Slave Breeding; Fact or Fiction

[Hanny]

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?

Freddy

Those numbers are taken directly from the 1860 census, i have the seperate imigration details broken down by country of origin and time frame, but not age group, its only the census data that breaks it down into that degree of acuracy/intrest. So the answer to your query, is that imigration pop growth is included in those % figures, of population growth, but i do havea nice liost of imigration over time if that is of intrest to you, broken down by country of origin,

[Hanny]

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.

No problem.

A clarification or two, im not defending slavery im explaining it, there is a difference, since most view/understanhding of it, is inconstant with the facts. 2% or so is the number of members of all the abolition societys, as a % of the national total
and is generaly used asa measure of the number of abolitionist. When free it was incrediably difficult, to return to a state of slavery except with the person consent, which was why the most freed peopled returned to slavery where those of the free north selling thmselves back into slavery to anti slavery owners in the middle and upper south, to gain those states citizenship after one years service and residence in state different from that of there owner. 7 CSA states had ended slavery before the 13th was ratified.

[Freddy]

Freddy

Those numbers are taken directly from the 1860 census, i have the seperate imigration details broken down by country of origin and time frame, but not age group, its only the census data that breaks it down into that degree of acuracy/intrest. So the answer to your query, is that imigration pop growth is included in those % figures, of population growth, but i do havea nice liost of imigration over time if that is of intrest to you, broken down by country of origin,

If you could provide a link for those statistics that would be helpful.

[ole]

[QUOTE]...which was why the most freed peopled returned to slavery where those of the free north selling thmselves back into slavery to anti slavery owners in the middle and upper south, to gain those states citizenship after one years service and residence in state different from that of there owner.QUOTE] Gotta start with "most," Hanny. But getting over that hurdle, we can move one.

Good to see you back. Hope your "business" was routine and not, as so often happens, some serious trouble.

Golly! Are we getting away from a discussion of "slave breeding? I hope not. I have found my surly pen.

ole

[Hanny]

If you could provide a link for those statistics that would be helpful.

I dont have a link at hand, ill scan it in for you, prob Tues, if you have a copy of the historical statistics of the US from colonial times to the present, some of it is in there, from 1820-60 the total imigartion to the US was 5 million or so, Irish and german makeing up the bulk of that, so im unclear where the 13 million you mentioned comes from, also from the 1850 census onwards the origin of birth was recored so we know a little more about nationality of citizens and residency.

[Hanny]

Gotta start with "most," Hanny. But getting over that hurdle, we can move one.

I was after the diffulty of returning free people to a stste of slavery, a very rare and difficult thing to happen, the only measurable numbers i knoiw of are those free northern blacks with skill sets in demand, who were denied state citizenship when emanicpated, and for whatever reasons wanted it, willingly sold themselves back into slavery,to anti slave white, who used the lived outside the state fora year ability to free slaves, took some of the income from the slave to fund abolition and so0 on, but this was small scale.

Good to see you back. Hope your "business" was routine and not, as so often happens, some serious trouble.

I got an oportunity to do an archeolgy dig, which is something ive always wanted to do, and have a little free time now.

Golly! Are we getting away from a discussion of "slave breeding? I hope not. I have found my surly pen.

No such thing as slave breeding, any more than there was forced breeding of white women.

[Battalion]

A clarification or two, im not defending slavery im explaining it, there is a difference, since most view/understanhding of it, is inconstant with the facts....

Oh, but Hanny, that is not acceptable...

The PC version of history requires that the slavery which existed in the southern United States be described as the worst form of slavery that ever existed...anywhere, anytime.

Any watering-down of this makes you a 'defender of slavery'...(in the world of PC that is ).

[Hanny]

Oh, but Hanny, that is not acceptable...

The PC version of history requires that the slavery which existed in the southern United States be described as the worst form of slavery that ever existed...anywhere, anytime.

Any watering-down of this makes you a 'defender of slavery'...(in the world of PC that is ).

Ah, yes, the most productive slavery anywhere in history was one in which people were worked to death to make it so, and repalced by forced brreeding, instead of one in which how to motivate by reward as well as coercion reached its pinacle of the slave systmes operation, and had slaves earning through rewrds ata 20% of national income level.


