Slave Breeding; Fact or Fiction

[M E Wolf]

Dear Unionblue,

Thank you for the excerpts of the book Slave Trading In The Old South by Bancroft; as well as Chapter V, Virginia and The Richmond Market.

Like breeding horses and dogs for purposes, e.g. work, hunting, pets; it was no doubt used in slavery.

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf

[Scribe]

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

Of course not all Cherokee owned slaves, and I have said nothing that indicated that they did. The full-blood Cherokee, a.ka. Pin Indians, were anti-slavery and largely supported the Union when the rebellion came.

Per Alvin M. Josephy, The Civil War In The American West, "Opposed to them was a group of pro-Confederate Cherokees, principally slave-owning mixed bloods." (That mix, by the way, was white and Indian.)

As to blacks owning Indian slaves and the extent of black slave ownership by the Cherokee, et al, I offer this from the Slavery In America website.

"From 1750 to the American Civil War in 1861, Native Americans, especially those in the Southeast, interacted with enslaved blacks in every way possible, although there is no evidence that blacks ever owned Indian slaves. The nature of this interaction depended upon the historical character of the Indian groups, the enslaved people in their midst, and the white slaveholders. Native Americans assisted runaway slaves and also tracked them down and returned them to slavery. They married free and enslaved blacks, and accepted the children of such unions with few strings attached. They also sold blacks to whites, trading them like so many blankets or horses. Most importantly, many Indians owned black slaves. By 1824, it is estimated that the Cherokee owned 1,277 black slaves; the Choctaw and the Chickasaw held over 5,000 blacks in slavery by 1860. Some mixed-blood Indians, such as the Choctaw chief Greenwood Lefore and the Cherokee chief John Ross, owned between 100 and 400 enslaved blacks respectively. And when the southeastern Indians were forcefully marched west to present-day Oklahoma by the American government in the infamous 'Trail of Tears' in the 1830s and 1840s, as many as 15,000 enslaved blacks were taken with them."

[unionblue]

Dear Unionblue,

Thank you for the excerpts of the book Slave Trading In The Old South by Bancroft; as well as Chapter V, Virginia and The Richmond Market.

Like breeding horses and dogs for purposes, e.g. work, hunting, pets; it was no doubt used in slavery.

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf

M. E. Wolf,

Thank you for you kind comments above.

The fact of the matter is, slave breeding was practiced and it is a part of our American history, whether we like it or not.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[DHPatrick]

M. E. Wolf,

Thank you for you kind comments above.

The fact of the matter is, slave breeding was practiced and it is a part of our American history, whether we like it or not.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

Unionblue

I'm sure you mean well in your statement, but I have to wonder if a discussion about slave breeding is meant to be one on history or more a matter of 'Yellow Journalism'.

I'm bracing because I expect to hear alot about this. I mean it in a manner for discussion.

[Battalion]

Unionblue

I'm sure you mean well in your statement, but I have to wonder if a discussion about slave breeding is meant to be one on history or more a matter of 'Yellow Journalism'.

I'm bracing because I expect to hear alot about this. I mean it in a manner for discussion.

I've seen this 'debated' on other boards with all the usual suspects (johan steele, unionblue, &c) as proponents...but they have only their opinions and some cherry-picked quotes to back up what they claim.

The truth is there isn't much in the record to support 'slave breeding.'

When you consider that slave women had about the same birth rate as white women (from census records, consistently, decade after decade) the 'slave breeding' theory falls apart.

[Dred]

Yet we are supposed to pay any more attention to your "opinions and some cherry-picked quotes to back up what they claim." You can't have it both ways dude. And why would you not think this would happen? It's a perfect money making scheme. Or is it difficult for you to envision your saviors of the confederacy doing something so inhumane? And before you get on your high horse about the northern evils... I'm sure they did it as well. Although I'm not sure where they would have kept the slaves since it was illegal in most northern states after a time, but I'm sure an enterprising young man looking to make a quick buck could have figured it out.

DH,

Not familiar with the term "Yellow Journalism" what is that exactly?

