Slave Breeding; Fact or Fiction

[ole]

The infant mortality rate would also be a factor. After all, if the infant mortality rate is high, you have more children to make up for the fact that a certain percentage are not going to survive to reach a saleable age.

The infant mortality rate was sometimes abysmal. Read recently that James Chesnut inherited a rice plantation where the rate was something like 72 percent. He immediately went to work to try to reduce that. And he did. Forget what he got it down to, but whatever it was, was still abysmal.

Guess I oughtn't pontificate on the subject. (I am not Cash, who knows somehow exactly where to find it.) But "Time on the Cross," Fogel and Engerman and "Days of Defiance," Maury Klein, figure in there somewhere. If I'm recalling correctly, the odds of a slave reaching 25 was something like 29:100. Now don't take this number to the bank.

I'm assuming that the white baby had a bad deal, as well. Almost every family lost one or two somewhere in there.

But it is interesting to incorporate death rates into the discussion of breeding for profit. If a plantation owner were consciously engaged in the practice, he would have to bear the expense of improving survival rates.

ole

[unionblue]

Continued from the book, Slave Trading in the Old South, by Frederic Bancroft, Chapter IV, The Importance Of Slave-Rearing, p. 76.

"Other Southerners went much further, saying that in several States slaves were reared for sale rather than for their labor. Moncure D. Conway, whose father was a slaveholder near Fredericksburg, Virginia, wrote: "As a general thing, the chief pecuniary resource in the border States is the breeding of slaves; and I grieve to say that there is too much ground for the charges that general licentiousness among the slaves, for the purpose of a large increase, is compelled by some masters and encouraged by many. The period of maternity is hastened, the average age youth of negro mothers being nearly three year earlier than that of any free race, and an old maid is utterly unknown among the women."

The stock-farmer indifferent to enlarging his herd would be no more of an anomaly than was the planter that did not keep close count of his pickaninnies and rejoice in the profit that grew with them. They were his pride and appealed to his imagination. "All the little darkies by natural increase were net profit!" exclaimed an old lawyer in Natchez, the son of a rich ante-bellum planter. This was because on a farm or plantation the neccessary outlay for their support (from birth until they reached 6 or 8 years of age, when hey began to work and were readily salable or hired out) was hardly appreciable. Their food and scant clothing were the simplest and cheapest possible, and an ample average allowance was one-third as much as was given to a fieldhand, whose entire maintenance, according to liberal estimates, cost not more than $30 per year."

Unionblue

[larry_cockerham]

Inhumanity among humans. What a sorry lot were our ancestors, or at least some of them.

From many years of genealogy I can report that white folks stretched the repoductive years to the limits. I suspect 6-10 offspring from a healthy lady was the norm after the civil war. Labor had to be obtained from somewhere once the Forrests went out of business. A returning soldier rapidly went about the challenge of re-populating the South. I suspect the yanks weren't far behind.

[unionblue]

Then of course, there is this view on the topic of this thread.

Southern Slavery As It Was.

http://reformed-theology.org/html/bo..._as_it_was.htm

Enjoy,
Unionblue

[Hanny]

I don't think we're talking about anything so advanced as genetic selection. It's more like mating your biggest, strongest field-hand with the sturdiest fertile females. Odds are you will end up with a crop of babies who will mostly resemble their parents.

ole

6 or 7 generations is the max number we are concerned with, there is zero gentic drift in such a timescale.

the only people talking about gentic breeding are those who dont understand what it entails, in the 1700s using peas scientist worked out how many generations you need to get genetic drift, now they use house flys.

[Hanny]

Pardon my ignorance, but is it not the case that the fact that the South was so interested in expanding slavery into the Territories was based on (1) the need balance political representation with the non-slaveholding states and (2) to increase the market for negro slaves?

Anywhere the constion ran to was where slavery was allowed, since the poulation stakes was already lost, the only equality left was to have equal slave and free states to protect the section of the south with slaves, thats the driving principle and comprimise of 1820 and 1850, to bring in equal states of free and sl;ave so as to alow constional protection by equality in the senate.

the natural limits of slavery was predicated on the false asumption that slavery needed new lands to expand into to remain viable economocly, since we know that cotton production increased post WBTS on the same avaialble land suited to grow cotton, we know the natural limits of geography theory was wrong economicly on every level.

As Unionblue's quotes point out, the "older" slave-holding areas could generate a profit on the slaves themselves by encouraging propogation, thus increasing their holdings which could be sold off to the new slave territories.

No thats not what his quote shows, if you use the $ value to mainatian a slave till age 10 and sell it at market price, you must achive that $ value x 10 years less income it achieved, since this is a mathamatical imposobility, we know that children sold at age 10 cost money to the seller, and that the new owner was in negative income for many years with his new child.

But if you have the maths to show how how it could have been economoicly viable im willing to see it, i can give you how it was profitable, but only for prime hands and no one else, which ment a 20 year plan, something thast not actually a plan at all when it runs into decades to achive a profit.

It seems so logical to me that one could encourage procreation among one's slaves and thus increase one's wealth. The only problem, as I see it, is that in areas where there are already an abundance of slaves, it is hard to find something for which to hire out the slaves in order to generate enough income to support the slave until he can be sold. I guess if you made enough profit from the sale of slaves, you could use the profits for "next year's crops."

Since no one has ever found any statistical evidence to support the interfered breeding for sale concept, your just wasteing my time. 30% of all slaves were hired out an any point in time, higher in urban and lower in rural areas.

If yopu can show using maths the time scale and prfitability to rear for sale then please do so, since 2500 a year is the crop of humans sold your next problem is that of scale, showing how any profit it generted and the time taken to do so, compared to any other economic endvour is pathetic on its return to expebditure of capiatal.

If slavery was not allowed in the territories, then it would, over time, kill off any profit from the sale of slaves bred for this purpose. Eventually, the "market becomes saturated" and those areas needing slaves already have enough and might actually have to discourage slave propogation, else one ends up with too many mouths to feed. Such a situation leads to a continual decrease in the value of slaves and the basis of wealth of the old-line slaveholders deteriorates into nothing. Thus the conviction among abolitionists that if slavery did not expand it would die out of its own accord.

since we have the economic data that shows this to be false, i suggest you read it and get back to me.

[Hanny]

I figure slavery was dying anyway. The territories were important only for the two senators generated from each. I've always wondered where the hoo-hah about "the nasty government will not let us move with our slaves into the territories" came from. Slavery could only thrive if were expanded into the Caribbean and Central America. Confined to where it existed, it was dead.

We put too much emphasis on slave-breeding. There were some who made their living in the practice. Most everyone else just found it a sound business practice to keep slaves alive and reproductive and, incidentally, profitable. (There were a few that felt it was cheaper to buy than breed. They usually had high death rates.)

ole

Slavery was more profitable in 1860 than at any other time in history, the numbers of slaves was higher than any time in history, the number of owners was highest than any other time in history, the wealth it generated made the southern states wealthier thanthey had ever been before, and very favaorble in avarage wealth to tghe free states, and when it ended the south went into economic free fall for a century.

[Hanny]

Oh, I think you'll find me ignorant on a VAST number of subjects.

All of as are, its if we have an open enough mind to correct that situation.

[Hanny]

Very simply put almost every slaveowner participated in slave breeding. It's simple, his slave has a child he owns that child and was free to trade, sell or free that child as his fancy went. The owner had the say on if the woman was married or not and was in no way bound to respect a slaves marriage. A preganant woman who consistantly gives live birth w/ the children surviving infancy was an ASSET as are all children born. If she caught his fancy enough for him to take interest all that much more of an asset. We know it happened, how often? Often enough that Union soldiers were disgusted how often they came across slaves as light as they and obviously a white mans child. Hence the terms, quadroon and even octroon (sp?)

mulatoes is the term your after, the ones you used refer to the generations of white parents, 1/4 white etc. By your argument all human reproduction is done for profit then, J Stewart wife martha in Shenandoh was dead from breeding his ofspring no doubt, which he needed to clear and work the land with.

So you know how often white gentic material is present in afro americans , care to share what it is?, in 1860 or earlier or even today?. Or is all you have gossip of what some soldiers found, which was not a representaive of the slave population in any event, since mulatoes were well under 10% of the total poulation, and highly concentrated in urban and LA regions.

You do know the incidence of US servicemen in wars and VD right?, before you get all moral about what a handfull found in the WBTS to be of intrest, is it more of intrest that southern prostitutes were hardly ever negros, because there was no demand for negro prostitues in the south, who earnt less than slaves.

As to the Census... every how many years?

10, its what the word means, and whats required by the constion to occur at that time.

How accurately were slaves counted, who reported the numbers? Would an owner selling slaves have any incentive to mention that some of his female slaves had issues w/ miscarriages or still births? Was there incentive for a female slave to bring up the fact that she was even pregnant? We know Robert Smalls wife certainly did not... how many more?

Reasonably acuratly, the census post there margin of error, 6% is a very bad one, 2% is avery good one, 1870 is a bad one.

Every slave ever sold and moved over state line leaves a paper record, every person counted in the census leaves a record.

