John Calhoun

[Bobbie]

Originally Posted by Hanny

Now on the subject of statisticly insignificant slave breeding, human reproduction is different from animal, if you have many partners your going to get a VD which will cause sterlisation at worse or rediced fertility at best, the yopuner you start the worse the females chances. ergo any small scale attemts to baby boom are self defeating through mother natures effects.

Not exactly. To have many children a slave woman didn't need many partners. In some slave narratives I read that quite often slave owners encouraged early "marriages" among his slaves. If such couples were encouraged to have as many kids as posible, didn't it have an effect on the population's enlargement?

I ain't good at statistics, but for me the fact that "average white family size was higher than the slave" could as well be the effect of selling (or hiring out) slave children. From what I've read dividing of slave families was illegal only in Louisiana.

thats a reference to the authority and demarkation lines in the world which gave the ownership to either spian of portugal, the Pope gave to Spain and Portugal to own and convert any non christians they found and pre dates those in the link.Treaty of Tordesillas is the treaty with attendant papal authority to enslave, which was the basis for japans convertion by Jesuits, Brazils platnation economy based on slavery etc.

Hanny, the treaty you are refering were written in the 15th century. The treaty and papal bulls following it were out of date and no longer in force.

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by unionblue

Hanny,



No, "we" do not

Sincerely,
Unionblue

Arf, arf,

So whats evidence do you have?, looks around for yet another pile of books to pull open....

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by Bobbie

Not exactly. To have many children a slave woman didn't need many partners. In some slave narratives I read that quite often slave owners encouraged early "marriages" among his slaves. If such couples were encouraged to have as many kids as posible, didn't it have an effect on the population's enlargement?

This would be planatation law, which mist slaves lived under rather than a state law etc right?. So how many children are you talking about here?.

since we have the age of slaves and the first child, we know that the first child comes quite late in the breeding cycle, so we can conclude they were not being breed by design. Since whites were producing more childrenen and earlier in the females lives, the conclusion ought to be very clear, expalining why this was so, is tied up with how the owner makesa profit out of his slave, over its lefitime it returns a differnt amount, it makes no economic sense to have them pregnate in the high return years of labour capability, which in part explains the later in life first child for slaves.

ww2 German and Russian women were given medlas for haveing x number of children, yet no one goes on about them as breeding farmss, ok maybe the SS did so but that a seperate thing altogether from the general population.

I ain't good at statistics, but for me the fact that "average white family size was higher than the slave" could as well be the effect of selling (or hiring out) slave children. From what I've read dividing of slave families was illegal only in Louisiana.

Not really, the number of children without parents, white or black, is stagering in that age, and that white familys in the US dropped by 20% in size in fairly short period of time is something thats rather complex to explain.

Hanny, the treaty you are refering were written in the 15th century. The treaty and papal bulls following it were out of date and no longer in force.

True but i was just expaling how the Brazil and far East become slave empires with Papal authority to do so, there are currently some 30 million held as slaves because it was condoned and pratcised by Popes and kings etc.

[Bobbie]

Originally Posted by Hanny

This would be planatation law, which mist slaves lived under rather than a state law etc right?. So how many children are you talking about here?.

It probably depended on individual slave owners' will. But there were cases of slave women who bore even 13-17 kids.

Found an interesting fragment in the Charles Ball's account -The Life and Adventures of Charles Ball:
"The stranger (...) then said, he wanted a couple of breeding wenches (...). He then walked along our line as we stood chained together, and looked at the whole of us- then turning to the women, asked the prices of the two pregnant ones. Our master replied, that these were two of the best breeding-wenches in all Maryland- that one was 22, and the other only 19- that the first was already the mother of 7 children, and the other of 4- that he had himself seen the children, at the time he bought their mothers- that each of them had a child every year".
http://docsouth.unc.edu/neh/ballslavery/ball.html

Since whites were producing more childrenen and earlier in the females lives, the conclusion ought to be very clear, expalining why this was so, is tied up with how the owner makesa profit out of his slave, over its lefitime it returns a differnt amount, it makes no economic sense to have them pregnate in the high return years of labour capability, which in part explains the later in life first child for slaves.

This is why the most slave breeding took place in the Upper South, were the need of field hands was not so great. You can find varios advertisments of slave-traders selling "breeding women". Why would that be if not for producing more children and profitting of it?

One more interesting fragment, this time from F. L. Olmstead's A Journey in the Seabord Slave States. With Remarks On Their Economy":
"A slaveholder writing to me with regard to my cautious statements on this subject, made in the Daily Times, says:--"In the States of Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee and Missouri, as much attention is paid to the breeding and growth of negroes as to that of horses and mules. Further South, we raise them both for use and for market. Planters command their girls and women (married or unmarried) to have children; and I have known a great many negro girls to be sold off, because they did not have children. A breeding woman is worth from one-sixth to one-fourth more than one that does not breed."
http://docsouth.unc.edu/nc/olmsted/olmsted.html#p55

[larry_cockerham]

This may be like taking my sock off to see if I can attract frostbite, but I'm feeling adventurous.

