Posted on 09/03/2019 5:05:43 AM PDT by Bull Snipe
Those would hardly be of the same nature as propaganda.
Might want to study up yourself. Lincoln never served in the Senate.
You are correct. U.S. House.
He supported colonization efforts financially on more than one occasion, and formally joined the national ACS in 1856.
Colonization also played a role in Lincoln’s lesser known 1854 bid for the United States Senate.
The accuracy of the rest of your post leaves a lot to be desired as well. Lincoln never wanted to "deport" anyone. He supported voluntary emigration but then so did a lot of people including Robert Lee. Lee's concerns were not so much with blacks assimilating into the U.S. as he was with whites accepting free blacks assimilating into the U.S. society. History has shown that Lincoln was completely right in that. Witness what has happened to African-Americans throughout the country up to the mid-20th Century and later.
>>Lincoln never wanted to “deport” anyone.<<
It’s all public record chap.
Southerners were pretty clear that they didn't want to be Americans anymore.
Then by all means direct us to it.
That's right. So anyone can look it up and see that he investigated the possibility of voluntary resettlement - not deportation. He wanted to gauge public support and especially support among blacks themselves. When he found that there wasn't interest he abandoned the idea.
But at least you didn't say that Sherman was fighting innocent American citizens.
And no, it wasn't unconstitutional or just "Mr. Lincoln's War."
And since heads of households were the ones who owned property (women rarely did, and children didn't either) the percentage of families owning slaves could amount to as much as 1 in 3.
Even if there is some softness or weakness in the figures given, it's clear that many Alabama families owned or aspired to own slaves.
Have you ever heard of the Black Belt? That’s not named for the slaves, but rather the soil.
There were YUGE plantations were the slave to owner population was 10,000 to one.
Macon county, the county next to mine in Alabama, is 93 percent black. It’s in the black belt. My county is where the Appalachians ended. It’s 23 percent black.
Basically, my county only had 2 big plantations, and the rest were piney woods white folks with no slaves. The counties to the North of me had even less, as they’re even more mountainous. The population of these counties are 85-90% white. But Macon and Bullock counties to the South had all the slaves because of the enormous plantations. Not many whites lived there then, or even today.
You look at the demographics today, and things haven’t really changed much from 1860.
“I’m Alabamian. Very few whites owned slaves. The planter class were the 1%’, Wrong
Per the 1860 census
Alabama total population 964,000
Alabama total slave population, 435,00
Slaves make up 45% of the population of Alabama
Total # of families in Alabama, 96,600
total # of families owing slaves in Alabama 33,700.
% of families owning slave in Alabama 35%
Pretty sure post 74 was meant for you.
You forced me to do some research. I’ll get back to you.
Those would be the counties where over 50% of the inhabitants were slaves - sometimes well over 50%. There would have been large plantations and slave owners with many slaves in those counties, but other whites living there would have slaves as well. The best cotton growing counties were very rich and if you did business with the major slave masters, you could probably afford a slave or two yourself.
The Appalachian counties had few slaves. But notice the counties where slaves were 30% to 50% of the population. There were also counties where the percentage of slaves approached 30%. Taking those other counties into account, you can see that there must have been many slaveowning families in Alabama. The Appalachian counties were out of the ordinary, but so were the Appalachian counties.
:format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3825978/slavery.0.png)
That’s a real good map, thank you!
One quibble, though. The map is using modern county lines for Alabama. Those counties came into being AFTER the Civil War. The antebellum counties were fewer, but larger.
While the map is somewhat accurate, if they used counties that didn’t exist in 1850 the colors aren’t going to match up.
Another issue is population density. In 1850, the iron industry of Birmingham, Alabama’s current largest city, did not yet exist. So there were actually more piney wood folks (or hillbillies) in the upper center.
We made Grant a two term President !!!
So the people that counted disagree with your extreme position.
Then Mr. John ‘sore loser’ Breckenridge and pals should not have initiated their insurrection.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.