[Battalion]

Yet we are supposed to pay any more attention to your "opinions and some cherry-picked quotes to back up what they claim." You can't have it both ways dude.

Did you bother to read what I posted?

The birth rate of slave women and white women was about the same.

That's from census records...not an opinion or cherry-picked quote.

And why would you not think this would happen?

I didn't say it wouldn't happen...just not on the scale that u-blue and jonan steele would have everyone believe.

[DHPatrick]

DH,

Not familiar with the term "Yellow Journalism" what is that exactly?

Dred

It is news or a story used to create sensationalism. It has been loosely defined as "not quite libel". A newspaperman named William Hearst (among a couple of others) was probably the most notable person using it effectively. In large part, you can thank him for the Spanish-American War.

[ole]

The truth is there isn't much in the record to support 'slave breeding.'

In here, Battalion's statement, is about where it lies. Slave breeding was there, to not do so was to be rather stupid. But it was rarely something practiced as a business by itself.

Write this down: "Ole agrees with Battalion."

[unionblue]

In here, Battalion's statement, is about where it lies. Slave breeding was there, to not do so was to be rather stupid. But it was rarely something practiced as a business by itself.

Write this down: "Ole agrees with Battalion."

Sorry, ole, but here I have to disagree with your view.

I think the practice was far more widespread than anyone today is willing to admit and that it was practiced as a business, one aimed for maximum profit.

I'll try and find some more source documents and post them here.

My point is, the was an AMERICAN practice, not just a Southern one, and part of AMERICAN history, the history we don't like to bring up.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[DHPatrick]

Sorry, ole, but here I have to disagree with your view.

I think the practice was far more widespread than anyone today is willing to admit and that it was practiced as a business, one aimed for maximum profit.

I'll try and find some more source documents and post them here.

My point is, the was an AMERICAN practice, not just a Southern one, and part of AMERICAN history, the history we don't like to bring up.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

Unionblue

I take solis in your use of 'American' rather than 'Southern'. ..but have to say I don't wish you luck in your endeavor. I've had enough surprises for the week.

[unionblue]

Unionblue

I take solis in your use of 'American' rather than 'Southern'. ..but have to say I don't wish you luck in your endeavor. I've had enough surprises for the week.

DHPatrick,

The Civil War is American history, not just Southern or Northern, but American.

Slavery in this country must devolve on American shoulders, not just Southern ones. Slavery could not have existed in this country nor flourished in the South without the ready and willing assistance of the North in the form of transporting and selling of slaves.

Sometimes, we have to look at the ugly 'surprises' in our history in order to learn how not to repeat them in our nation's future.

Denying or minimizing such unfortunate facts about our history denies us and our childrens chance to learn from our ancestors mistakes.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[johan_steele]

I think Unionblue has just summed up how we asre supposed to look at history. That means loooking at it and not shying away from the things that don't fit our preconceptions.

Three people in particular on this site have made me relook what I knew about an aspect of the CW era. Between Larry, Trice and Unionblue I've changed my views on a couple subjects. And Cash made me rethink what I knew about Battalions hero Jeff Davis. I still think he's a cast iron son of a lawyer and professional politician... Davis not Battalion Battalion is just the king of the cherry pick and out of context quote nothing more.

When it comes to slave breeding my opinion is stated earlier in this thread, including why I have no doubt some census records were cooked. If there were no slave breeding and Battalion and his ilk suggest there was certainly a lot of interacial marriage in the South... oops that wasn't even legal in some states until the 1980's... yes I said 1980's. There are quite a few letters from US soldiers expressing outrage at seeing slaves as white as they. Howell Cobb was one, whether he admitted it or not he had far more children than he claimed. These instance are out there and they are plentiful; reading period letters and diaries prove it to me.

As some of our esteemed opponents upon the other side of the aisle have fondly referred to slaves as horses and cattle... a new pony or calf is profit to a farmer or rancher. The same was true of slaves. A prime field hand that can sell for a thousand dollars at a fairly young age is profit. And when the only expenditure upon said slave has been a roof over his head, food and clothing none of which were very expensive and certainly did not equal a thousand across say 16 years. Unionblue has provided several instances, not cherry picked and taken out of context, real instances where there can be little doubt slave owners were looking at slaves as breeding stock.