So to me Slave breeding was a hard and cold fact, every slave born that survived long enough to be sold made the owner money.

Actually all you posted so far contains no facts at all to show that slaves were not producing in any different manner than whites.

I await with intrest your maths on how a slave or slaves born in 1820 and sold at age 20 made money to the seller, or any year you find aceptable.

[johan_steele]

mulatoes is the term your after, the ones you used refer to the generations of white parents, 1/4 white etc. By your argument all human reproduction is done for profit then, J Stewart wife martha in Shenandoh was dead from breeding his ofspring no doubt, which he needed to clear and work the land with.

So you know how often white gentic material is present in afro americans , care to share what it is?, in 1860 or earlier or even today?. Or is all you have gossip of what some soldiers found, which was not a representaive of the slave population in any event, since mulatoes were well under 10% of the total poulation, and highly concentrated in urban and LA regions. I take it you are unaware of the terms I used, Octroon etc; proof that you are unaware of the reality of the day. I cannot sell my children or my wife; a pity you are unable to grasp that simple difference.

You do know the incidence of US servicemen in wars and VD right?, before you get all moral about what a handfull found in the WBTS to be of intrest, is it more of intrest that southern prostitutes were hardly ever negros, because there was no demand for negro prostitues in the south, who earnt less than slaves. Slightly lower than the UK rate IIRC, though I doubt very much. Yes, there were quite a few mulatto & negro prostitutes, they are mentioned in New orleans and Nashville to name just to locales. There were Bordellos well prior to the CW.


10, its what the word means, and whats required by the constion to occur at that time. Would you please learn to spell the Constitution properly, it's so consistant an mistake on your part it looks like it is no mistake. Yes, I know what a census is.



Reasonably acuratly, the census post there margin of error, 6% is a very bad one, 2% is avery good one, 1870 is a bad one.

Every slave ever sold and moved over state line leaves a paper record, every person counted in the census leaves a record. Again, no. Census records are far from complete & while the accuracy is laudable it is far from perfect.



Actually all you posted so far contains no facts at all to show that slaves were not producing in any different manner than whites. Your opinion, my opinion... mine is backed up by reading the words of the men of the day, near to 3000 now.

I await with intrest your maths on how a slave or slaves born in 1820 and sold at age 20 made money to the seller, or any year you find aceptable.

I've heard the figure of $30 a year upkeep on a slave multiply that by 20 subtract profit made from that slave in say 6 years of work... I think you'll get well over $500 in profit. Simply because you don't want it to be, doesn't mean it wasn't. You have stated slavery was never more profitable than in 1860. I've studied the people on the receiving end of slavery, listened to their direct descendents; you can praise the morality of slavery because you are unwilling to acknowledge the horrors of the institution or the practice of dehuminization that made it possible. Do the math yourself, and figure out why.

[ole]

That was what I was saying, Hanny. We're not talking genetic drift, we're talking about two physically admirable parents. Odds are that most of their offspring would bring a better price than the random child.

The dairyman is in the business of selling milk. But it would be a poor dairyman who did not have his cows impregnated by the very best bulls available. After all, the calves have value whether kept or sold. He is not concerned with genetic drift; just in the calves during his lifetime.

ole

[Hanny]

I take it you are unaware of the terms I used, Octroon etc; proof that you are unaware of the reality of the day. I cannot sell my children or my wife; a pity you are unable to grasp that simple difference.

No i pointed out to you what the terms you incorectly used mean, since you mention white genetic material being preasent, by visual recognition, just as how you can tell the criminal by the shape of his skull when you look at it no doubt, the words you used, you dont know what they mean, anyone of male of female with white parents back to 8 generations was a mulatoe, the reason for this clasification is that laws prohit mixed race people from being citizens untill a certain number of generations have passed, not that some look more like whites and are called octroon, not because they looked 1 quarter white etc, and was stopped in the 1870 census.
The only proven thing here is you cant use the terminology correctly, how you leapt to proof of my unawarnees of the reality of day is beyond me, but since you seem to imply that owners cannot sell there property under US law in the 1860s, or that you can tell how much white genitic material is present in negros by how white they look, i suggest you curb your impulse to post rot along with your flights into fancy about others grasp of reality.
Now, since your wife is not property you indeed cannot sell her, but you can sell your other property, and slaves were property under US law, so again the only proven thing is you cannot argue the facts, but want to argue free people are not sold, hardly an argument since free people being sold appears in nothing i have posted, but that slaves as property were lawfully sold. If you stick with that concept it would be just grand, instead of dragging free people who cannot be sold into it.
So i ask again, what % of caucasian gentic material was present in the afro american population in 1860 that these gossipy soldiers found?, since its in the census figures let alone any decent book or genitic study, i would excpect an answer from you sometime soon. It would be nice if you include the past 30 years increase by way of comparison, or the first 200 years etc, but since i already know what it is dont worry overmutch, since this is not what i know but what you know. Or as i suspect, have no idea of or about, and libiling the owners of slaves is about all you able to do, i use that word rather than slander, since your confused about the two will give you an oportunity to look up the difference and use them correctly in the future, since you have a habit of useing words that dont mean what you use them to mean.

Slightly lower than the UK rate IIRC, though I doubt very much. Yes, there were quite a few mulatto & negro prostitutes, they are mentioned in New orleans and Nashville to name just to locales. There were Bordellos well prior to the CW.

Nashviles prostitutes was 90% white, NYC prostitutes were 67% white, but why let actual facts shape a conclusion.
Not even close, if you dont know just say so, dont just guess wildly.
Middle east
UK 31.4 per 1000
Italy
UK 40.2
NWE
UK 13.3
USA
Middle east
US 241.3 per 1000
NWE
USA 148.92
I mention this out of intest as to the incidence of VD in the Union Army compared to 62 and 65 medical reports, just who do you suggest they were haveing sex with while in the south to acount for that epedemic?.

Would you please learn to spell the Constitution properly, it's so consistant an mistake on your part it looks like it is no mistake.

No. Whats more, only those who themselves do not make gramatical etc mistakes ought to point out to others when they do so, as otherwise they just show themselves up as hypercritical twerps.

Yes, I know what a census is.

Your prior posts indicated otherwise "As to the Census... every how many years?". If you knew, why ask what you say you already knew?.

Again, no. Census records are far from complete & while the accuracy is laudable it is far from perfect.

Nobody was talking about perfection, it is however as good as humanly possible to do, now what exactly is your problem with the US census figures?. Lastly its not "again no" since this is the first time you posted "no" so to use agian no is incorrect, if your going to comment on other poor grammer and or spelling you had better sharpen your own up.

Your opinion, my opinion... mine is backed up by reading the words of the men of the day, near to 3000 now.

Really, so you have authentic first hand acounts of slaves being breed and sold and the level of economic benifit derived from that activity, this will make things go very smoothly. I await an example of such from you.
So your appeal to authority is not facts but more opinion!.

I've heard the figure of $30 a year upkeep on a slave multiply that by 20 subtract profit made from that slave in say 6 years of work... I think you'll get well over $500 in profit.

I asked for your maths, not what you thought the maths would show, i guess ill have to do it for myslelf, ill just remember you cant do maths and not ask you to do so again, oh and since you cant do the maths ill just keep it simple enough to show how ignorant your post is, 30 is used by those who cant count.
Slave appears out of thin air and starts costing 30 a year.
years 1854-60
investment
20 years*30 per year=600 debit
6*10% of value=profit
60
61
65
63
64
80
income from 6 years=$393
outlay600 minus income393 is current worth, but a negative return of $207 so far for a 20 year investment, average $value of a slave sold nationaly in 1860 was $778 for a slave, but a profit of $571 if sold at average price for our seller. So the maths appear to be that a 20 year investment had yet to break even, but if sold returned a 571 profit for 20 years ionvestment, or a 28 a year profit. Why would anyone sell when they slave is returning 80/30 at this point in time? and can expect to do so for another 2 decades longer?, peaking at age 35 for the return avaraged over the liftime at 10%, if you hold onto this economic powerhouse till age 30, you get a $1000+ return over investment. Simply answer is that the 2500 a year sales was around 0.05% of the population sold each year, and it was not the average ones who were sold but the unaverage ones, the prime hand blacksmith age 35 in NO at $4513 who came from Va and had cost $900 to train and maiantain, thats where the profit in selleing was, not your avarage hand, who if he/she lived to age 20 was just starting to make you a return by there labour returns, but you have yet to break even on a 20 year cycle.
Slave is born from a mother who cost $377, has brought in $900 income in the last 20 years, $1584 in the last 40 and cost %1200.
Slave mother and first ofspring have cost the owner;
Mother 377
40*30 1200
Son
20*30 600
loss 2177
Income from each;
mother 1584
son 393
sale 778
profit 2755
nett +578
Since this thing must be self generating, ie it takes 2 to produce the next generation;
Mother1577
Father1577
2 keepers 1200
1 sold 600
loss= 4954
profit
Mother 1584
father 1584
1 393
2 393
3 393+778
Profit = 5125
Actaul profit therfore =$171, (using your 30 a year as the pricinple cause of all the math problem because it cannot be show to be an acurate value because it produces rediculase math) so please read a **** book about the subject and use the correct costs etc and maths to explin the level of profitabilty of slavery by sale, because all your *think* and *guess* is wasteing bandwidth and annoying as hell to read such ignorant twaddle.
On your 30 a year, you cant even break even after 40 years labour of the nparents and 20 years from 3 children,unless you sell someone!, whats the word used to describe those who cant do math?, whichever one it is, it applies to you.



same thing in years 1834-40
6*10% of value=profit
37
42
54
63
48
44
income from 6 years=$288 20*20=$400-288=-$112, average national sale $ value of $377 means $265 profit from the same sale, or a return of $14 a year over 20 years, and a 37/20 yearly return.

