Slave Breeding; Fact or Fiction

[ole]

"...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..."

I wonder if there's any significance to the "after dark" comment? Why would he feel the need to apply that specification? It's almost a "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" thing.

ole

[larry_cockerham]

I wonder if there's any significance to the "after dark" comment? Why would he feel the need to apply that specification? It's almost a "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" thing.

ole

Maybe he was trying to explain his purchase of a young man who looked more like Sammy Davis Jr. than Joe Frazier and blame it on the low light level after dark?

[ole]

Now THAT's funny!

ole

[larry_cockerham]

Good morning, Gen. Ike. I'll bet (hope) there are some young folks on this board saying 'who's he talkin bout?'. You are certainly old enough to have a mental image. My appology to Joe Frazier if he's still around.

[ole]

Good morning, Gen. Ike.

Had to back to see where I'd mistyped that -- get aging fingers on the wrong home key and you get ike. But I see now that it wasn't my aging fingers playing tricks.

ole

[LadyReb]

William Ellison Jr was a South Carolinian who built cotton gins.

In 1816 William Ellison Jr arrived in Stateburg SC and initially hired slave workers from local owners. By 1820 he had purchased two adult males to work in his shop.

Between 1822 and the mid-1840s, Ellison acquired slaves in increasing numbers. He became one of SC’s major cotton gin manufacturers, selling his machines as far away as MS. His business advertisements appeared across the state and a lot of his competitors went out of business because they could not compete with cheap slave labor.

In 1840 Ellison owned 30 slaves and by 1860 he owned 63 slaves and more than 900 acres of land. His children who lived on his land owned 9 slaves. His children were trained as gin makers by their father. On this 900 acres Ellison raised mostly cotton, with a small acreage set aside for raising food to feed his family and slaves.

Although a successful businessman and cotton farmer, Ellison’s major source of income derived from being a slave breeder. Slave breeding was illegal and he began this in secret in 1840. Slave breeding was looked down upon throughout the South and it was illegal in most states to sell a slave under twelve years old.

There was a significant investment return in raising and keeping young males but females were not productive workers in his factory or his cotton fields. He sold most females except for a few he kept for breeding purposes. He sold the females and many of the male children at an average price of $400. He had a reputation as a harsh master. His slaves were said to be the district’s worst fed and clothed. He had a small windowless building on his property where he chained his problem slaves.

His slaves often ran away and there are records of his offering a reward for the capture and return of them.

William Ellison Jr died December 5, 1861. His will stated that his estate be passed jointly to his daughter and his two sons. He also gave $500 to a daughter he had sold as a slave.

Ellison’s heirs supported the Confederacy during the war, producing corn, fodder, bacon, corn shucks and cotton for the Confederate armies. They also bought Confederate bonds which were worthless at the end of the war. One of William Ellison’s grandsons enlisted in the 1st Carolina Artillery CSA. When the grandson died in 1895 he was praised by his officers as being a faithful soldier.

After the war, the Ellison fortune quickly dwindled.






The slave, April was born in 1790 to Black slave parents. The slaves often named their children for the month in which they were born. Between 1800 and 1802-between 10 and 12 years old-April was bought by a white slave-owner named William Ellison. He was apprenticed and taught the trades of carpentry, blacksmithing and machining as well as reading, writing, arithmetic and basic bookkeeping.

William Ellison, April’s owner, freed April on June 8, 1816. On June 20, 1820 April appeared in the Sumter District courthouse to request a name change because it would greatly advance his interest as a tradesman. Because of the kindness of his former master and as a mark of gratitude and respect for him April asked that his name be changed to William Ellison Jr and his request was granted.

By 1860 the former Black slave, William Ellison Jr was one of the largest slave masters in the South.


NOTES
1. The American Negro, Raymond Logan and Irving Cohen New York: Houghton and Mifflin, 1970), p.72.
2. Black Masters. A Family of Color in the Old South, Michael P. Johnson and James L. Roak New York: Norton, 1984), p.64.
3. The Forgotten People, Gary Mills (Baton Rouge, 1977); Black Masters, p.128. 4. Men and Wealth in the US., 1850-1870, Lee Soltow (New Haven, 1975), p.85.
5. Black Masters, Appendix, Table 7; p.280.
6. Black Masters, p. 62.
7. Information on the Ellison family was obtained from Black Masters; the number of slaves they owned was gained from U.S. Census Reports.
8. In 1860 South Carolina had only 21 gin makers; Ellison, his three sons and a grandson account for five of the total.
9. Neither Black Nor White: Slavery and Race Relations in Brazil and the United States, Carl N. Degler (New York, Macmillan, 1971), p.39; Negro Slavery in Louisiana, Joe Gray Taylor (Baton Rouge, 1963), pp. 4041.
10. Reconstruction, 1863-1877, Eric Foner (New York; Harper & Row, 1988), p. 47; pp. 353-355.

[unionblue]

LadyReb,

First off, welcome to the forum.

Second, your post mentions that slave-breeding was illegal in South Carolina in 1840.

I must say, I find this very hard to believe, as from what I have read, the breeding and selling of slaves was considered a very normal and very profitable process for all who owned, sold, or used slaves. I will admit, I could be wrong, but I would like to see evidence that there was such before doing so.

Do you have a source on any law on the books in South Carolina at anytime prior to or up until the Civil War that said or stated that slave-breeding was illegal and "on the books," as it were?

As for the idea it was illegal to sell slaves in most states at below the age of twelve, I am afraid this is pretty much disproved by looking at any Southern newspaper which advertised the sale of slaves.