If a slave woman was quite fetching or caught an owners fancy she didn't have the right to say no. If she turned up pregnant, so much the better. If it happened several times all the better... as Battalion likes to chime "money... the cause" with a side of the pleasure that comes from human nature. "White slavery" today is sexual slavery; it isn't a new concept. Yes, it's despicable. It's merely one more thing that makes slavery so.

[larry_cockerham]

The politically correct term would probably be 'management of assets'. The war of 1861-65 must have put a considerable stop to any previous 'management' practices. Thank God for that. There couldn't have been much of a financial turnaround for a child. Yes, the child would grow, but it still required a good 10-15 years to produce a good field hand, regardless of the inspiration for the birth. Humans are by no means humane. Never have been.

[Battalion]

Sorry, ole, but here I have to disagree with your view.

I think the practice was far more widespread than anyone today is willing to admit and that it was practiced as a business, one aimed for maximum profit...

Sincerely,
Unionblue

Such a practice would cause a great deal of problems among the slaves. Diseases, demoralization, disharmony...= deaths and runaways...

Even from a cold-hearted business approach this would not be in the best interest of the slaveowner.

Plus there is the social factor. If a slaveowner is suspected of running a 'slave breeding camp'...how will he be treated by society? If he has aims at a political career...where will that go?

[Dred]

They treated them like property anyways. Would a horse breeding or dog breeding business be looked upon any worse? They had no qualms about treating slaves inhumanely, they weren't human they were ******s. And that was how it was back then. We look at it form today's perspective and say how awful, they looked at it as a chance to get more slaves, and more money. A horse, a slave, a dog, the pottery in the kitchen. Use it to your best advantage to forward your business plan. It sounds sick coming out of my fingertips, but just because I believe it happened doesn't mean I would condone it now a days. If I was living back then... who knows. Even in the north where I grew up, blacks were hardly recognized as people in 1860. If I wanted to make a quick buck... why not?

As far as the disease, I guess Battalion has a point there, if it was done rampantly. I guess they would have to make sure each couple was only sleeping with each other, or maybe two, any more than that and you are looking for trouble. I'm sure they had ways around that too. Then again, how much did they know about STDs back then?

[ole]

Yes, the child would grow, but it still required a good 10-15 years to produce a good field hand, regardless of the inspiration for the birth.

Fifteen years equals a bit less than a $300 investment in a $1000 piece of property. Although the average annual return is less than attractive, it is still found money.

I'll stand where I am. There was most certainly an eye or three watching over the chilluns produced by one's wenches, but I see no evidence whatsoever that many (or even any) slave-owner considered the rearing of salable property to be any more than incidental to his main business of planting.

I'll go back to the dairy farmer allegory. Every year, the cow has to throw a calf to remain productive. Only a dang fool would ignore the value of the calf.

ole

[cw1865]

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magaz...124456,00.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...08/ai_n8981492

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...8NHQRU00.shtml

I came across these links above which some of you may find interesting. While its certainely a 'melting' pot without consent, its still a melting pot. The bottom line is very simple, you can take any group of fertile males and fertile females and before very long sex is going to happen.

Sex is a major human motivation, hardwired into systems.

If slave breeding is occuring for purposes of profit, I believe it to be incidental to an acknowledgment of basic human desires.

The reason is ultimately very simple. On a business time scale, business owners make rational decisions based on the expected net present value of an investment. The problem with the basis of slave breeding for profit is that the payoff comes too far in the future. Essentially any investment that you make today that results in cash flows in the future, you will find that the future cash flows become increasingly less valuable in PRESENT dollars; essentially cash flows that occur after ten years are valueless for purposes of net present value. (a notable exception would be aged liquors)

[unionblue]

The politically correct term would probably be 'management of assets'. The war of 1861-65 must have put a considerable stop to any previous 'management' practices. Thank God for that. There couldn't have been much of a financial turnaround for a child. Yes, the child would grow, but it still required a good 10-15 years to produce a good field hand, regardless of the inspiration for the birth. Humans are by no means humane. Never have been.