Simply because you don't want it to be, doesn't mean it wasn't. You have stated slavery was never more profitable than in 1860.

Yes and i can show why that is was to support my posistion, with math, something you simply made a guess at when asked for it, not exactly quid pro, slavery was profitable not because massive numbers were sold, but because massive numbers were worked, to be sure a small amount of high returns could be made on some sales, but even if you take every sale as a result of deliberate breeding, you get 2500 a year as your end number, and a $ value under 2 million, from slave population valued at 2000,million, statisticly insignificant even if 100% of all sales were from deliberate breeding, which of course they were not.
1827 was the least profitable year, slaves returned a 66, and 1860 was the highest at 195 return, using base 100 as the normalised return, or if you prefer 1860 was an exceptional year almost double the expected return.

I've studied the people on the receiving end of slavery, listened to their direct descendents; you can praise the morality of slavery because you are unwilling to acknowledge the horrors of the institution or the practice of dehuminization that made it possible. Do the math yourself, and figure out why.

Nice, im arguening with myslef on both economics, math and law, and you counter with morality, let me do the maths of where i have priased the morlity of slavery, thats a zero, carry the other zero where i priased the morality of slavery again, add the zero where i priased the morality of slavery, so thats a zero overall, so ive figured it all up, and the answer is your unwilling to argue the law, unable to post your maths, because you actually want to talk about morality, a subject i try and avoid like the plaugue because i believe those who wish to impose there version of morality on others are beneath contempt.

Lincoln, who believed that "the slaveholder has a legal and moral right to his slaves" and who spoke of the "natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of an indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races,"Peoria, Illinois on 16 October 1854 done Lincolns morality on th right to own slaves for you.
Lieutenant Thomas J. Myers wrote the following words to his wife in Boston: "The ****ed ******s, as a general rule, prefer to stay at home, particularly after they found out that we only wanted the able-bodied men, (and, to tell you the truth, the youngest and best-looking women.) Sometimes we took off whole families and plantations of ******s, by way of repaying secessionists. But the useless part of them we soon manage to lose; sometimes in crossing rivers, sometimes in other ways."Letter of Lieutenant Thomas J. Myers to Mrs. Thomas J. Myers, 26 February 1865; quoted by Dean, Crimes of the Civil War, pages 82-83. Not a lot of morality there methinks.
Slavery was a legal right, not a moral right, done the maths on that for you.
slavery was moraly wrong, but no one went to war on that principle, done the math of that for you.
Since you have studdied the slave naratives, you know the % that said they were more happier as slaves than as free, when asked in a survey of all surviving former slaves, done the math on that.
slaves lived longer, ate a better diet, earnt a higher wage, sufferd less disease, had healthiwer chidren,than they did as free men in asociety that would not tolertae them as equals, the WBTS was an unmitigated disater for the negro race, not only do we not know how many died as result of becoming free, it seems it was not important enough to quantify at the time, and free and equal was not even a reality till the civil rights era.Thats the price the a number of negro generations payed for whites idea of what was moraly right for them, compared to what other whites thout was legaly right to do to them.

[Hanny]

That was what I was saying, Hanny. We're not talking genetic drift, we're talking about two physically admirable parents. Odds are that most of their offspring would bring a better price than the random child.

My bad, i know what you were posting, but was pulling others posts which were in that direction into it, which has caused confusion. About 25% of your genes come from the grandparents, which is why red hair skips a generation quite often by way of an example, the rest from each parent.

The dairyman is in the business of selling milk. But it would be a poor dairyman who did not have his cows impregnated by the very best bulls available. After all, the calves have value whether kept or sold. He is not concerned with genetic drift; just in the calves during his lifetime.

the point as i understand is deliberte slave breeding for profit, which non one has advanced any evidence for that i have read on this thread, which was different from all other human reproduction. The milk analogy is another bad example, in ww2 the native UK cow stock was exterminated and repalced with frisean cows that produce more milk than the UK native stock, so to max out effiecency we extermninated the native cows and replaced them with more effiecent ones. Because the Mil situation requires a economic rationalzation of this kind, we also killed of the national zoo poulations entirley and restocked post war, we really went to town on economic rationlization.

Your anology, im asumming, is that slaves were delibertly breed to produce healthy strong slaves, rather than take whever nature provided. It aslo by extension means sickly children were disposed of, and the elederly and infirm dome away with, but since there werre laws to prevent that, we know the whole concept of slve breeding for profit is a crock, advanced bythose not getting what they wanted from slavery is imoral, but pushing it further when that was not enough to cause change.

problems with this analogy are many, first human gentic breeding was unkown to the slave owners at that time, so they could not do what they could not predict to happen, Putting a male who had many children to those comming in puberty might seem the same as putting the stud bull to the cows, but its not, and does not work that way in human reproduction, so the anaology falls over on biology before we get to the next problem.

[johan_steele]

[QUOTE=Hanny;83058]No i pointed out to you what the terms you incorectly used mean, since you mention white genetic material being preasent, by visual recognition, just as how you can tell the criminal by the shape of his skull when you look at it no doubt, the words you used, you dont know what they mean, anyone of male of female with white parents back to 8 generations was a mulatoe, the reason for this clasification is that laws prohit mixed race people from being citizens untill a certain number of generations have passed, not that some look more like whites and are called octroon, not because they looked 1 quarter white etc, and was stopped in the 1870 census. Hanny, you really should do some reading of the period. The term Octroon, Quadron etc are heavily used... something you might have picked up if you had read period letters.

The only proven thing here is you cant use the terminology correctly, how you leapt to proof of my unawarnees of the reality of day is beyond me, but since you seem to imply that owners cannot sell there property under US law in the 1860s, or that you can tell how much white genitic material is present in negros by how white they look, i suggest you curb your impulse to post rot along with your flights into fancy about others grasp of reality. Smoke and mirrors or just plain smoke? I've never implied an owner couldn't sell their property. Slaves were just that, and if a modern farmer could figure out a way to get three tractors out of two and sell the spare he would do it. THree horses from two and sell the spare; three slaves from two and sell the spare... a concept simple enough for you to grasp... I would think.

Now, since your wife is not property you indeed cannot sell her, but you can sell your other property, and slaves were property under US law, so again the only proven thing is you cannot argue the facts, but want to argue free people are not sold, hardly an argument since free people being sold appears in nothing i have posted, but that slaves as property were lawfully sold. If you stick with that concept it would be just grand, instead of dragging free people who cannot be sold into it. A free black man was free only so long as he toed the line, didn't cross any slave catcher w/ lower morals than usual, and made very certain he paid all his taxes, fines etc and kept all the receipts. A purchase of freedom was no guarantee of continued or perpeual freedom. You are the only one I can think of that appears to approve and defend people as property angle; I believe it despicable. Some thought it less than honorable in 1860, more do today... though there are always throwbacks.
So i ask again, what % of caucasian gentic material was present in the afro american population in 1860 that these gossipy soldiers found? Hmmm, lets see, do you think a soldier asked? Or do you think he might just have noted a slave whiter than his own children? Takes quite a man to ensalve his own children for fun and profit doesn't it? The soldiers who saw it believed it despicable, so do I. , since its in the census figures let alone any decent book or genitic study, i would excpect an answer from you sometime soon. It would be nice if you include the past 30 years increase by way of comparison, or the first 200 years etc, but since i already know what it is dont worry overmutch, since this is not what i know but what you know. Or as i suspect, have no idea of or about, and libiling the owners of slaves is about all you able to do, i use that word rather than slander, since your confused about the two will give you an oportunity to look up the difference and use them correctly in the future, since you have a habit of useing words that dont mean what you use them to mean. Is English you second language as well? I believe what I've read, enough men made comment about it to prove to me beyond a shadow of doubt there were quite a few Mulattos (which means mule by the way), Quadroons (quarter) Octroons (1/16 I believe) all less than white and less than human in the eyes of many. And alll quite elligable for your benevolance of slavery simply because of their skin.



Nashviles prostitutes was 90% white, NYC prostitutes were 67% white, but why let actual facts shape a conclusion.
Not even close, if you dont know just say so, dont just guess wildly. 10%... out of how many? A rather significant number. And the numbers in New Orleans were quite a bit higher. But many who were not judged white were Native American as well, the exotic and forbidden sells well I suppose. How many do you expect were free... rather few I would expect.

