Thanks for making my point, your request for evidence here is legit and should not be met with me just blowing smoke at you, right?
Even if I've posted it before, there's nothing non-kosher about you asking for it again, right?
How about if you keep that thought in mind?
So take the example of Mississippi.
From 1820 to 1860 its white population multiplied 8 times, from 42,000 to 360,000.
At the same time its slave population multiplied 13 times, from 33,000 to 436,000.
So slaves grew from 44% of the population in 1820 to 55% in 1860.
That suggests, not only was the number of slaves growing, but also the percentage of slaves and very likely too, the percentage of slaveholders.
Certainly nothing in the numbers suggests falling numbers of slaveholders.
FLT-bird: "the evidence does not support that. Look at the US Census data."
Any reasonable estimate of average slaveholder family size (big families) and average number of slaveholders per family (probably just 1 or 1.1) leads to conclusions along the line of nearly half of some Deep South states families owning slaves.
FLT-bird: "Pure speculation on your part.
What we have is the Census data which shows the state with the highest percentage of the total free population owning slaves was South Carolina at 8.82%. "
Not just speculation, simple common sense.
And yet you wish us to believe none of those 9% of slaveholders had wives & children, or that if Dad owned slaves, so did all of them?
Sounds unrealistic to me.
More realistic would be average slaveholder family of, say, 5 means 45% of white South Carolinians lived in slaveholding households.
Is there evidence to support any other conclusion?
FLT-bird on 25% of Confederate soldiers slaveholders: "That may have been true in a few areas but is certainly a high estimate in others."
Well... you might say that since slave ownership was much less in Upper South and Border States, those units would have fewer slaveholders.
However, those states also contributed fewer soldiers to the Confederacy and more to the Union army, so there was a self-selection action at work.
In regions with fewer slaveholders -- i.e., Eastern Tennessee -- more soldiers served the Union and only slaveholding troops served as Confederates.
In other words, because of self-selection, that 25% estimate was likely to remain constant across most units.
FLT-bird: "Au contraire"
Now there's a powerful argument, no doubt, since it's in French, how can anybody defeat it?
FLT-bird: "Pure BS.
A fantasy constructed in your own mind.
If Southerners controlled Washington as you claim, tariffs would have been much lower, expenditures far more balanced between the regions and the federal govenrment would not have usurped all kinds of powers the states never delegated to it in the constitution."
Look, I "get" that you are in the grip of your Lost Cause myth, a fact free, common sense-free zone, but don't you wonder, once in a while, what truth might look like?
"...tariffs would have been much lower,"
Tariffs were much lower in 1860 than in, say, 1830, by a factor of half to third.
That's because Democrats ruled in Washington and Southerners ruled Democrats.
"...expenditures far more balanced between the regions."
Expenditures were perfectly balanced between the regions as this link shows, Fire Eater propaganda not withstanding.
"...federal govenrment would not have usurped all kinds of powers the states never delegated to it in the constitution"
The only power "usurped" by 1860 was Federal responsibility for enforcing Fugitive Slave laws, something slave states insisted on.
Or do you wish to include President Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase and support for the National Road?
And Jefferson was from which Northern state, did you say?
FLT-bird quoting: " 'The north has adopted a system of revenue and disbursements, in which an undue proportion of the burden of taxation has been imposed on the South, and an undue proportion of its proceeds appropriated to the north …
The South as the great exporting portion of the Union has, in reality, paid vastly more than her due proportion of the revenue,' John C Calhoun Speech on the Slavery Question,” March 4, 1850"
Well... if Calhoun said it, it must be true, no arguing that, right?
But the fact is that Calhoun was wrong on both sides of his equation.
First of all Calhoun's Deep South exported only one commodity of significance, cotton, which represented roughly 50% of total exports, not the 75% number we often see.
Of course 50% is a lot, but it still means the US had plenty of other exports, including gold & silver.
But a key point Calhoun doesn't realize is that for every dollar the South exported, they also imported a dollar's worth of goods produced in the US North & West, so their export earnings quickly made their way to other parts of the country,
And what Calhoun calls "Federal revenue disbursements" were not, in fact skewed towards the North, unless you include as "North" all states "North" of South Carolina!
In fact, data shows Federal revenues were disbursed pretty evenly between slave and non-slave states.
Enough for now, more later...
Thanks for making my point, your request for evidence here is legit and should not be met with me just blowing smoke at you, right?
Even if I’ve posted it before, there’s nothing non-kosher about you asking for it again, right?
How about if you keep that thought in mind?****
If you had actually provided evidence for it as I have numerous times including in this thread.....
So take the example of Mississippi.
From 1820 to 1860 its white population multiplied 8 times, from 42,000 to 360,000. At the same time its slave population multiplied 13 times, from 33,000 to 436,000.
So slaves grew from 44% of the population in 1820 to 55% in 1860.