As soon as people can laern to count and stop thinking of US slavery as communist labour camps, write large, the better.

[Hanny]

Formats a little hard on the eyes, my scanner not set up to change the OR very well so you will need to tinker with it some.


Appendix Tables
Table A.S.l. Immigration into the
United States, 1820-60
All Other
Year countries Ireland Germany countries
1820 17,197 3,614 968 12,615
1821 15,688 1,518 383 12,787
1822 15,723 2,267 148 13,308
1823 13,017 1,908 183 10,926
1824 13,203 2,345 230 10,628
1825 14,980 4,888 450 9,642
1826 19,732 5,408 511 13,813
1827 30,330 9,766 432 20,132
1828 33,236 12,488 1,851 18,897
1829 32,018 7,415 597 24,006
1830 40,142 2,721 1,976 35,445
1831 58,269 5,772 2,413 50,084
1832 77,422 12,436 10,194 54,792
1833 69,346 8,648 6,988 53,710
1834 81,311 24,474 17,686 39,151
1835 51,075 20,927 8,311 21,837
1836 89,826 30,578 20,707 38,541
1837 89,307 28,508 23,740 37,059
1838 89,817 12,645 11,683 65,489
1839 69,810 23,963 21,028 24,819
1840 89,113 39,430 29,704 19,979
1841 83,256 37,772 15,291 30,193
1842 10,145 51,342 20,370 38,433

All Other
Year countries Ireland Germany countries
1843 74,199 19,670 14,441 40,088
1844 88,554 33,490 20,731 34,333
1845 25,068 44,821 34,355 45,892
1846 74,936 51,752 57,561 65,623
1847 239,897 105,536 74,281 60,080
1848 240,671 112,934 58,465 69,272
1849 293,243 159,398 60,235 73,610
1850 290,783 164,004 78,896 47,883
1851 373,324 221,253 72,482 79,598
1852 363,842 159,548 145,918 58,376
1853 360,505 162,649 141,946 55,910
1854 420,292 101,606 215,009 103,677
1855 196,671 49,627 71,918 75,126
1856 196,458 54,349 71,029 71,080
1857 247,031 54,361 91,781 100,889
1858 120,507 26,873 45,310 48,324
1859 118,011 35,216 41,784 41,011
1860 149,321 48,637 54,491 46,193
Sources: For all countries: Peter D. McClelland and
Richard Zeckhauser, Demographic Dimensions of the New
Republic: American Interregional Migration, Vital Statis-
tics and Manumissions, 1800-1860 (Cambridge University
Press, 1982), p. 113; for Ireland and Germany: U.S. Bureau
of' the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States,
Colonial Times to 1970, part 1, (U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1975), series C89, C92, C95, p. 106.