Middle east
UK 31.4 per 1000
Italy
UK 40.2
NWE
UK 13.3
USA
Middle east
US 241.3 per 1000
NWE
USA 148.92
I mention this out of intest as to the incidence of VD in the Union Army compared to 62 and 65 medical reports, just who do you suggest they were haveing sex with while in the south to acount for that epedemic?. I rather suspect they were women, the majority prostitutes. I was recalling a number for the Brits during the Napoleanic Wars which numbers 45% though IIRC the reference was to the Peninsula in particular but the number may well be wrong.


No. Whats more, only those who themselves do not make gramatical etc mistakes ought to point out to others when they do so, as otherwise they just show themselves up as hypercritical twerps. Oh I make plenty of spelling errors, don't deny it. Even make some of the same ones over and over again. But I don't purposefully mispell things in a juvenile attempt to...


Your prior posts indicated otherwise "As to the Census... every how many years?". If you knew, why ask what you say you already knew?. Hmmm, 10 years glad you looked it up for me. For a govt keeping track of it's population makes sense. For a slaveowner remembering slave J who lost 12 children in child birth or had kids that consistantly failed to reach past vchildhood... and such information being made public might devalue her in some way. I wouldn't expect you to be 100% honest about such.


Nobody was talking about perfection, it is however as good as humanly possible to do, now what exactly is your problem with the US census figures?. Lastly its not "again no" since this is the first time you posted "no" so to use agian no is incorrect, if your going to comment on other poor grammer and or spelling you had better sharpen your own up. As I said mine is less than perfect I don't claim otherwise. It isn't the firt time Census figures have been spoken of here or called into daoubt as to their perfect accuarcy. But I expect more from an officer of the RE.


Really, so you have authentic first hand acounts of slaves being breed and sold and the level of economic benifit derived from that activity, this will make things go very smoothly. I await an example of such from you.
So your appeal to authority is not facts but more opinion!. Opinion based upon reading the letters of the day; try it sometime. It's quite invigorating and more than a little fascinating. I don't discount the words of US soldiers as willingly as you. I explained why I believed every slave owner was involved in slave breeding. Some for fun and profit some just gaining more property through natures drive in the human being. That you fail to understand that is your problem, not mine.


I asked for your maths, not what you thought the maths would show, i guess ill have to do it for myslelf, ill just remember you cant do maths and not ask you to do so again, oh and since you cant do the maths ill just keep it simple enough to show how ignorant your post is, 30 is used by those who cant count. Spent several years in Special Ed for math, don't deny it. Did fine in Geometry but Algebra sucked.
Slave appears out of thin air and starts costing 30 a year.
years 1854-60
investment Now how does a child say to ten years old cost $30? Children were working in the fields from the time they could walk carrying water or light loads but working w/out pay. They were fed and clothed, and judging from what I've read how well clothed and housed depended upon the benevolance of an owner. The average field hand could bring in well over $1000, say sold at 20 years of age... and a skilled artisan could bring considerably more w/ the owner already having at least 8 years of work out of him. A woman of child bearing age appears to have brought between $5-700. As to the $30 average, I don't know but I do believe it to be rather high; food, clothing and housing the bare minimum though obvioulsy some would spend on quite a bit more. A child born doesn't need to be purchased any money spent on the child is banking on the future. Slaves generally grew their own food and worked the land that provided that food themselves. Clothing was generally of the cheapest least expensive quality. The roof on the shack over them needed to be occasionally repaired which th slaves did on their own time usually w/ locally made materials.

Profit = 5125
Actaul profit therfore =$171, (using your 30 a year as the pricinple cause of all the math problem because it cannot be show to be an acurate value because it produces rediculase math) so please read a **** book about the subject and use the correct costs etc and maths to explin the level of profitabilty of slavery by sale, because all your *think* and *guess* is wasteing bandwidth and annoying as hell to read such ignorant twaddle.
On your 30 a year, you cant even break even after 40 years labour of the nparents and 20 years from 3 children,unless you sell someone!, whats the word used to describe those who cant do math?, whichever one it is, it applies to you. Lot of numbers and with you I tend to agree w/ Twain on statistics, especially yours. So forgive me if I fail to trust them. You gave them, they're yours so merry christmas. As you were the one who claimed slavery was at it's most profitable in 1860 you must know why and be able to understand that more slaves can easily mean more profit. And a slave acquired cheaply or for free is profit when there is no initial purchase price. More slaves meant more profit. One slave woman purchased at your cost of under $400 gives birth to 12 chilidren over say twenty years.

I've read books on the subject, given lists of them in the past. Feel free to cite yours; I have no doubt some of them are the same. WE've come to dramiticly different conclusions. Here it is in a nutshell: slavery bad; get over it no matter how you want to paint it it's still an ugly thing.




Lincoln, who believed that "the slaveholder has a legal and moral right to his slaves" and who spoke of the "natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of an indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races,"Peoria, Illinois on 16 October 1854 done Lincolns morality on th right to own slaves for you.
Lieutenant Thomas J. Myers wrote the following words to his wife in Boston: "The ****ed ******s, as a general rule, prefer to stay at home, particularly after they found out that we only wanted the able-bodied men, (and, to tell you the truth, the youngest and best-looking women.) Sometimes we took off whole families and plantations of ******s, by way of repaying secessionists. But the useless part of them we soon manage to lose; sometimes in crossing rivers, sometimes in other ways."Letter of Lieutenant Thomas J. Myers to Mrs. Thomas J. Myers, 26 February 1865; quoted by Dean, Crimes of the Civil War, pages 82-83. Not a lot of morality there methinks.
Slavery was a legal right, not a moral right, done the maths on that for you.
slavery was moraly wrong, but no one went to war on that principle, done the math of that for you.

I applaud your carefully cherry picked quotes in your defence of slavery and following condemnation on the US for ending it. Bravo sir.

Since you have studdied the slave naratives, you know the % that said they were more happier as slaves than as free, when asked in a survey of all surviving former slaves, done the math on that. Yes, I've read the naratives, I also know those asking the questions were white and more than likely got the answers they wanted.

slaves lived longer, ate a better diet, earnt a higher wage, sufferd less disease, had healthiwer chidren,than they did as free men in asociety that would not tolertae them as equals, the WBTS was an unmitigated disater for the negro race, not only do we not know how many died as result of becoming free, it seems it was not important enough to quantify at the time, and free and equal was not even a reality till the civil rights era.Thats the price the a number of negro generations payed for whites idea of what was moraly right for them, compared to what other whites thout was legaly right to do to them. Slavery was a National sin, a stain upon the honor of this Nation. Black people did not get off well, even after the destruction of your "peculiar institution." Jim Crow did a splendid job of holding the black man down and it is merely another tragedy and shame that it was allowed to persist as long as it did. As to earning a higher wage, bull. As to suffering less disease, that can be argued and eating a better diet can also be argued as it is a generality you carefully husband. But the destruction of slavery an unmitigated disaster? Please, would you prefer slavery to still exist and for the black man to know his place? Like others I have dealt w/ over the years I suspect so.[QUOTE]

The CS did not abolish slavery, the US did.

I challenge you to walk down the street of the bottoms of any southern town and shout "Y'all were better off as slaves." I rather suspect you wouldn't get too much applause; I doubt you'd get out of there w/ your hide intact.

So please sir, have yourself a pleasent day.

[ole]

Since you have studdied the slave naratives, you know the % that said they were more happier as slaves than as free, when asked in a survey of all surviving former slaves, done the math on that. Yes, I've read the naratives, I also know those asking the questions were white and more than likely got the answers they wanted.

The WPA's project includes 2,194 interviews. "Black interviewers were virtually excluded from the WPA staffs in all southern states except Virginia, Louisiana, and Florida."

"The black man's vulnerability to white oppression was painfully evident in the depression south. From 1931 to 1935, for example, more than 70 lynchings occurred there; nine blacks were killed who had committed no crime, and 25 were killed for minor offenses."

To have been born into slavery, an interviewee would have to be 66 in 1931; 70 in 1935. This supposes that the he or she was born 1865. What are your earliest childhood memories? When y'all get to be 90, how much are you going to accurately remember of school days?

Quotes are from David Brion Davis' book, Slave Testimony LSUP, 1977. There are many other problems with the Slave Narratives, including inexpert interviewers, leading interviewers, misleading interviewers and editing. But they're too numerous to mention.

His introduction discusses at tedious length the literature to date bearing on slave treatment. As the Narratives is the better known (and possibly the most unreliable), he gives it extra attention.

ole

[Hanny]

Hanny, you really should do some reading of the period. The term Octroon, Quadron etc are heavily used... something you might have picked up if you had read period letters.

I have, which is why i can with supreme confidence point out to you that you are misuesing the words, not using them as was the practice o0f the time nor indeed how the dictionary uses them today. Open your dictionary again.

Smoke and mirrors or just plain smoke?I've never implied an owner couldn't sell their property. Slaves were just that, and if a modern farmer could figure out a way to get three tractors out of two and sell the spare he would do it. THree horses from two and sell the spare; three slaves from two and sell the spare... a concept simple enough for you to grasp... I would think.

No smoke and mirrors by myself, thats your stock in trade. So you now agree that the law allows you to sell property. Your initial comment was "I take it you are unaware of the terms I used, Octroon etc; proof that you are unaware of the reality of the day. I cannot sell my children or my wife; a pity you are unable to grasp that simple difference."

