave, without sufficient provocation by word or act, a misdemeanor; and subjects the offender, on conviction, to imprisonment not exceeding six months, and a fine not exceeding $500
Georgia slave law:
Any owner of a slave, who shall cruelly beat such slave or slaves by unnecessary or excessive whipping; by withholding proper food and nourishment; by requiring greater labour from such slave or slaves than he, or she, or they may be able to perform; by not affording proper clothing, whereby the health of such slave or slaves may be injured or impaired; every such owner or owners of slaves shall, upon sufficient information being laid before the grand jury, be by said grand jury presented; whereupon it shall be the duty of the attorney or solicitor-general to prosecute such owner or owners for misdemeanor; who, on conviction, shall be sentenced to pay a fine, or imprisonment in the county jail, or both, at the discretion of the court.
From and after the passing of this Act, it shall be the duty of the inferior courts of the several counties in this State, on receiving information on oath, of any infirm slave or slaves, in a suffering condition, from the neglect of the owner or owners of said slave or slaves, to make particular inquiries into the situation of such slave or slaves, and render such relief as they, in their discretion, shall think fit. The said courts may, and are hereby authorised to, sue for and recover from the owner or owners of such slave or slaves, in any court having jurisdiction of the same, any law, usage, or custom to the contrary notwithstanding.
Any person who shall maliciously dismember, or deprive a slave of his life, shall suffer such punishment as would be inflicted in case the like offense had been committed on a free white person, and on the like proof, except in case of insurrection by said slave, and unless such death should happen by accident in giving such slave moderate correction
The constitution of Texas stated:
[The legislature] shall have full power to pass laws, which will oblige the owners of slaves to treat them with humanity, to provide for them necessary food and clothing, to abstain from all injuries to them, extending to life or limb; and, in the case of their neglect or refusal to comply with the directions of such laws, to have such slave or slaves taken from their owner, and sold for the benefit of such owner or owners. They may pass laws to prevent slaves from being brought into this State as merchandise only.
In the prosecution of slaves for the crimes of a higher grade than petit larceny, the Legislature shall have no power to deprive them of an impartial trial by jury.
Any person who shall maliciously dismember or deprive a slave of life, shall suffer such punishment as would be inflicted, in case the like offence had been committed upon a free white person, and on the like proof, except in case of insurrection of such slave
Quote:
Texas2nd
American slavery has been studied inside and out. The best comparison that I've seen is to that of a caste system.
Excellent point. Indeed the social structure of slavery as a micro social model is fairly well understood,it had social mobilty within the two broad divison of house and field hands, 25% were skilled atisans who there what labourers, 75% wanted to become, ( in the agricultural sector, 7% of negros held managerial post, overseer etc,12% were skilled craftsmen, blacksmith/stonemason/carpenter/coppers etc,8% werr semi skilled , teamsters etc and the rest laboured but waited/hoped to move up the social scale in slave society, the house serventys had there own pecking order as well, but the agriculturtal section was also where a slave could earn a different set of adntages denied to the house sevenets etc, they got cloths, trips to town or out of state and so on, but thoise involved in making the plnataion wealths also benfited by the reward stsyem, which made him finacianly on average better off than the free white equivent job, but subject to punishments the free white was not. you do not beat into people the idea of working harder for persoanl gain, you provide incentive to do so by rewards.
example of Fogels: Bennet Barrow LA planation records for 2 year period 1839-40, to show incident of punishment,leval of reward.
200 slaves, 12O in the labour force. over the 2 years 160 cases of whippings were admistered, an avareage of 0.7 per person per year, 50% of all hands were never whipped at all.
39/40 each family recieved $15-20 dollars as bunuses for prodactivilty, this was equalto what it coat to maniatian a single person for a year, the average family was 5.3 members on the planation. $20 in 1840 was about 20% of per capita national income.
This is what ecomonist who won the Nobele prize contributed to understand the reward and punishment system of slavery did, and so far you have provided nothing at all to show it is not a valid mechanism to quantify it, exaplain it in context, something a reading a bio of F Douglas simply just does not do, but then i am a data junky.
Quote:
Trice
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.
otoh it also helps easily to explain the condition in a straightforward manner, captilism is a brutal violent system of racial subdegation, which is why i can send my sperm ( via fed Express) to China or India and get a baby back in 9 months, or travail to an unumber of third world countries and buy a genticly comtable organ from them for my use, i cant buy one in the Uk, because we are above such things dont you know, but Jhonny forgiener organs and bodies is there waiting to be expoited, and its legal to do so.
Tell me do your stock investments only return income from socialy aceptable investments?, or did anyone in your family not benifit from a pension scheme whose investment in S African Apartied buissiness produced a huge return?. You do know capatilism only works by expolitation of others right?. Who do you think makes all your cheap imports?, are they the end products of a system designed to enrich some people at the expense of others as you so nicly put it, or not?. Do you think the Commies were right to offer to come liberte us from this brutal, violent system?. would they have repalced it with a workers paradise?, did the condition of slaves now made free improve or decline post war?, can you expalin why 10% of the negro population was lost between 60-70 census?, why is is that they negro loss of life in WBTS is 3 times the combined white loss of life?. Thats the cost of the war to the negro, all the whites lost was income from it.
Quote:
Cash
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.
No you pointed out there were problems and provide opinion to counter a statastical argument. Provide the statitical counters used against Fogel or stop showing to me you dont know what they are by citing more flat earth arguments against empiric evidence.
I ask again, cite any specific counter to the statastical methodolgy, beacause all your doing is using textual acounts, of which there are as many acounts of inhuman treatment as there are humane treatment as the basis of your argument, no one can resolve that kind of argument, it required resolution, and to do that required a different set of experts, who quantified the aspects of the question, resolved them in broad terms and then moved onto fine detail refinment of that methodolgy. They unlike Horton, dont give a rats arse about the rights and wrong of slavery, they only wanted to quantify it to underestand it.
All society requires someone is exploited for it to function, deterimning the level of exploitation/reward is central to undertsing in society is right or wrong in the use of the level of exploitation, be it indentured servents, slaves, or wage earning.
Your stuck in the past witha bigoted mindset of racial inferiority of negros, (who were not meerly unwilling victims of slavery, but built the US into a viable series of coloinies in the first palce, and generated considerable wealth for the nation as a whole and the southern states in particular, aparatly they did this acording to Stampp/Horton etc because they were beaten to do it beacuase that was the only way to get a negro to do it, i on the other had see they did it because they were the eqaul to any person in ability to work hard, when motivated by a reward/punishment system, no different from any other human being. ) moral inferiorty of southerners (to Northerners) who practised opressive control methods. If only the North did not do the same with child labour in its factorys, carry others slaves to where they did not want po go for profit, you could thump your chest in moral indignity.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
