Slave Breeding; Fact or Fiction

[DHPatrick]

Originally Posted by ole

Period newspapers are source documents, Don. Although one can't take editorials and news stories as literal fact, one can see in the pages -- and advertisements -- an indication of the times.

The Mercury was one of the most important newspapers in the south. I doubt the ad in question was spurious or sensational in nature; just a man wanting a good price for a young mother.This doesn't look sensational. It does, however, give no hint that the girl's "product" would be ideal for a source of income; only that she was prime breeding stock.

ole

ole

That is like saying any document can be a source document. If the abolitionists placed all kinds of advertisements in respectable newspapers, would that mean that all Northern people were abolitionist?

I submit that is paramount to saying any composition placed on the Internet is a source document.

[ole]

That is like saying any document can be a source document. If the abolitionists placed all kinds of advertisements in respectable newspapers, would that mean that all Northern people were abolitionist?

Gimme a break, Don. I figure you for a guy who can distinguish between what is BS and what is a taste of history. There is quite a difference between what is history and what is simply a taste. When an official issues a statement, and says this and that, it's a fact recorded on paper, but it proves only that the official said exactly that. That is history. When an ad says I have this wench to sell you, it only shows that an ad saying exactly that appeared in the named newspaper on the named date. That is just a taste and cannot be taken as proof of anything except that the ad appeared and said what it is purported to have been said.

Lee had to withdraw from Gettysburg. Is that a fact? What was he thinking and why did he try that in the first place? That's opinion. We have his orders and an inkling of his intentions. This is the other face of history. We know this, think that, suppose that, and put together all of the above in a discussion. That is not history; it's called poking around to see if someone else has a better explanation.

That a man in the Charleston Mercury wanted to sell a 20-year-old with her two daughters is fact. Why and what it means is opinion. But it is a source document that someone can point to and anyone can look up. What is made of it is another matter.

[unionblue]

Originally Posted by DHPatrick

ole

That is like saying any document can be a source document. If the abolitionists placed all kinds of advertisements in respectable newspapers, would that mean that all Northern people were abolitionist?

I submit that is paramount to saying any composition placed on the Internet is a source document.

DHPatrick,

I have deliberately made sure NOT to use abolitionist sources, if I can, when discussing slave-breeding.

But it is a pretty big stretch to say that an advertisement in a Southern newspaper to sell slaves of all ages and sexes is NOT a source document. Why advertise if you do not want to sell or buy? Do you think that all such advertisements are faked sources? Abolishionist propaganda?

I'm with ole on this one. Not wanting to believe or accept the actual documentation on slave sales or slave-breeding is coming across more as a personal descion on your part, not because the documentation is an original source or not.

Like I said before, history comes with heroes and cowards, good and evil, bad, and sometimes worse than bad. But it is what it is.

Slave-breeding took place. To what extent and how much it was socially looked down upon is my contention with other members of this forum, not the historical fact that it took place.

Hence, this thread.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[DHPatrick]

Originally Posted by unionblue

DHPatrick,

I have deliberately made sure NOT to use abolitionist sources, if I can, when discussing slave-breeding.

But it is a pretty big stretch to say that an advertisement in a Southern newspaper to sell slaves of all ages and sexes is NOT a source document. Why advertise if you do not want to sell or buy? Do you think that all such advertisements are faked sources? Abolishionist propaganda?

I'm with ole on this one. Not wanting to believe or accept the actual documentation on slave sales or slave-breeding is coming across more as a personal descion on your part, not because the documentation is an original source or not.

Like I said before, history comes with heroes and cowards, good and evil, bad, and sometimes worse than bad. But it is what it is.

Slave-breeding took place. To what extent and how much it was socially looked down upon is my contention with other members of this forum, not the historical fact that it took place.

Hence, this thread.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

Unionblue

I don't think they were necessarily faked, just don't think of them as source documents. They are probably equal to any post you might find on the Internet. What are the differences? Both are paid for and tend to sell or want to say something - just a difference in technology.

A source document, as accepted by most historians or genealogist, demands a greater level of credibility, such as a census record, military record, tax record, or death certificate (...and even so not all of them are 100% correct).

[unionblue]

Originally Posted by DHPatrick

Unionblue

I don't think they were necessarily faked, just don't think of them as source documents. They are probably equal to any post you might find on the Internet. What are the differences? Both are paid for and tend to sell or want to say something - just a difference in technology.

A source document, as accepted by most historians or genealogist, demands a greater level of credibility, such as a census record, military record, tax record, or death certificate (...and even so not all of them are 100% correct).

DHPatrick,

So how do you view a newspaper advertisement that says, "FOR SALE, 20 Negro slaves, various ages, etc?"

Are you of the opinion that the advertisement was real? That someone was actually trying to sell 20 Negroes of various ages? Or do you feel because it is an advertisements is "lacks credibility?"

And you also realize, that I am NOT getting such advertisements off the internet, but out of researched books, newspapers and other articles, not just off the internet?

While I will agree that not all documents, books, internet articles can be trusted, I submit to you that the paper and historical trail of the sale of black slaves is just a tad too large to ignore as not a credible source when listed in such documents such as period newspapers. These are not editorials, not misrepresented news articles, but men trying to do business, men who go to the newspaper, write out the advertisement, pay for it, and see that it gets printed so that they can do business.

Just curious to see why you feel this way about this one, historical medium.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[timewalker]

Generally, an advertisment would be an exception to the hearsay rule in a court of law and therefore I believe it should be viewed as a valid source document historically. What would be the point of running bogus advertisement such as this, since they would quickly be seen as frauds or hoaxes as soon as someone came to buy the property advertised for sale. There would then, no doubt, be a historical record of the resulting dust-up.

Unless we are talking bait-and-switch, generally no one is going to question that an advertisement holding out good for sale means that the advertiser actually has the goods. I personally would have no qualms about using such documents unless there was evidence about why they should be questioned.

[DHPatrick]

Originally Posted by unionblue

Just curious to see why you feel this way about this one, historical medium.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

Unionblue

I do not dispute your argument has merit. I just don't buy an advertisement as a source document whether it was published in the 1860's or today.

Take a moment and look at the ads in your newspaper, how many of them do you believe constitute being source documents? Do they reflect your interests?

[DHPatrick]

Originally Posted by timewalker

Unless we are talking bait-and-switch, generally no one is going to question that an advertisement holding out good for sale means that the advertiser actually has the goods. I personally would have no qualms about using such documents unless there was evidence about why they should be questioned.

Timewalker

Bait-and-switch - something I did not consider.

I routinely place ads in the local paper here. Never quite thought of them as source documents, though.

[DHPatrick]

[quote=ole;93309]Gimme a break, Don. I figure you for a guy who can distinguish between what is BS and what is a taste of history. There is quite a difference between what is history and what is simply a taste. quote]

ole

I guess I've forgotten what we were discussing. I do agree that ads can be tell-tale, just don't believe all of them can be placed in that category, ...and don't believe them to be source documents.

[PvtClewell]

Just as an example, I sometimes look at old Life magazines, and especially the ads. From them, I can tell how much, say, a Ford Thunderbird went for in 1956 in the town in which I live. Because the ads are bought by the seller, I can only assume they are true and for public consumption. And like any customer, the buyer of the ad wants to get his money's worth. Thus, the ads, I think, are prime reflections of the history of the period — and perhaps even more truthful than the editorial content of the newspaper in which they appear.