Posted on 07/07/2015 3:17:08 AM PDT by dennisw
In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the U.S. census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states.
The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves (1). Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves).
The rare instances when the ownership of slaves by free Negroes is acknowledged in the history books, justification centers on the claim that black slave masters were simply individuals who purchased the freedom of a spouse or child from a white slaveholder and had been unable to legally manumit them. Although this did indeed happen at times, it is a misrepresentation of the majority of instances, one which is debunked by records of the period on blacks who owned slaves. These include individuals such as Justus Angel and Mistress L. Horry, of Colleton District, South Carolina, who each owned 84 slaves in 1830. In fact, in 1830 a fourth of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves; eight owning 30 or more (2).
According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of thisnumber, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
No, given to them by the State of South Carolina in 1836: "Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory"
Oh, pity the poor slave owner.
I say "destructive of these ends" is entirely in the eyes of the beholder.
I personally think the Supreme Court's rulings on Roe, on Kelo, on Wickard, Obamacare and on Gay Marriage are all destructive of these ends, and in my opinion ought to be grounds for separation.
Obviously you feel these are all acceptable aspects of our governance, and you will want to insure that I am forced to comply with them.
Right? :)
No, i'm constantly responding to it by pointing out that it is a red herring. If others didn't bring it up, I assure you I wouldn't either. It only makes my argument (freedom of self determination) more difficult.
For some reason people get side tracked on the "Look! Squirrel!" aspect of slavery in discussions regarding the civil war.
Sure, if dying is an option. Most of us don't see it that way though.
But I applaud your efforts to find some moral equivalence to slavery.
Sorry dude, the Liberal activists got there a long time before I ever did. They've been condemning third world sweat shop conditions since the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire. (that would be a "long time" for those of you in Rio Linda.)
I assume you support a higher minimum wage here, too, right since youre so concerned about the plight of low-wage workers.
People concerned about Jobs here do not support minimum wages. Well, at least not sensible people.
Maybe you just see everything as hyperbole, and so therefore cannot actually tell the difference anymore?
It would certainly appear so from the histrionics I see in your writing.
If only the southern leadership hadn't repeatedly cited slavery as the reason for their actions.
I am not going to contradict it because I have no better idea. Now is that $750.00 in 1860 dollars, or $750.00 in 2015 dollars?
If it was 3 billion total valuation, that would put it at about 4 million slaves, which I think isn't far off.
More like, "I'm not going to take this risk unless you sweeten the pot.", but then you do have an overinflated sense of drama.
Not interested in traveling down into your metaphysical cul-de-sac.
"Big enough" is the threshold, and they met it.
It wasn't their land. But seriously, why did the South decide that war was the only choice available to them? Surely it was must have been something really, really serious?
If given by the consent of the people, can be taken by the consent of the people.
In retrospect, it would appear that the smarter move would have been to leave them alone and let them keep it until they got bored with it, much as Cuba has been doing with Guantanamo since the Revolution.
Yes, all bad people need to be robbed and killed if they dissent. Right? Even though what they did wasn't illegal till we changed the rules mid stream just to screw them over.
Kinda like the investors in GM when the government stole it.
Pretty good parallel, actually.
No, i'm not. ere is an example of what I meant in my previous reply to this message.
Some people will just not stop bringing it up, as if the Northern Unions actions were being directed by the Southern Secessionists.
Gee, why don’t you want to discuss why a certain inalienable right attains only to certain bodies of “the People” and not to others? It couldn’t be because you don’t have a good answer, could it?
Two words: West Virginia.
Congratulations! Your post has been selected as an example of an @$$hat who won’t quit bringing it up. Contact rockrr about your prize!
Gosh, for someone so concerned about property rights, you sure are willing to let government take them away easily.
In retrospect, it would appear that the smarter move would have been to leave them alone and let them keep it until they got bored with it, much as Cuba has been doing with Guantanamo since the Revolution.
Ya think?
Here’s a cut and paste from MeasuringWorth.com.
None of these prices has much meaning to us today, but they would if we revalue them in today’s dollars to the amount of money slave owners spent 150 years ago. The techniques developed in MeasuringWorth have created ten “measures” to use to compare a monetary value in one period to one in another, as explained in the essay “Measures of Worth.”. Of those ten, three are useful for discussing the value of a slave. They are: labor or income value, economic status and real price. Using these measures, the value in 2011 of $400 in 1850 (the average price of a slave that year) ranges from $12,000 to $176,000.
Like when South Carolina wanted to steal the land that belonged to the United States government?
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.