So you got pointed out that no one was selling their wives and children, which is YOUR smoke and mirrors of confusing the reality of the day with YOUR inability to post factualy acurate opinion.
Which is why i pointed out reality to you because you went into a flight of fancy, or as you prefer, a smoke and mirors excercise of obfuscation.
Now, since your wife is not property you indeed cannot sell her, but you can sell your other property, and slaves were property under US law, so again the only proven thing is you cannot argue the facts, but want to argue free people are not sold, hardly an argument since free people being sold appears in nothing i have posted, but that slaves as property were lawfully sold.

If you stick with that concept it would be just grand, instead of dragging free people who cannot be sold into it.

Since thats what you did and i responded to your introdcution of your free wife and child, i sugest you pay attention to what you post, and get responded to because you introduced it, and dont compalin to others about what you intrioduced.

A free black man was free only so long as he toed the line, didn't cross any slave catcher w/ lower morals than usual, and made very certain he paid all his taxes,

Sorry but only citizens are taxed, there were no free negros paying federal tax. If as a tax paying citizen of a state, he has the full protection of the state law. But since most northern stastes denied them citizenship and protection of law, they could inded be arrested.
Crandall v. The State SC Conn
Chief Justice David Daggett wrote an opinion which was nearly identical to what Taney would deliver over thirty years later:
The persons contemplated in this act are not citizens within the obvious meaning of that section of the Constitution of the United States which I have just read. Let me begin by putting this plain question: Are slaves citizens? At the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State was a slave State.... We all know that slavery is recognized in that Constitution; it is the duty of this court to take that Constitution as it is, for we have sworn to support it.... Then slaves were not considered citizens by the framers of the Constitution....
Are free blacks citizens?... To my mind it would be a perversion of terms, and the well known rules of construction, to say that slaves, free blacks, or Indians were citizens, within the meaning of that term as used in the Constitution. God forbid that I should add to the degradation of this race of men; but I am bound, by my duty, to say that they are not citizens.

fines etc and kept all the receipts. A purchase of freedom was no guarantee of continued or perpeual freedom. You are the only one I can think of that appears to approve and defend people as property angle; I believe it despicable.

Actually it was the legal posistion, and is historical acurate and taught as such in the uS and Uk and europe, proof enough thaty your an unedcated poster, twisting history to hos own agenda.

Some thought it less than honorable in 1860, more do today... though there are always throwbacks.

What you *think* discpicable, was US law, North and South, gaurented in state and federal law, its your hoistory and you seek to deny it and make it a section of the countrys sin, when slavery was the sin of all the nations since inception. What you think honorable, is not to lie about your past, now one was forced to own slaves, it was a personal choice done acording to law, and individual choice. Just as ***** teaches your all fit for conversion to how they think you should act and be moral, but you deny them the right to dicate or impose their morailty and law on you, so did the slave holders who were every bit as christian and relgous as the north, resist those who imposed changes to constitionaly protected rights, because it was a war aim, and not even a moral argument except for the 2% of abolitionst whose dream had come true and got what they had no earthly chance of getting pre war, and end to slavery. the North had no high ground at all, they ended slavery from mil need, not moral principle.

Hmmm, lets see, do you think a soldier asked? Or do you think he might just have noted a slave whiter than his own children?

So you still dont know, ill tell you then, by 1860 the amount of caucasion gentic material introduced into afro americans was still under 10%, from 300 years intre breeding.

Takes quite a man to ensalve his own children for fun and profit doesn't it?

Since you asumming facts not proven, your just wasteing my time, again.

The soldiers who saw it believed it despicable, so do I.

So your now not only claiming that you have read first hand acounts of soldiers seeing almost white negros but that they knew they were they were slaves sold for fun and profit by there own fathers.
I await any evidence to support your wild claims.

Is English you second language as well?

I can do French, Polish, Russian, and latin for you if thats any easier for you to reply. Any chance of you actually answering the question put?.

I believe what I've read, enough men made comment about it to prove to me beyond a shadow of doubt there were quite a few Mulattos (which means mule by the way)

So you looked up the word you could not use in your first post on this, you should have noticed what it means and where it comes from, now show from these first hand acounts that these multoes were slaves and not free persons.

Quadroons (quarter) Octroons (1/16 I believe) all less than white and less than human in the eyes of many.

You just cant stop showing your ignornace can you?, octroons is 1/8 not 1/16, another term you used initialy and still cant use correctlty!. Since all human sub sets breed and produce ofspring, they are all still human, and i await your evidence that anyone claimed they were less than human from your 3000+ acounts you claim to have read.

[Hanny]

And alll quite elligable for your benevolance of slavery simply because of their skin.

Slavery was not based on skin colour, which i have pointed out to you before, but on law which made no difference to skin colour.

10%... out of how many? A rather significant number. And the numbers in New Orleans were quite a bit higher. But many who were not judged white were Native American as well, the exotic and forbidden sells well I suppose. How many do you expect were free... rather few I would expect.

10% is 10/100.Its what the term means.
White is white to 8 generations, non whitye includes all other races, so its becoming clear you dont have the first idera of what your commenting on.

Prostitues earnt less than did slaves, so there no slave prostitues as the economcs made them less profitable, prostiutues were ileetwerate free whites, or free negros, slave prostitutes, ststisticly speaking dont even exist.

. I rather suspect they were women, the majority prostitutes.

So, you suspect women, not white women because the number of rapes was so low, but prostitues you say, do you know how many prostitutes there were to acomadate the numbers of soldiers?, or is it not the case than negro slave could be raped and puniushment for that is not a crime of rape but one punished by Regimnetal orders?.

I was recalling a number for the Brits during the Napoleanic Wars which numbers 45% though IIRC the reference was to the Peninsula in particular but the number may well be wrong.

It is wrong.

Oh I make plenty of spelling errors, don't deny it. Even make some of the same ones over and over again. But I don't purposefully mispell things in a juvenile attempt to...

So you do what i do, yet you ascribe some ulterior motive to mine and others no doubt, while your do it by simply typing quickly without motive, who quaint.

Hmmm, 10 years glad you looked it up for me. For a govt keeping track of it's population makes sense. For a slaveowner remembering slave J who lost 12 children in child birth or had kids that consistantly failed to reach past vchildhood... and such information being made public might devalue her in some way. I wouldn't expect you to be 100% honest about such.

I did not have to look anything up, if you dont know what a word means, its best not to use it.
Ah your other recorse, to imply or flat out say im dishonest, now nice. Each year the docters send in a death certificate to the Cenususs listeing cause of death for all deaths, that how the cenus data knows that white childbirth death by still born was 177 per 1000 births and negros was 178 per 1000, and again using the census data we know that the CSA white pop under age 9 was 30% of the total in 1860, so was the border states, and the Northern states 27%.
We further know that the free negro in the North was 24%, in the Border states 26% and the CSA states 29%.
We further know that the CSA slave pop under age 9 was 31% and in the border states 32%.
we know from 1790-1860 the white pop growth was 35% on avarege per census.
If slaves were breed deleiberatly, than how come whites were breeding more than the negros?, how come the free southern negros were breeding ata consttance rate, while when free and in the north well below the avarage, its not that the south wasa breeding farm, it was that the whites out breed the negro and the free negro in the north was not breeding at the same rate as free blacks in the south or slaves in the south, because the upkeep of the children was borne by them, while eleswhere the upkeep was borne by the owner.
Slave breeding was a myth, always was and always will be to those who can count, other wise whites were out breeding them by design, and sterilizing the free blacks to prevent them from reproducing by social and economic conditions.
The best example of breeding is how the north and south start out from 2 million each and end up with 22 million in the north and 9 in the south, seems pretty clear who won the breeding contest.

As I said mine is less than perfect I don't claim otherwise. It isn't the firt time Census figures have been spoken of here or called into daoubt as to their perfect accuarcy. But I expect more from an officer of the RE.

Its not to mutch to excpect you to answer the question is it?. What is it you dont like about the census figures?. 3 times i ask and you waffle on without an answer.

Opinion based upon reading the letters of the day; try it sometime. It's quite invigorating and more than a little fascinating. I don't discount the words of US soldiers as willingly as you. I explained why I believed every slave owner was involved in slave breeding. Some for fun and profit some just gaining more property through natures drive in the human being. That you fail to understand that is your problem, not mine.

No my problem is you made a claim, and i asked for you to share some of what formed your conclusion, thats the problem, you refusual to post what you say has formed youir opinion.
So i ask again, post a first hand acount that shows what you have posted, can you post an example of wages and slaverey or not?.

investment Now how does a child say to ten years old cost $30?

It does not, simply 10*=300 cost to maint, i can do the more compicated year by year cost/benift over the life cycle of a slave but dont see anything in it for me to do so.
That your figure you wanted to use as the mant cost per year, thats the average cost per slave per year, so i used the averages of income and sale $ value at each point in time, and 10% being the average return per year per slave, from the historical statistics of the USA 1790-present, for average $ values of slaves per year etc.
To breed for profit means the slave must live beyond the expected break even point, as in the UK West Indies, we did not breed slaves because life expetency was so low as to make it an unprofitable enterprise. Life expetency in the US for a slave was 47, so maint over 47 years and income over 47 years was how an ownewr knew if he could make a profit, if he could not predict a profit, he would not enter into any breeding for profit scheme as it would cost him money, ie if life expetence was 24, 24*30=720, 24*X=income, is less than 720, you cant make a profit, and that asumes slavers worked on 2+ decades and more profitability scales.