1850 and 1860 cenus showing the
Table A.53. (cont.)
Census division of birth showing who moved from where and settled.
Total
Census division of native New Middle East North West North South East South West South Pacific
residence population England Atlantic Central Central Atlantic Central Central Mountain
1850 12.3
New England 2,821.8 2,367.9 237.4 171.2 9.4 5.9 5.5 1.1
11.1 16.7
Middle Atlantic 5,484.0 46.6 4,566.5 725.1 39.1 19.8 12.7 2.3
55.2 13.3
East North Central 2,757.4 2.4 16.3 2,582.6 96.7 21.8 14.6 2.5
7.0 8.9
West North Central 373.5 0.2 0.6 12.8 334.7 3.0 11.6 1.3
South Atlantic 3,764.8 5.1 0.5 65.5 0.5 8.3
60.7 286.2 80.8 446.4
East South Central 2,179.5 0.5 1.8 184.6 131.1 2,811.3 1,705.0 123.3 0.8 10.4
22.0 1.6
West South Central 286.0 0.4 0.9 2.8 3.4 5.8 270.1 0.1
0.9 0.0
Mountain 59.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.8
Pacific 9.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.8
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 17,736.7 2,423.2 0.0 503.3 68.5 81.3
4,884.3 3,965.3 695.2 2,907.9 2,207.7
1860 35.1
New England 3,144.6 2,584.3 212.2 224.2 57.3 7.3 5.9 6.0
12.2 47.1
Middle Atlantic 6,944.0 64.5 5,582.9 946.1 185.0 24.0 15.7 10.3
68.5 41.4
East North Central 4,562.9 5.1 29.7 4,044.3 358.7 32.2 24.0 17.1
10.4 7.2 25.2
West North Central 848.7 0.7 2.0 27.5 756.0 5.8 23.5
South Atlantic 4,264.7 6.8 0.9 133.7 3.0 14.6
67.0 265.6 126.0 411.9
East South Central 2,781.4 0.8 3.1 202.8 211.0 3,236.2 2,048.7 263.1 4.3 18.8
28.9 5.9
West South Central 550.0 0.5 1.6 4.3 7.8 8.9 518.8 0.9
1.2 100.7 0.0
Mountain 100.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Pacific 0.0 0.2 0.5 98.0
101.5 0.5 0.6 1.1 0.5 0.1
0.1 150.1 286.2
Total 23,298.8 2,663.1 5,899.0 5,716.0 1,702.2 3,358.5 2,538.9 984.9
Notes: New England: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, I Central: Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, and MississiPl?i; West South C:tr\Ar:;?:r:
and Vermont; Middle Atlantic: New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania; East North Louisiana, and Texas; Mountain: Colorado, New MeX:lco, Nevada, No a ot
Central: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin; West North Central: Iowa, tory, and Utah; Pacific: California, Oregon, and WashIngton. . . I
Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, and Nebraska; South Atlantic: Delaware, District of Colum- Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, HistoriI.Statistis of the UnIted States from co..:';.
bia, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia; East South Times to 1970, part 1 (U.S. Government Pnntmg Office, 1975), senes C15-24, pp.

[DHPatrick]

I don't want to seem argumentative, but frankly I find this thread in extremely poor taste. I would suspect African-Americans would probably be offended as well.

I'm not sure what aspect of the Civil War this applies to, because it would have been an issue in most Northern States that allowed slavery as well - and there were quite a few of them.

[ole]

I'm not sure what aspect of the Civil War this applies to, because it would have been an issue in most Northern States that allowed slavery as well - and there were quite a few of them.

I'd be grateful if you would name the Northern States that allowed slavery.

ole

[DHPatrick]

I'd be grateful if you would name the Northern States that allowed slavery.

ole

I guess I'd have top answer your question with another. In how many Northern States was slavery legal?

[ole]

In how many Northern States was slavery legal?

When? 1860? 1850? 1800?

[unionblue]

I don't want to seem argumentative, but frankly I find this thread in extremely poor taste. I would suspect African-Americans would probably be offended as well.

I'm not sure what aspect of the Civil War this applies to, because it would have been an issue in most Northern States that allowed slavery as well - and there were quite a few of them.

DHPatrick,

The African-Americans you think would be offended by this thread were the ones who brought the subject up, if you have read all of the posts in this particular thread.

What I think they find most offensive is that the practice of slave-breeding did take place and that there is historical evidence of it having done so.

History is not always about being brave or heroic, it sometimes is very ugly and not pretty to look upon, but it is what it is.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[Battalion]

I'd be grateful if you would name the Northern States that allowed slavery.

ole

According to the Census of 1840...11 of 15 Northern states still had slaves residing within their boundaries.

[ole]

According to the Census of 1840...11 of 15 Northern states still had slaves residing within their boundaries.

Thanks for the information, but I did ask for the names.

ole

[DHPatrick]

When? 1860? 1850? 1800?

1860 would be a good date. I believe we both know that slavery was still legally accepted in areas of the North. Washington DC didn't abolish it until 1862.

I suspect money had something to do with it.

[DHPatrick]

DHPatrick,

The African-Americans you think would be offended by this thread were the ones who brought the subject up, if you have read all of the posts in this particular thread.

What I think they find most offensive is that the practice of slave-breeding did take place and that there is historical evidence of it having done so.

History is not always about being brave or heroic, it sometimes is very ugly and not pretty to look upon, but it is what it is.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

I guess my breeding is what causes me to realize it is in poor taste. I may not be able to speak for everyone else.

