Slave Breeding; Fact or Fiction

[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]

Originally Posted by 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

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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by unionblue

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]

Originally Posted by DHPatrick

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.