Children were working in the fields from the time they could walk carrying water or light loads but working w/out pay.They were fed and clothed, and judging from what I've read how well clothed and housed depended upon the benevolance of an owner. The average field hand could bring in well over $1000, say sold at 20 years of age... and a skilled artisan could bring considerably more w/ the owner already having at least 8 years of work out of him.

You had your chance at maths and blew it. There is not any record in the US index of slave $ Value that places $1000 to then average sale, 778 is that highest $ value, and 20 was not the age range that brought that $ value. Stop inventing numbers that already are freely availbale in books that expalin this.

A woman of child bearing age appears to have brought between $5-700.

Depnds when and where, but that not out of the ball park, but the point was to use a uniform measure of the average, which was half that.

As to the $30 average, I don't know but I do believe it to be rather high; food, clothing and housing the bare minimum though obvioulsy some would spend on quite a bit more.

Not high, utterly without foundation in fact.

Lot of numbers and with you I tend to agree w/ Twain on statistics, especially yours. So forgive me if I fail to trust them.

I gave you an oportunity to show using maths,the profitabilioty of slave rearing for sale, you gave what you had and i showed you what they ment, that you dont like it is in neither here or there, that your incapable of using maths to support or refute the point is most revalling, go back to school, learn some maths, and stop posting about things beyond your pay grade.
I only worked out from what you gave, which was not enough to strat with, so dont blame me for your own inability to provide what was asked of you, the statiastics i used are those of the USA education system, the rest are yours, if you dont like how they turn out, i suggest you get a beter argument, one not made up by you on the spot about a subject you dont enouigh about to post on.

You gave them, they're yours so merry christmas.

I only did so because your incapable of doing so, i used US education literature for the $ values, from a couple of books that teach the maths on slave profitability, not one, of which advocates that slaves were bred for profit, you cannot get a education in the US and came away with that notion, the maths disproves it.

As you were the one who claimed slavery was at it's most profitable in 1860 you must know why and be able to understand that more slaves can easily mean more profit.

Utter rot, more land ment more cotton, more of a thing drives its price down, its the law of dimishing returns. Slave population was not increasing at a rate to drive down its $ value, because more land was aquired to work than slaves existed to work it for that profit, simple supply and demand, more land aquired than workforce available to exploit it ment $ value of workforce rose, and it was placed at the most profitable point of return, the $ value of slaves rose not because there was more of them, it rose because there was not enough of them.
Basic economics, something your immune to.

And a slave acquired cheaply or for free is profit when there is no initial purchase price. More slaves meant more profit. One slave woman purchased at your cost of under $400 gives birth to 12 chilidren over say twenty years.

Children are not afree good, read a book on economics and get back to me.
I just gave you the math on that, your wrong, number of slaves who bore 12 children was 0.0002%, you have never read a single book on slavery prfitability have you?, let alone popluation dynamics,else you would know the average negro bore less children than did white mothers, which kinda thrashes your whole argument.

I've read books on the subject, given lists of them in the past. Feel free to cite yours; I have no doubt some of them are the same. WE've come to dramiticly different conclusions. Here it is in a nutshell: slavery bad; get over it no matter how you want to paint it it's still an ugly thing.

yes i have seen your list of books in the past, sadly whats in them did not support your poistion then either.
Utter rot, i asked for you maths, which your incapable off by your own admision, anyone can list a bunch of books, i asked for your fist hand acounts from them, either provide them or stop wasteing my time. And the nutshell is you incapaicty to demonstrate the profitability of slave breeding.

[Hanny]

I applaud your carefully cherry picked quotes in your defence of slavery and following condemnation on the US for ending it. Bravo sir.

Not chery picked at all, US history abounds with such examples.
The population of the United States consists of natives of Caucasian origin, and exotics of the same derivation. The native mass readily assimilates to itself and absorbs the exotic, and these constitute one homogenous people. The African race, bond and free, and the aborigines, savage and civilised, being incapable of such assimilation and absorption, remain distinct, and, owing to their peculiar condition, constitute inferior masses, and may be regarded as accidental if not disturbing political forces. The ruling homogenous family, planted at first on the Atlantic shore, and following an obvious law, is seen rapidly and continually spreading itself westward, year by year, subduing the wilderness and the prairie, and thus extending this great political community, which, as fast as it advances, breaks into distinct States for municipal purposes only, while the whole constitutes one entire, contiguous, and compact nation.
Seward, speech delivered at Rochester, New York on 25 October 1858

Illinois Laws.
"no black or mulatto person shall be permitted to settle or reside in this State, unless he or she shall first produce a certificate signed by some judge or some clerk of some court of the United States, of his or her actual freedom." 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. Furthermore, this act prescribed "lashes on his or her bare back" for slaves found "ten miles from the tenement of his or her master" (a maximum of thirty-five lashes), "being on the plantation or in the tenement of another than the master, not being sent on lawful business" (ten lashes), and for the gathering of three or more slaves "for the purpose of dancing or reveling either by day or night" (thirty-nine lashes).(80) 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."(81) 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.(82) Thus, as one writer put it, Negroes "seeking homes on the prairies... were put upon the block."(83) 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."(84) In 1843, the supreme court of Illinois declared that the purpose of these laws was "to prevent the influx of that most unacceptable population."(85)

80. Illinois statute of 30 March 1819, quoted by Ewing, Dred Scott Decision, pages 79-80.
81. Illinois statute of 17 January 1829, quoted by Ewing, op. cit., page 80.
82. Williams, Negro Race in America, page 123.
83. Arthur Charles Cole, The Irrepressible Conflict: 1850-1865 (New York: Macmillan Company, 1934), page 264.
84. Constitution of Illinois (1862), Article XVIII, Section 1. This amendment was approved by a majority of 100,590 voters (Journal of the Constitutional Convention of the State of Illinois [Springfield, Illinois: C.H. Lanphier, 1862], page 1098).
85. Eells v. The People (1843), 4 Scammon 513. There is no record that Abraham Lincoln ever objected to any of these anti-Negro laws which were passed by his own State, and his own public statements on the subject indicated his support of them.

Yes, I've read the naratives, I also know those asking the questions were white and more than likely got the answers they wanted.

Really they wanted more negros to tell them they were happier as slaves than as free.

Slavery was a National sin, a stain upon the honor of this Nation. Black people did not get off well, even after the destruction of your "peculiar institution." Jim Crow did a splendid job of holding the black man down and it is merely another tragedy and shame that it was allowed to persist as long as it did.

here you go with morality again, slavery wasa product of law, not morality, in the north they sold of the most profitable scetion of slave society, hardly the Norths finest moral stance, and no one went to wr to end slavery and no one pre war in major political parties was acalling for it to end, only to limit its expansion, hardly the high moral ground at all.
Thacher v. Hawk (1842) Ohio SC.
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.

As to earning a higher wage, bull. As to suffering less disease, that can be argued and eating a better diet can also be argued as it is a generality you carefully husband.

Read a book on it and get back to me You do know the avergae wage of the negros post war right?, 40$ in 1879, a massive rise from his 1868 18$ figure, go reada book and get back to me.

Please, would you prefer slavery to still exist and for the black man to know his place? Like others I have dealt w/ over the years I suspect so.

Since thats not what i posted, i suggest you reply to what i actually post, not reply as if i had posted something else entirely, typical of you.
Slavery does still exist, the exploitation of others is a feauture of human economic behavoir, the problem is not with understanding economcs or human behavoir or even law, but of people unable like you who dont know enought about any of those things but want to argue about it anyways.

[/quote]
The CS did not abolish slavery, the US did.[/quote]
You do know how many southern states had ended slavery before the 13th right?, and yes the states ended slavery by amendment, not because of the EP or the war.

I challenge you to walk down the street of the bottoms of any southern town and shout "Y'all were better off as slaves." I rather suspect you wouldn't get too much applause; I doubt you'd get out of there w/ your hide intact.

Really?, they dont have free speech in the south. you dont have a **** clue about what slavery was and think no one else does either.