"I wish to sell a negro women and four children. The woman is 22 years old, of good character, a good cook and washer. The children are very likely, from 6 years down to 1 1/2. I will sell them separately to suit purchasers.--J. T. Underwood."--Louisville Weekly Journal, May 2, 1849.

"As valuable a family * * * as ever was offered for sale," consisting of a cook about 35 years of age, and her daughter about 14 and son about 8. "The whole will be sold together or a part of them, as may suit a purchaser."--Charleston Courier, Apr. 12, 1828.

I also have a website for the Richmond Virginia Enquier, which usually lists the advertisements for the sale of slaves in every daily edition from 1860 on which also lists children for sale below the age of twelve.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[LadyReb]

This article was written by Robert Grooms. I edited a bit. Not wanting to point out the black slave holders, but the breeding part.

http://americancivilwar.com/authors/...laveowners.htm

[ole]

On the other thread (Slavery #II). In it, Starr says: "Only Louisiana, and Alabama after 1852, probibited the sale of a child under 10 years, away from its mother."

He also said: "Nothing can change the essential viciousness of a system that turned Virginia and Kentucky into brood-farms with annual exports of 9,400 and 4,000 slaves respectively."

The general idea that the practice would have been in a social class maybe below slave-trading, it is quite likely that most practicioners carried it on without fanfare.

It's somewhat amusing that, when needing to add another field-hand or maid to his string, or to sell off some excess, the planter would go to the trader. But he wouldn't let his kids play with the trader's kids (figuratively speaking).

I know you're familiar with the talk, Blue, but maybe other's arent.

http://user.aol.com/CintiCWRT/one_hundred.html

ole

[ole]

Thanks for the link, LadyReb. I've bookmarked it for later reading.

ole

[DHPatrick]

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

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

ole

ole

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

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

[ole]

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

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

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

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

[unionblue]

ole

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

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

DHPatrick,

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

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

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

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

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

Hence, this thread.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[DHPatrick]

DHPatrick,

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

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

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

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

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

Hence, this thread.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

Unionblue

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

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

[unionblue]

Unionblue

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

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

DHPatrick,

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[timewalker]

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

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

[DHPatrick]

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

Sincerely,
Unionblue

Unionblue

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

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

[DHPatrick]

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

Timewalker

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

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

[DHPatrick]

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

ole

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

[PvtClewell]

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

[unionblue]

Unionblue

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

DHPatrick, my argument has not only merit, but historical fact to back it up. While the product may not be as good as advertised, the product was still for sale and it was advertised.

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

Like the idea of cars being offered for sale in my local paper? Sorry, DH, my view is that they are actually offering cars for sale and that they actually have them there on the lot they advertise.

One hundred years from now, the photos of those cars, the advertised prices, etc., will be source documents on this period relating to our money system, our transportation, sales techniques, etc.

Now, do I believe that a little blue capsule with enlagre my private package or that a cream advertised will grow hair in my bald spot? I have some personal problems/issues if the product will produce as advertised, but I have no doubt that someone is trying to sell it to me and that it is an actual product. The question is, will I buy it or not?

But people a hundred years from now will read in those old newspaper advertisements that such products were for sale and marvel at just how stupid we were to buy them.

Just like we marvel now that human beings of all ages of both sexes were for sale for money.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[larry_cockerham]

While I emphatically don't believe my southern ancestors fought to support slavery nor my Union ancestors fought to suppress it, I can see some merit in Union Blue's notion that their actions may have unwittingly supported that general effort. What I do believe is that slavery existed. Too many slave markets such as Fayetteville and Memphis survived to suspect otherwise. As for newspapers being a source document, one really wouldn't expect to find a notarized affidavit from a slave that he or she was sold or offered for sale. Preponderance of evidence in the number of newspaper adds suggests some activity was about. Remember that in 1861-65, the yankees, aside from the ones in the US Army, hadn't moved south, so there was still some truth in advertising. Besides, an ad in the paper for goods that didn't exist as noted, could have and probably did, get more than one man shot. I, for one, vote with Union Blue.

[ole]

Besides, an ad in the paper for goods that didn't exist as noted, could have and probably did, get more than one man shot. I, for one, vote with Union Blue.

One of us has to go, Larry. Was thinking the same thing. Put an ad in the Charleston Mercury. This guy shows up and wants to see the merchandise. You say, I was just kidding. Not a soul at Aetna would want on their rolls.

There was this ad. It means nothing by itself: some guy had a slave to sell and took out an ad in the biggest paper in several states. It's a slice of a snapshot of a one-day-in-a-thousand event. But it was there! That is a primary source: the ad was in that paper on that date. And that's about all it means. Can't very well say it wasn't; the newspaper archives show that it was. That is a primary source. It may not say or support what I think, but there is no way to say that it wasn't there. That is the definition of a primary source.

I'll agree that it might take considerably more than one to support a point, but you really can't say that the ad is not a primary source. It was there and published. How much closer to primary can you get?

[ole]

Larry:

One of these days I'm going to run across a parentless, adolescent weasel. When he says to me, how to I become a grownup weasel?, I'm going to send him off to study at your throne. I will say to him, "My son, I'm going to place you under the care of the chief weasel."

Take care of the little bugger. He's depending on you.

ole

[ole]

I, for one, vote with Union Blue.

Not yet, you don't. I have to check the rule books first. How do I search that? Larry v. Union. Cockerham v. blue? This might take a while. Film at 11:00.

ole