Let's take a people. Any people. They fail to learn computers, they don't watch tv or listen to the radio. For the most part they don't meet at Cracker Barrel to play checkers and discuss national and local politics. No morning coffee shop exchange of ideas, no newspapers, or any of that stuff. What happens?

One morning men with guns show up at the door, the outside of the tent, under the shelter or just at the edge of the woods. This person or persons is scooped up and brought into slavery. Not a pretty sight. Thrown on a big, or more often small, ship and taken across the water where they are cleaned, beaten, and introduced to a big field full of white stuff and encouraged to pick it out of the harsh stems. The sun eventually gets hot and it's time for a rest. More beating. Not a great life by my standards.

Eventually they learn part of the language, get to work in the big house with some shade, even start to develop a concept of freedom. You know the rest of the story. Improvement happened very slowly and seemed to parallel hard work and extremely slow political evolution.

At that point, are the people 'better off' than before? Hard to say. Humans are a bit cruel, to say the least.

That's part of what John Calhoun was saying, but one must remember, he was a politician, not unlike Lincoln.

[unionblue]

Originally Posted by Hanny

Arf, arf,

So whats evidence do you have?, looks around for yet another pile of books to pull open....

Hanny,

I intend to begin to post my evidence of such on the 'Slavery, THE Cause?' thread in part to debate your view on slavebreeding and in part to try and get that thread back on track.

I would be very much interested to see your evidence that the practice was not large scale.

Look forward to seeing you there.

Unionblue

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by Bobbie

It probably depended on individual slave owners' will. But there were cases of slave women who bore even 13-17 kids.

True, there are such events, it all depends on when we are talking about, T Jackson great g father married twice and sired 17 children, stonwall himself, only 2 generations removed sired 1. explaing these individual instances is of course intrestying at the micro level, but tells nothing of the big picture. catholics, people in the Shenandoah (highest numbers lost per family in the CSA comes from one such) also produced extremly highy numbers of children, but not from some design to do so.

i was refering to the instructions each planation would live under, all the planatationshad a book which was the plantion law so as to speak, not one of which advoactes what the abolitionsts propsed, deleberate breeding, in deedd that all go to some length to foster the very oposiste of it.

Found an interesting fragment in the Charles Ball's account -The Life and Adventures of Charles Ball:
"The stranger (...) then said, he wanted a couple of breeding wenches (...). He then walked along our line as we stood chained together, and looked at the whole of us- then turning to the women, asked the prices of the two pregnant ones. Our master replied, that these were two of the best breeding-wenches in all Maryland- that one was 22, and the other only 19- that the first was already the mother of 7 children, and the other of 4- that he had himself seen the children, at the time he bought their mothers- that each of them had a child every year".
http://docsouth.unc.edu/neh/ballslavery/ball.html

every year is almost bilogicaly unheard off, if you breast feed, the body takes 12-18 months to become fertile again to produce ofspring.

since the buyer was intrested in women and child, to make aprofit the child must reach maturity, 40% of negros children did not reach age 19, and no negro child makesa profit till age 12, so its negative income for 12 years on the child, reduced income on the mother while pregnant, to make money on this kind of investment ( asuming thats the intent of the buyer, ie to sell for profit, or the seller to sell for profit for that matter) is almost an imposobility, finacialy speaking, and the long term planning this requires, makes such an investment highly unlikly. Each year of a slaves life we can aduce its income, from this and other ststistics we can discount breeding for profit as being a viable buisness plan by direct design at the time.

This is why the most slave breeding took place in the Upper South, were the need of field hands was not so great. You can find varios advertisments of slave-traders selling "breeding women". Why would that be if not for producing more children and profitting of it?

If you mean the census data of the old south shows a population admixture of stable families who have multiple ofspring, as oposed to the new south (states which enter the Union and import from the old souther states) age groups of the prime filed hand range because that maximises profity from field work, then we are talking about the same thing. Its all to do with the pop range in the states, since of spring is a ratio of births, which is a result of the stability of the family, those less finacialy viable to go with owners or be sold westwards stayed behind, and continue to produce children, its these late 20s-30s couples who fuelled the pop boom in thge old south, while the late teens to 20s where sold or migrated with owners to the new south to max out there profitablity there, by working, not being in a family producing children. the avaerage age a negro produced her first child in the south was age 22.5, and 2 years between following ofspring. what is generaly the argument is that the old souths land/soil was depleted, makeing the breeding of more slaves the prime buissines there, which of course has no basis in reality, for by the same argument the northern states were doing the same thing with there negros.