"...Children from one year to 18 months old are now worth about $100. That little fellow there", pointing to a boy about 7 or 8 years old, "I gave $400 for. That fellow", pointing to one about 18, "I gave $750 for last night after dark..."

"...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 necessary outlay for their support (from birth until they reached 6 or 8 years of age, when they 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. In 1823, Madison expressed this opinion: "The annual expense of food and raiment in rearing a child, may be stated at about 8, 9, or 10 dollars; and the age at which it begins to be gainful to its owner, about 9 or 10 years. It was still less on a plantation in the lower South where the children were brooded by an old nurse.

Add to this petty cost the loss because the mother did not work for a month or two on account of child-bearing and there still remained room for an enormous per cent of profit on each child reared under favorable circumstances. Between 1830-1860, according to the year and the region, each babe in arms added from $100 to $200 or more to the value of its slave mother...

...In the spring of 1852, before the excitement over prices was general, an announcement that the slaves of a deceased planter in Wilcox county, Alabama, had been sold at auction for an average cash price of $700 and that an old slave above sixty years of age brought more than $1,000, was capped by this triumphant climax: "N*i*g*g*e*r*s are n*i*g*g*e*r*s now, especially the Atwood n*i*g*g*e*r*s." Two years later the Mongomery Journal reported what it called "the highest prices which we have ever noticed" for common fieldhands and children of the McLemore estate: 18 slaves, ten of whom were children of from 2 months to 7 years of age, sold for $14,195; a boy of 7 brought $760; one of 12, $710; a youth of 17, $1,374, and a woman of 37, with six children, from 2 to 7 years, $5,000...

From the book, Slave-Trading In The Old South, by Bancroft.

Unionblue

[unionblue]

Such a practice would cause a great deal of problems among the slaves. Diseases, demoralization, disharmony...= deaths and runaways...

Even from a cold-hearted business approach this would not be in the best interest of the slaveowner.

Plus there is the social factor. If a slaveowner is suspected of running a 'slave breeding camp'...how will he be treated by society? If he has aims at a political career...where will that go?

"But what did Southerners closely associated with slavery say about slave-rearing? It is their evidence that is decisive.

An advertisement in Charleston, SC, in 1796, offering fifty prime negroes for sale contained these sentences:

"...they are not Negroes selected out of a larger gang for the purpose of a sale, but are prime, their present Owner, with great trouble and expense, selected them out of many for several years past. They were purchased for stock and breeding Negroes, and to any Planter a very choice and desirable gang." (U. B. Phillips (editior), 2 Plantation and Frontier, pg. 57)

At all times "breeding slaves," "child-bearing women," "breeding period," "too old to breed," etc., were familiar terms.

Slave-rearing early became the source of the largest and often the only regular profit of nearly all slaveholding farmers and of many planters in the upper South. Especially in Virginia, as Francis Corbin wrote in 1819, "miserabile dictu our principal profit depends" on the increase of our slaves. In a Virginia case in 1848, the Court said that "the scantiness of net profit from slave labor has become proverbial, and that nothing is more common than actual loss, or a benefit merely in the slow increase of capital from propagation..."

...From the Charleston Mercury of May 16, 1838, contained an advertisement the main features of which were as follows:

"A GIRL about 20 years of age (raised in Virginia, and her two female children, one 4 and the other 2 years old.) She is *** remarkably strong and healthy, never having had a day's sickness, with the exception of the small pox, in her life. The children are fine and healthy. She is very prolific in her generating qualities, and affords a rare opportunity for any person who wishes to raise a family of strong and healthy servants for their [his] own use. Sold at no fault"

A newspaper of high standing would not have accepted such an advertisement if there had been much sentiment against slave-breeding for profit...

Source: Slave-Trading In The Old South, by Bancroft.

