Yes, I thought you would need some help on that one, and glad to see someone out there has sympathy for you.
The historians and researchers examined the original census sheets which you do not include in your descriptions.
Neither you or your “higher authority” address the fact that some of the census takers not only listed slaves by headcount and household, but also by name. It is from this data that the researchers established data on marriages.
Go ahead and spend some more time on this.
And while you are at it, make the assertion again that records on plantations and in churches were not kept.
And by the way, have you gotten to the point where Burton tells you about his research. Yes, I thought you had and you do not want to mention it, now do you.
The help was unsolicited, but appreciated. We both wondered how you'd respond.
The historians and researchers examined the original census sheets which you do not include in your descriptions.
No, just the statement from the Census bureau itself stating that slave 'marriages' were not tallied and that no substantial information on such 'marriages' exist. Yet you say they're lying.
Go ahead and spend some more time on this.
In a vain attempt to find something that supports your unsubstantiated claims?
And while you are at it, make the assertion again that records on plantations and in churches were not kept.
I'm sure some were, especially at the plantation level. But your claim that the census counted them is, of course, bullshit.