[Hanny]

The WPA's project includes 2,194 interviews. "Black interviewers were virtually excluded from the WPA staffs in all southern states except Virginia, Louisiana, and Florida."

heres some of them

Tom Douglas, a former slave of Alabama, stated, "Slavery times wuz sho good times. We wuz fed an' clothed an' had nothin' to worry about."(56) Simon Phillips of Alabama said, "People has the wrong idea of slave days. We was treated good. My massa never laid a hand on me the whole time I was wid him.... Sometime we loaned the massa money when he was hard pushed."(57) Gus Brown of Richmond, Virginia remembered his former master back in Alabama with these words: "I cannot forget old massa. He was good and kind. He never believed in slavery, but his money was tied up in slaves and he didn't want to lose all he had. I knows I will see him in heaven and even though I have to walk ten miles for a bite of bread, I can still be happy to think about the good times we had then."(58) Exhibiting a profound sadness about the results of the forced "emancipation" brought about by the North, Mary Rice, of Alabama said, "I was happy all de time in slavery days, but dere ain't much to git happy over now."(59) James Gill of Arkansas likewise testified, "...[A]ll dem good times ceasted atter a while when de War come and de Yankees started all dere debbilment. Us was Confederates all de while."(60)
6. Tom Douglas, quoted in Slave Narratives: A Folk History of Slavery in the United States From Interviews With Former Slaves (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1934), Volume I (The Alabama Narratives), pages 218-219.
57. Simon Phillips, quoted in op. cit., pages 312, 315.
58. Gus Brown, quoted in op. cit., pages 224-226.
59. Mary Rice, quoted in op. cit., pages 329-330.
60. James Gill, quoted in op. cit., Volume III, page 19.
61. Randall, Civil War and Reconstruction, pages 47, 48.

"The black man's vulnerability to white oppression was painfully evident in the depression south. From 1931 to 1935, for example, more than 70 lynchings occurred there; nine blacks were killed who had committed no crime, and 25 were killed for minor offenses."

More were lynched in the mid west than in the old south.

To have been born into slavery, an interviewee would have to be 66 in 1931; 70 in 1935. This supposes that the he or she was born 1865. What are your earliest childhood memories? When y'all get to be 90, how much are you going to accurately remember of school days?

They were quite lucid in there remarks.

Quotes are from David Brion Davis' book, Slave Testimony LSUP, 1977. There are many other problems with the Slave Narratives, including inexpert interviewers, leading interviewers, misleading interviewers and editing. But they're too numerous to mention.

the poblem was the SN gave what was not expeted, they spoke fondly of the constion, because this was unexpected because at the time it was thought slavery was coercive condition with no carrot, much like nazi concentration camps.

His introduction discusses at tedious length the literature to date bearing on slave treatment. As the Narratives is the better known (and possibly the most unreliable), he gives it extra attention.

thats litertaure is all well and fine, but to then turn around and calim thatb the same literature to the contrary is worth less is the problem.

On the eve of American independence, nearly three-fourths of Boston’s wealthiest quartile of property-holders held slaves. A like proportion could be found in New York, Philadelphia, Providence, and Newport. From a position at the top of colonial society, one visitor noted that there was "not a house in Boston" that "has not one or two" slaves – an observation that might be applied to every northern city with but slight exaggeration.
The expansion of slavery followed a similar trajectory in the countryside. Indeed, the rapid growth of rural slavery eclipsed its development in the cities of the North. Throughout the grain-producing areas of Pennsylvania, northern New Jersey, the Hudson Valley, and Long Island – the North’s bread basket – bondage spread swiftly during the eighteenth century, as farmers turned from white indentured servants to black slaves. By mid-century slavery’s tentacles reached into parts of southern New England, especially the area around Narragansett Bay, where large slaveholders – many of whom had originated in Barbados – took on the airs of a planter class. In these places, slaves constituted as much as one-third of the labor force, and sometimes more than half.
In the northern colonies, Africans had difficulty finding mates, establishing families, conceiving, and producing healthy infants. The problem was not new. From the beginning of settlement, northern slaveholders, unlike their counterparts ****her south, showed little interest in creating an indigenous slave population. From their perspective, the discomfort and expense of sharing their cramped quarters with slaves outweighed the profits offered by a self-reproducing labor force. Northern slaveholders discouraged their slaves from marrying and did not provide accommodations for slave families to reside in the same abode. They routinely separated husbands from wives and parents from children and only reluctantly extended visitation rights. Seeing but small advantage in the creation of an indigenous, self-reproducing slave population, northern slaveholders sold slave women at the first sign of pregnancy. Such practices constrained the development of residential family units and diminished the chances that black men would assume the roles of husbands and fathers and black women the roles of wives and mothers. Grandparenthood became unknown to most northerners of African descent.
In the middle years of the eighteenth century, northern lawmakers – taking a page from southern statute books – updated, refined, or consolidated the miscellaneous regulations that had been enacted during the seventeenth century and issued more comprehensive slave codes. In every case, legislators strengthened the hand of the slaveowner at the expense of the slave and free black.
Black life in the North increasingly resembled that of the plantation South. From Ira Berlin’s Generations of Captivity (Harvard University Press, 2003),

[johan_steele]

I have, which is why i can with supreme confidence point out to you that you are misuesing the words, not using them as was the practice o0f the time nor indeed how the dictionary uses them today. Open your dictionary again.

I frequently reference my dictionary & thesaraus. Make mistakes and try to admit them. Now I'm not certain how the tangent got started and admit to being a touch confused. Not that such a thing is all that uncommon. Mullato, Octroon, Quadroon et were terms used to refer to non whites (blacks) or slaves. The terms were used frequently in descriptions of escaped slaves, slae bills etc. I cannot sell my wife or my daughter today. I could have in 1860; if I was so inclined and my morals were in the ditch.

No smoke and mirrors by myself, thats your stock in trade. So you now agree that the law allows you to sell property. Your initial comment was "I take it you are unaware of the terms I used, Octroon etc; proof that you are unaware of the reality of the day. I cannot sell my children or my wife; a pity you are unable to grasp that simple difference." I believe in the rule of law; it's what seperates us from barbarism IMO. Abortion is legal in the US, and I think in the UK as well, it's legal doesn't mean I agree w/ it or think it right. I don't always agree w/ a law but believe the rule of law should be observed; there are ways to change laws in the US. Unfortunately to end Slavery in the nation it took a war.

So you got pointed out that no one was selling their wives and children, which is YOUR smoke and mirrors of confusing the reality of the day with YOUR inability to post factualy acurate opinion.
Which is why i pointed out reality to you because you went into a flight of fancy, or as you prefer, a smoke and mirors excercise of obfuscation.
Now, since your wife is not property you indeed cannot sell her, but you can sell your other property, and slaves were property under US law, so again the only proven thing is you cannot argue the facts, but want to argue free people are not sold, hardly an argument since free people being sold appears in nothing i have posted, but that slaves as property were lawfully sold. Men rarely sold their wives; just mistresses or women they refered to as property. Legal? Yes. Right and moral... you might think so but I would disagree. It took little more than a whim to return a free black man or woman to slavery.

Since thats what you did and i responded to your introdcution of your free wife and child, i sugest you pay attention to what you post, and get responded to because you introduced it, and dont compalin to others about what you intrioduced.

Sorry but only citizens are taxed, there were no free negros paying federal tax. If as a tax paying citizen of a state, he has the full protection of the state law. But since most northern stastes denied them citizenship and protection of law, they could inded be arrested. IIRC one of the wealthiest and more prolific slave owners in Louisiana before the war was a Creole (Mulatto) who paid taxes as I understand it.


What you *think* discpicable, was US law, North and South, gaurented in state and federal law, its your hoistory and you seek to deny it and make it a section of the countrys sin, when slavery was the sin of all the nations since inception. What you think honorable, is not to lie about your past, now one was forced to own slaves, it was a personal choice done acording to law, and individual choice. Just as ***** teaches your all fit for conversion to how they think you should act and be moral, but you deny them the right to dicate or impose their morailty and law on you, so did the slave holders who were every bit as christian and relgous as the north, resist those who imposed changes to constitionaly protected rights, because it was a war aim, and not even a moral argument except for the 2% of abolitionst whose dream had come true and got what they had no earthly chance of getting pre war, and end to slavery. the North had no high ground at all, they ended slavery from mil need, not moral principle.

As I said I understand it was US Law; this is why I view slavery as a stain upon the entire Nation, not just the South. It might have been eliminated at the start, but that isn't what happened. Instead it took a war to destroy slavery. It is gone today, in this country, because of that War. Frankly the elimination of slavery is one of the few good things that came out of the CW. It's dead and buried in the country, yes it took another century to approach equality but we have.

I've explained why I believe all slave owners participated in slave breeding. Anyone who profited from the birth of a slave child took part in it whether intentionally or not.

I have a visceral opposition to any who defend slavery. Perhaps it is because I have spent so much time with the family of my wife. I've studied the letters of men who saw things that would curl your hair. And I admit irritation to those who defend slavery... thy're usually the same one who wouldn't even think of suffering it themsleves. Yes I am wasting time arguing w/ a man who defends slavery. I can see no redeeming factor in such. Was slavery legal in 1860? Yes, and I've never said otherwise. Was it right? No, and many thought it wrong in 1860 as well... I doubt your 2% number.

I'm several hundred miles from my library at the moment. The diary of Cyrus Boyd mentions slaves whiter than soldiers explicitly, as do others. Celia, A Slave is a work that describes a sexually abused slave (mulatto) who rebelled by murdering her tormenter. The account of Harriet Jacobs details the sexual abuse of a slave as well. Sgt Risondorph of the 4th MN VI also details seeing such on several occasions. There are more but I don't recalll names or units off hand. They are prevelant enough that I remember them as something other than an oddity. 10% of 4 millions is a rather large number. I think you know it happened but are unwilling to admit it.