[quote]
One more interesting fragment, this time from F. L. Olmstead's A Journey in the Seabord Slave States. With Remarks On Their Economy":
"A slaveholder writing to me with regard to my cautious statements on this subject, made in the Daily Times, says:--"In the States of Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee and Missouri, as much attention is paid to the breeding and growth of negroes as to that of horses and mules. Further South, we raise them both for use and for market. Planters command their girls and women (married or unmarried) to have children; and I have known a great many negro girls to be sold off, because they did not have children. A breeding woman is worth from one-sixth to one-fourth more than one that does not breed."
http://docsouth.unc.edu/nc/olmsted/olmsted.html#p55[quote]

White women were divorced for being infertile, and human reproduction is totaly differnt from animal reproduction, as those who tried eurogencis quickly found out. to interfere with a family unit and force the female to bear anothers ofspring, ie use a stud or a white to producea a mulatoe, destroys the very thing the owner wants, a complaint willing worker, the cost to raise to a saleble age that returns a profit, means that as low as a 3 day a year reduction in average output from the upset negro mother of father so used, ( ie not working as hard because he/she is upset) means zero profit from the childs sale, since the number of child sales in the entire south was around 300 per year, and orphans ran to 15% of the total, (190.000) it means that orphans alsmost certainly comprised the entire sale of children in the first place. buying children on there own was not a viable financial operation, they cost more than they produce, this comes from the 40s and earlier works that considered ownership of negros was as a staus thing, not an economic thing because it was believed slavery was not profitable.

Problems with Olmstead et all are that they looking for reason to club the instion of slavery with, it broke the family unit, it was breeding by studs and abuse by whites etc, not expalin how it worked. Problem with slavery was that someone was whipped, far to often very often to death, despite the ample rewards system it also had.

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by unionblue

Hanny,

I intend to begin to post my evidence of such on the 'Slavery, THE Cause?' thread in part to debate your view on slavebreeding and in part to try and get that thread back on track.

I would be very much interested to see your evidence that the practice was not large scale.

Look forward to seeing you there.

Unionblue

Morning Blue...

Will pick it up there then.

[Bobbie]

Originally Posted by Hanny

i was refering to the instructions each planation would live under, all the planatationshad a book which was the plantion law so as to speak, not one of which advoactes what the abolitionsts propsed, deleberate breeding, in deedd that all go to some length to foster the very oposiste of it.

Blush. I've had no idea about such plantation books, so I can't neither agree nor disagree with you.

every year is almost bilogicaly unheard off, if you breast feed, the body takes 12-18 months to become fertile again to produce ofspring.

"Almost" makes a difference. Even looking at my own ancestors' records I can see a few such cases of women giving birth year by year. Or consider John Bell Hood's marriage- in 11 years his wife gave birth to 13 children

since the buyer was intrested in women and child, to make aprofit the child must reach maturity, 40% of negros children did not reach age 19, and no negro child makesa profit till age 12, so its negative income for 12 years on the child, reduced income on the mother while pregnant, to make money on this kind of investment ( asuming thats the intent of the buyer, ie to sell for profit, or the seller to sell for profit for that matter) is almost an imposobility, finacialy speaking, and the long term planning this requires, makes such an investment highly unlikly. Each year of a slaves life we can aduce its income, from this and other ststistics we can discount breeding for profit as being a viable buisness plan by direct design at the time.

A few ideas comes to my mind. First, the kids could be in future hired out instead of selling. From what I've read (probably in Bancroft), children could be sold/hired out from the age 6-8 and hiring was more profitable. The costs of keeping a slave were about 30$ a year, so not huge. Another thing- prices of slaves were not constant- they were growing.
One more thought- even if this business had been indeed unprofitable (which I doubt), slaveholders could have anyway invest in it because of lack of experience or because of belief in its profitability in future. Kind of stockbroking?

If you mean the census data of the old south shows a population admixture of stable families who have multiple ofspring, as oposed to the new south (states which enter the Union and import from the old souther states) age groups of the prime filed hand range because that maximises profity from field work, then we are talking about the same thing. [...]

Maybe I'm just tired, cos' I don't follow your logic in this whole paragraph

means zero profit from the childs sale, since the number of child sales in the entire south was around 300 per year, and orphans ran to 15% of the total, (190.000) it means that orphans alsmost certainly comprised the entire sale of children in the first place.

Does the statistic consider children sold with their parent(s)?

[Bobbie]

Hanny & Unionblue & All,

I'm confused now. Is it the discussion about slave-breeding to be moved to another thread, or maybe it deserves the entirely new one? I don't want to further lead the Calhoun thread astray, but I'd love to find out whether this slave breeding is only a myth or not.
Is it possible to transfer all the posts not concerning Calhoun to the new thread?