[M E Wolf]

Dear List Members,

Just wanted to add, that the Native American Indian tribe; Blackfoot are very dark skinned, as to pass as African-American. Yet, they were a very distinct tribe.

Further, it must be remembered that the offenses of the past are not our offenses. The true offense is not learning, understanding and discussing things that are difficult and not in the best of tastes for today's standards and or 'politically correct.'

My opinion is, that we do a great disservous to those who lived before us and lived history we (in general) are studying today.

The United States did not invent slavery. Slavery existed since civilization and before; when prisoners of war became slaves to those who had won the battle, war and or action. The exporting prisoners of war to nations seeking cheap/free labor and those who wanted to profit by being rid of their prisoners for a profit; was as a means of business --The African nations did nothing different from the Greeks and or Romans. Only difference is 'skin color.' There is little in the way of an outcry of the enslavement of white races yet; slavery, breeding slaves and the like existed and is not exclusively an African-American historical event. The Native American Indians became enslaved to both African-Americans and White Americans so--there is plenty of history of slavery to be studied there also; however some ethnic groups move on past history; not dwell on it as to use it as a 'guilt trip' and or 'manipulation' over other ethnic groups.

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf

[Scribe]

Dear List Members,

The Native American Indians became enslaved to both African-Americans and White Americans so--there is plenty of history of slavery to be studied there also; however some ethnic groups move on past history; not dwell on it as to use it as a 'guilt trip' and or 'manipulation' over other ethnic groups.

I think you'll find far more blacks were enslaved by the Cherokee alone than Indians of all tribes combined were enslaved by blacks. Come to think of it, when and where were Indians ever enslaved by blacks?

[M E Wolf]

Dear Scribe,

The PBS program "History Detectives" a while back when doing research came across documents of Blacks owning slaves, that were Black; as well as the research brought up cases of Blacks owning Indians.

In summary, it offered food for thought that slavery existed in all sorts of combinations and not just whites owning blacks.

Yes, some richer Cherokee Indians owned Black slaves. But, I also wish to make clear; that the Cherokee Nation as a whole did not own Black slaves. To lump is unwise. Just as not all Southern people owned slaves; yet it is easy to pigeon hole the Southern people into one lump or class.

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf

[DHPatrick]

Dear Scribe,

The PBS program "History Detectives" a while back when doing research came across documents of Blacks owning slaves, that were Black; as well as the research brought up cases of Blacks owning Indians.

In summary, it offered food for thought that slavery existed in all sorts of combinations and not just whites owning blacks.

Yes, some richer Cherokee Indians owned Black slaves. But, I also wish to make clear; that the Cherokee Nation as a whole did not own Black slaves. To lump is unwise. Just as not all Southern people owned slaves; yet it is easy to pigeon hole the Southern people into one lump or class.

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf

Mr Wolf,

I salute you.

[ole]

To lump is unwise. Just as not all Southern people owned slaves; yet it is easy to pigeon hole the Southern people into one lump or class.

Double-dawg amen. But do go back throught the tens of thousands of posts and pick out the few that condemn all the southern people.

In this "pigeon-hole for all the southern people," y'all are inventing someone to fight.

"y'all say..." No. we don't. "Y'all think..." No, we don't. It may seem so, sometimes, but do read carefully what is posted. Paranoia is a terrible thing to waste. But it is worth trying.

ole

[unionblue]

A bit more back on track with the main subject of this thread.

"Men otherwise careless and spendthrift were eager to multiply their slaves, realizing that by keeping the natural increase the whole number would rapidly augment like money at a high rate of compound interest. If the master could manage to live from the labor of his negroe, the equivalent of riches was only a matter of time. Ten young slaves (of which five or six were girls) worth hardly $5,000 in 1840, might treble their number by 1855, when the value of the thirty of all ages was fully $20,000--an enormous gain without counting any surplus from labor and crops. In two or three decades a small planter, starting in a fertile region with 15 or 20 young slaves, might, by industry, economy and purchasing girls and boys, easily become a "large planter", with a gang of 40 or 50 sturdy fieldhands and more than that many children. Twice all that was possible in Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana, if one gav the closest attention to slave-rearing, raising crops and buying more negroes to make new plantations out of cheap and fertile virgin soil;--it was possible, but rare, only because enterprise and thrift were rare and extravagance and carelessness common.