I can do French, Polish, Russian, and latin for you if thats any easier for you to reply. Any chance of you actually answering the question put?. Well, educated and still can't spell better than I. I must extend my thanks, for making me feel better!



You just cant stop showing your ignornace can you?, octroons is 1/8 not 1/16, another term you used initialy and still cant use correctlty!. Since all human sub sets breed and produce ofspring, they are all still human, and i await your evidence that anyone claimed they were less than human from your 3000+ acounts you claim to have read.
Slaves were bought and sold at auction, like cattle or horses; slave trading could be a very profitable profession. People as property. Dehuminized to keep them more easily subjugated. Unable to marry w/out the consent of an owner, unable to acquire even the most basic education. Some of the slaveocracy going so far as to say a black man or woman had no soul. I'm sorry but I do not see that as treating someone as a human being..

Hanny; I don't have the time today to answer your posts point for point but firmly believe you deserve that courtesy. You and I will never see eye to eye, in this there is no problem. I view you as an eager defender of slavery and are passionate about it. Fine, you have that right. I don't have to like it but you have that right.

I've learned about slavery by reading about it, listening to the stories of descendents and taking a serious hard look at how ugly it could be. I spend a lot of time reading letters and diaries; I find them more interesting than most history texts. Because they are people telling what they see and think at that moment, not after 140 years of hindsight. No matter how some paint it slavery was ugly and frankly an evil I'm glad to be without in this country. I know full well slavery still exists, I know it for a fact as I've seen it in action. It's every bit as evil anywhere in the world today as in 1860... far worse in many ways.

I need to stress my number of 45% (which I should have done at mentioning it) for various STD's in the Armies of the UK is from recollection, which is why I gave the "IIRC." As I said I really don't think upon serious honest study it would have been much different than the US or French rates. On a quick google search I found several different numbers and my view of it is this: many writers use numbers to further an agenda of one form or another. Is the number wrong? I don't know one way or the other and frankly I hope and pray from the depthes of my soul it was WAY high. STD's are not an interesting subject to me, I really don't want to know how many men had syphillis, or the Tijuana two step. I've read numbers giving US STD rates at better than 90% which is so perposterous as to be more amusing than insulting. I've read that there were over a million rapes just between Atlanta and Savannah; again so stupid a claim as to be amusing. Like today, I prefer to find three sources for an account of an atrocity... in every modern case they are blown all out of proportion or are just plain invention. I sometimes wonder how different that is from the 1860's. I avoid statistics as I have little faith in their accuracy. In that vhein of thought I have tried to do the same thing w/ the civil war. I have read numerous accounts of truly benevolant slave owners as well as numerous accounts of men that would scare the evil right out of you. The majority were probably somewhere in between.

I see slavery as a despicable wrong and no period writings I have read show me different. No modern writing has either. I have stated slavery, often, was one of this nations ugliest stains and I view it as a National sin instead of a regional one. Our treatment of the Native American is nothing to be proud of either. Yet the destruction of slavery, as a war act, took us one step closer to the free Nation we have become. That you don't note that is fine, your perogitive. I read every book that catches my interest and I try to do so in a manner that will give a balanced view. When I give a book list I give the books I own and have read on the subject. Some will agree w/ my views some will disagree and I try only to list those that do so in an educated manner.

I can understand some who wish to paint slavery in an accurate way; my way of accomplishing this for myself has been to study the words of the men who lived through that period. I have concentrated on the soldiers, the men on the sharp end as I view them as the men who did the deciding. Unfortunately, I often find myself opposite those who would present slavery as all fuzzy bunnies and happiness. I avoid the writings of politicians... can't trust them to tell you the color of the sky.

Were those soldiers racist? Some of them absolute scum. Overwhelmingly, I find those soldiers the same as anywhere else in the world with many of the same wants, needs and desires. My only comfort in learning such a fact is knowing we were not alone in our racism. We were joined by the rest of the world all through history. From the ancient Chinese & Greeks to our esteemed allies across the pond at the same time period. I have called it precedence, probably incorrectly, in an effort to point out that the US & the South which was/is part of her was little different than in their racial dealings than the average Brit of the day. Civilization has been a slow process; and the destruction of slavery in this country, in Russia the UK or anywhere else was one step in the right direction.

[johan_steele]

Really they wanted more negros to tell them they were happier as slaves than as free. By and large yes. They largely wanted Negroes to "know their place." I don't believe the majority of those asking the questions were interested in anything that would mess w/ their ideas.

The CS did not abolish slavery, the US did.[/quote]
You do know how many southern states had ended slavery before the 13th right?, and yes the states ended slavery by amendment, not because of the EP or the war. No war no EP & no end to slavery. What state of the CS ended slavery rpior to the EP?

Really?, they dont have free speech in the south. you dont have a **** clue about what slavery was and think no one else does either. I have a great clue, there is plenty of free speech in the South today. There wasn't always, especially in regard to slavery or a black man doing the speaking. The same is true elsewhere in the US, as I've said over and over Slavery was a national sin. Frankly, I doubt you would do it, same as I doubt you would walk into a Legion or VFW hall and say soldiers are slaves. Either way I think you'd be tossed out on your tail, probably not very gently, and rightly so.[/QUOTE]

US Slavery was based upon skin color as much if not more than anything else. In New Orleans a German girl was grabbed and sold into slavery because she was dark enough to pass as a quadroon and didn't know enough English to defend or explain herself. That is an extreme example but it happened probably more often than anyone would like to think about. A freeman w/ papers had best keep those papers on him or face a slave catcher who might have lower scruples than yours. After all it would be the word of a black man against that of a white... little doubt whose word was considered better by the authorities.

[Battalion]

In New Orleans a German girl was grabbed and sold into slavery because she was dark enough to pass as a quadroon and didn't know enough English to defend or explain herself.

Sounds like a storyline for a cheap paperback novel.

The fact that she speaks German (whether they understand it or not) is not going to raise any suspicion that she might not be a slave?

[matthew mckeon]

Dear Battalion,
You're right, its does sound like a melodrama. But it is a case of truth is stranger than fiction. The book is called "The Lost German Slave Girl" an account of a slave woman held in New Orleans in the 1840s who sued for freedom, claiming to be a orphan of German immigrants, raised as a slave.

The book is a fascinating read and thrilling ride. After a tense trial(its New Orleans, so its conducted in 3 languages: English, French, Spanish), featuring colorful lawyers(one a friend of Jean Lafitte), and a blind justice. As the jury files in to return a verdict, the levee breaks! You can't make this stuff up.

Anyway, whether the woman in question was a German orphan, or a shrewd African American making a bid for freedom, its worth looking at for its view of slavery, honor, German immigration into the South, and antebellum New Orleans.

[johan_steele]

Sounds like a storyline for a cheap paperback novel.

The fact that she speaks German (whether they understand it or not) is not going to raise any suspicion that she might not be a slave?

Saw the book in the non fiction section of a Borders today which is where I just left. Would have thought it belonged in the fiction section if I hadn't read of the incident a couple times in other sources over the years. Slave traders weren't always exactly the most honest sort. I know few of the particulars. Many Americans didn't know Dutch from Russian or Japanese from Chinese... most still don't. An immigrant w/ no grasp of the language could find a lot of trouble in a hurry from the unscrupulous. Bad things happen more often than we might imagine. How often did such a thing happen? More often than either of us would like to admit I expect.

When I was getting ready to go to Mardi Gras in New Orleans we all received a breifing from our CO telling us of the dangers of Mardi Gras. I don't know if it was true or not but he said that more people disapear in New Orleans during Mardi Gras than in any other city in the US and it had been that way for years. True or not I don't know, but it isn't now or in 1860's all that hard to disapear forever... especially for a young lady alone.

Matthew, thanks for the clarification of the title. Appreciate it.

[Freddy]

...and again using the census data we know that the CSA white pop under age 9 was 30% of the total in 1860, so was the border states, and the Northern states 27%.
We further know that the free negro in the North was 24%, in the Border states 26% and the CSA states 29%.
We further know that the CSA slave pop under age 9 was 31% and in the border states 32%.
we know from 1790-1860 the white pop growth was 35% on avarege per census.
If slaves were breed deleiberatly, than how come whites were breeding more than the negros?, how come the free southern negros were breeding ata consttance rate, while when free and in the north well below the avarage, its not that the south wasa breeding farm, it was that the whites out breed the negro and the free negro in the north was not breeding at the same rate as free blacks in the south or slaves in the south, because the upkeep of the children was borne by them, while eleswhere the upkeep was borne by the owner.
Slave breeding was a myth, always was and always will be to those who can count, other wise whites were out breeding them by design, and sterilizing the free blacks to prevent them from reproducing by social and economic conditions.
The best example of breeding is how the north and south start out from 2 million each and end up with 22 million in the north and 9 in the south, seems pretty clear who won the breeding contest.

Hanny did you consider the population increase due to immigration? Between 1800-1860 a conservative estimate using available statistics puts the increase in immigrant population at 13 million. Most of those immigrants settled in the North and West. Would not that decrease the percentage of Northern births in the period from 1800-1860?