Unionblue

[DHPatrick]

A newspaper of high standing would not have accepted such an advertisement if there had been much sentiment against slave-breeding for profit...

Source: Slave-Trading In The Old South, by Bancroft.

Unionblue

I submit this is a simple matter of sensationalism. I do not see how you can use advertisements as a source document. If you want to see how much the population of a slave owner's slaves grew, it is a matter of comparing their Federal Census Records from one census to the next. Census records are source documents.

It wouldn't necessarily delinate between those imported and those born, but I would doubt that the number of those imported jumped that much either.

[larry_cockerham]

Then again, how much did they know about STDs back then?

I thought you'd never ask, or at least I hoped so. Gen. Hooker did much to forward medical knowledge by his thoughtful introduction of ladies of entertainment to the camps at Nashville, which subsequently became the syphilis center of America. (Youall thought it was just music city.) Because of that, much scramble was made to experiment with sulpha and other remedies that led to antibiotics. In every cloud, perhaps a silver lining. They knew what STD was, just not too much about it's cure. Alas, prevention hasn't changed much, but that's another discussion.

[larry_cockerham]

"But what did Southerners closely associated with slavery say about slave-rearing? It is their evidence that is decisive.

An advertisement in Charleston, SC, in 1796, offering fifty prime negroes for sale contained these sentences:

"...they are not Negroes selected out of a larger gang for the purpose of a sale, but are prime, their present Owner, with great trouble and expense, selected them out of many for several years past. They were purchased for stock and breeding Negroes, and to any Planter a very choice and desirable gang." (U. B. Phillips (editior), 2 Plantation and Frontier, pg. 57)

At all times "breeding slaves," "child-bearing women," "breeding period," "too old to breed," etc., were familiar terms.

Slave-rearing early became the source of the largest and often the only regular profit of nearly all slaveholding farmers and of many planters in the upper South. Especially in Virginia, as Francis Corbin wrote in 1819, "miserabile dictu our principal profit depends" on the increase of our slaves. In a Virginia case in 1848, the Court said that "the scantiness of net profit from slave labor has become proverbial, and that nothing is more common than actual loss, or a benefit merely in the slow increase of capital from propagation..."

...From the Charleston Mercury of May 16, 1838, contained an advertisement the main features of which were as follows:

"A GIRL about 20 years of age (raised in Virginia, and her two female children, one 4 and the other 2 years old.) She is *** remarkably strong and healthy, never having had a day's sickness, with the exception of the small pox, in her life. The children are fine and healthy. She is very prolific in her generating qualities, and affords a rare opportunity for any person who wishes to raise a family of strong and healthy servants for their [his] own use. Sold at no fault"

A newspaper of high standing would not have accepted such an advertisement if there had been much sentiment against slave-breeding for profit...

Source: Slave-Trading In The Old South, by Bancroft.

Unionblue

Please take note my old friend, that what you have described here is a description of the community made up of wealthy planters. That word is used several times. It has long been and continues to be my contention that these were the boys who started the civil war along with a bit of assist from 'honest' Abe.

The Confederate soldier, the one ducking the bullets, was not among this crowd. Many times he did his own labor on his own land. When the fighting started, he had little choice except to participate or die.
Pardon for the interruption, but this seemed like the time to attempt my point once again.

[cw1865]

"...Children from one year to 18 months old are now worth about $100. That little fellow there", pointing to a boy about 7 or 8 years old, "I gave $400 for. That fellow", pointing to one about 18, "I gave $750 for last night after dark..."

This quote here completely changes my hypothesis...and the following of course.

[ole]

I submit this is a simple matter of sensationalism. I do not see how you can use advertisements as a source document.

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

The Mercury was one of the most important newspapers in the south. I doubt the ad in question was spurious or sensational in nature; just a man wanting a good price for a young mother.

She is very prolific in her generating qualities, and affords a rare opportunity for any person who wishes to raise a family of strong and healthy servants for their [his] own use. Sold at no fault.

This doesn't look sensational. It does, however, give no hint that the girl's "product" would be ideal for a source of income; only that she was prime breeding stock.

ole