Thus, next to the great and quick profit of bringing virgin soil under cultivation, slave-rearing was the surest, most remunerative and most approved means of increasing agricultural capital. It was advised and practised by the wisest rural slaveowners. A young female slave, unless skilled or comely, was, as Olmsted said, most prized for breeding qualities, and he quote a Virginia planter who was proud of the fact that "his women were uncommonly good breeders; he did not suppose there was a lot of women anywhere that bred faster than his; he never heard of babies coming so fast as they did on his plantation; it was perfectly surprising; and every one of them, in his estimation, was worth two hundred dollars, as negroes were selling now, the moment it drew breath."

(Note: Planters often had to pay their lawyers in slaves. John C. Reed's grandfather said that Robert Toombs welcomed such payments, usually bought the interests of his associates and sent the negroes to this Chattahoochee plantation; that the associates were likely soon to spend the cash, while Toombs became rich. "'John, get as many young breeding-women as you can. Hire them out where they will not be abused, and after a while you can collect them on a good plantation of your own. The increase of your negroes will make you rich.' I had talked this all over many times with my sweetheart and that was our plan. The plantation was to be in the Mississippi valley or in Texas, as my grandfather advised."--J.C. Reed to the author, Aug. 15, 1908.)

From the book, Slave-Trading In The Old South, by Frederic Bancroft, Chapter IV, The Importance Of Slave-Rearing, pg. 80-81.

Unionblue

[unionblue]

More on the thread topic:

"The most careful buyers kept informed as to new arrivals and went to the jails to inspect them. Then, and when the slaves were brought to the auction-mart, they were plied with such questions as: "How old are you?" "What can you do?" "Who raised you?" "Why are you sold?" "Anything wrong with you?" Hands were opened and shut and looked at inside and out. Arms and legs were felt of as a means of deciding whether they were muscular and regular. Backs and buttocks were scrutinized for the welts that heavy blows with a whip usually left. Necks were rubbed or pinched to detect any soreness or lumps. Jaws were frasped, fingers were run into negroes' mouths, which were widely opened and peered into. Lips were pressed back so that all the teeth and gums could be seen. This performance closely resembled that of an expert reading of a horse's age. If there was any suspicion that one eye might not be good, a strange hand was clapped over the other and the slave was asked what object was held before him. The hearing was likewise tested. All such inquiries were made with equal freedom whether the slave was man, woman, boy or girl. The descriptions of many observers substantially agree with what Chambers saw:

"About a dozen gentlemen crowded to the spot while the poor fellow was stripping himself, and as soon as he stood on the floor, bare from top to toe, a most rigorous scrutiny of his person was instituted. The clear black skin, back and front, was viewed all over for sores from disease; and there was no part of his body left unexamined."

Anybody that was interested,--or merely wished to appear so, as some always did, for they thought it gave them importance,--might join in the inspection. When scars or any irregularities or signs of disease were found, there were significant nods and an exchange of knowing glances.

It was both less common and less essential thoroughly to inspect the women and the girls, although it was not rare to do so. In any case, it was considered important to know how many children a young women had borne and what the probabilities were to as the future. If a girl was more than 18 or 19 years old and had borne none, it lessened her market value."

(Note: A New Yorker traveling in the South happened to visit these marts the same morning as artist Crowe, Mar. 3, 1853. In his account occurs this passage: "I saw full twenty men stripped this morning and not more than three or four of them had what they termed 'clean backs', and some of them--I should think full one-quarter of them--were scarred with the whip to such an extent as to present a frightful appearance; one in particular was so cut that I am sure you could not lay your finger on any part of his back without coming in contact with a scar. These scars were from the whip and were from two inches to one foot in length. These marks damaged his sale; although only about 45 to 50 years old he only brought $460; but for these marks he would have brought $750 to $800."--N.Y. Tribune, Mar. 10, 1853, p. 6.)

Taken from the book, Slave Trading In The Old South, by Bancroft, Chapter V, Virginia And The Richmond Market, pg. 106-108:

Unionblue