Slave Breeding; Fact or Fiction

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by timewalker

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]

Originally Posted by ole

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]

Originally Posted by timewalker

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]

Originally Posted by johan_steele

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]

Originally Posted by Hanny

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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