I suspect the latter. It's a puzzlement. Seems that the only proper use of slaves was in planting and operating an agricultural enterprize. Although buying and selling one's own slaves was common practice, the trader was held in low esteem (go figure!). It follows, somewhat, that the breeder was likewise held in low esteem.So, either there was no slave-breeding in Virginia, or it was not considered there as something to be proud of.
I would also chose the second possibility.I suspect the latter. It's a puzzlement. Seems that the only proper use of slaves was in planting and operating an agricultural enterprize. Although buying and selling one's own slaves was common practice, the trader was held in low esteem (go figure!). It follows, somewhat, that the breeder was likewise held in low esteem.
PBS did a special about Charles Ball and his new found relatives. They followed him around as he met with his African American relatives. The book and and the special were fascinating!Gents, if truly interested in this, I suggest you read Charles Ball's SLAVES IN THE FAMILY. True stuff from the early South Carolina plantation family. Mostly genealogy, but great insights into slavery and plantation life in the southeast. This was a NY Times bestseller in paperback.
Ole, looks like there's a book coming out on the very subject:
BTW, I was raised on that old chestnut about black athletes being superior because of breeding back in the slave days. Does anybody know about primary source documents, pedigrees and stud books, maybe?
Blush. I've had no idea about such plantation books, so I can't neither agree nor disagree with you.
Ah, so war was only his hobby!!, another example of a large family was N B Forrest, 10 brothers and sisters, all the males fought for the south, 1 had his spine broken in the war with Mexico and was paraysed and on crutches, when a Union officer insulted his mother, he struck the officer with one crutch, the officer kicked the crutches away and said and now what are you going to do cripple?, and thats when he shot him, not bad Mr Forrest, not bad at all, stood trial and got off an atempted murder charge."Almost" makes a difference. Even looking at my own ancestors' records I can see a few such cases of women giving birth year by year. Or consider John Bell Hood's marriage- in 11 years his wife gave birth to 13 children
Rather depends of when we talking, but in 1850 the cost to owner was $20 per annum to operate a slave, this asset pricing of a slaves value will be discounted value of net income plus any capital investment/apreciation/dep[rection over the slaves lifetime, in short in 1850 the cost to run a slave was 20, anything over 20 was a profit. Hireing out was indeedd the most common use of slave labour, which was why all whites income was effected by slavery, perhaps as much as 30% of all whites income was generted by slaves, so while only a small % of white society owned slaves, the use of it effected pratcicly everyone.A few ideas comes to my mind. First, the kids could be in future hired out instead of selling. From what I've read (probably in Bancroft), children could be sold/hired out from the age 6-8 and hiring was more profitable. The costs of keeping a slave were about 30$ a year, so not huge. Another thing- prices of slaves were not constant- they were growing.
One more thought- even if this business had been indeed unprofitable (which I doubt), slaveholders could have anyway invest in it because of lack of experience or because of belief in its profitability in future. Kind of stockbroking?
My bad, i assumed you were familiar with intergional movements, and why the natural limits thesis explanation of slavery claims that the old south was a baby farm fuelling the new souths exploitation, and as each new soil becaome exhusted that states owners turned to baby famring to fuel the next territotrial expansion to fresh soil.Maybe I'm just tired, cos' I don't follow your logic in this whole paragraph
1790-1862 total slave sales from exporting to importing states was 825k-1,000,000 kinda range depending on which book you pick up, the last 3 decads being the peak period. Maryland/Va/NC/SC supplied 85% of the migrants, which ment importing states pop grew 3.6 times faster than natural increase alone, and exporting states population was similary retarded.Does the statistic consider children sold with their parent(s)?
Gents, if truly interested in this, I suggest you read Charles Ball's SLAVES IN THE FAMILY. True stuff from the early South Carolina plantation family. Mostly genealogy, but great insights into slavery and plantation life in the southeast. This was a NY Times bestseller in paperback.
Either... but I doubt the master would be addressing a study of genetic engineering if he took a female slave.
My guess is that the slave-master had a recreational angle more than a scientific one.
I don't think we're talking about anything so advanced as genetic selection. It's more like mating your biggest, strongest field-hand with the sturdiest fertile females. Odds are you will end up with a crop of babies who will mostly resemble their parents.I would say that is true. One of the problems is that the genetic selection process will take longer than a master's lifetime. I think that what we should be looking for is evidence of sex as a reward.
|M||Period Plantation Row 'Slave Cabin' Cooking.||Foods & Recipes||5|
|Slave-Holders Knew Secession Was Doomed To Failure||Additional Discussion on Secession||51|
|The escaped slave, the 21st Wisconsin and General Rousseau||War, Runaway Slaves, Blacks in Uniform (1861-1865)||0|
|Statue of Lincoln and Freed Slave Removed from Boston Park, Ending Its 141-Year Stand||Concerns About Civil War Monuments and Sites||9|
|Confederate slave hunt in the North a military disgrace.||Additional Discussion on Slavery||1|