That suggests, not only was the number of slaves growing, but also the percentage of slaves and very likely too, the percentage of slaveholders. Certainly nothing in the numbers suggests falling numbers of slaveholders.****
Granted there was growth like that in Mississippi. I’d suggest however that A) Mississippi was frontier territory in 1820 and as it became settled between 1820 and 1860 it was not unreasonable that more people brought their slaves in as they established farms/plantations etc. I’d also add that the Mississippi Delta is an area that is particularly well suited for cotton growing and this attracted more slave owners to the area and encouraged those there to buy more slaves so as to increase cotton production.
I don’t think these factors hold for all states even in the Deep South.
Any reasonable estimate of average slaveholder family size (big families) and average number of slaveholders per family (probably just 1 or 1.1) leads to conclusions along the line of nearly half of some Deep South states families owning slaves.
No it doesn’t.
Total Free Population Total # of Slaveholders % of Free population owning slaves
Alabama 529,121 33,730 6.37%
Arkansas 324,335 11,481 3.54%
Florida 78,679 5,152 6.55%
Georgia 595,088 41,084 6.90%
Louisiana 376,276 22,033 5.86%
Mississippi 354,674 30,943 8.72%
Missouri
North Carolina 661,583 34,658 5.24%
South Carolina 301,302 26,701 8.86%
Tennessee 834,082 36,844 4.42%
Texas 421,649 21,878 5.19%
Virginia 1,105,453 52,128 4.72%
Total 5,582,242 316,632 5.67%
Excuse the formatting. As you can see the total percentage of the free population owning slaves in these states did not exceed 9% even in Mississippi and South Carolina which had the highest rates of slave owning.
You are trying to claim that there could be only one slave owner per family when we have lots of anecdotal evidence that there were often several in families that owned more than a few slaves and you are trying to claim families were extra large so as to inflate the percentage of families owning slaves. You have no evidence for either assumption. What we do know is that the rate of slave ownership did not exceed 9% in even Mississippi or South Carolina according to the 1860 US census.
Not just speculation, simple common sense.
And yet you wish us to believe none of those 9% of slaveholders had wives & children, or that if Dad owned slaves, so did all of them? Sounds unrealistic to me.****
Now you’re combining speculation with straw man arguments.
More realistic would be average slaveholder family of, say, 5 means 45% of white South Carolinians lived in slaveholding households.
Is there evidence to support any other conclusion?
and none of those families had more than 1 slaveowner? You don’t know that. You’re trying just as hard as you can to pump up the percentages on nothing more than wishful thinking. Oh, and it wasn’t 9%.
However, those states also contributed fewer soldiers to the Confederacy and more to the Union army, so there was a self-selection action at work.
In regions with fewer slaveholders — i.e., Eastern Tennessee — more soldiers served the Union and only slaveholding troops served as Confederates.*****
Virginia and North Carolina contributed the most troops and they were both in the Upper South and had a lower percentage of the population who were slaveowners. Also you have zero evidence that “only slaveholding troops” served as Confederates.
In other words, because of self-selection, that 25% estimate was likely to remain constant across most units.****
You have no evidence for that - only your self serving assumptions.
Look, I “get” that you are in the grip of your Lost Cause myth, a fact free, common sense-free zone, but don’t you wonder, once in a while, what truth might look like?****
I would say exactly the same of your anti-historical PC Revisionist dogma in which inconvenient facts are ignored and self serving speculation substitutes for actual data.
Tariffs were much lower in 1860 than in, say, 1830, by a factor of half to third. That’s because Democrats ruled in Washington and Southerners ruled Democrats.****
That’s because in 1830 there was the ruinously high Tariff of Abominations.
Expenditures were perfectly balanced between the regions as this link shows, Fire Eater propaganda not withstanding.*****
Simply false.
The only power “usurped” by 1860 was Federal responsibility for enforcing Fugitive Slave laws, something slave states insisted on.****
Wrong. The federal government was steadily encroaching on states’ sovereign rights. Show me where in the constitution, the USSC is granted the power of Judicial Review. That’s just one example. Huge stretching of the “elastic clause” of the commerce clause was another. Huge expansion of the “general welfare” clause was another.
Well... if Calhoun said it, it must be true, no arguing that, right?
But the fact is that Calhoun was wrong on both sides of his equation. First of all Calhoun’s Deep South exported only one commodity of significance, cotton, which represented roughly 50% of total exports, not the 75% number we often see. Of course 50% is a lot, but it still means the US had plenty of other exports, including gold & silver.
Firstly...wrong. Cotton was far from the only major export from the South. Other cash crops included Indigo, Rice, Sugar and of course Tobacco. Also Calhoun was FAR from alone in saying either that expenditures were unbalanced OR that the South had provided the vast majority of exports. I already included several sources for this in this thread including Northern sources which said the same thing.
But a key point Calhoun doesn’t realize is that for every dollar the South exported, they also imported a dollar’s worth of goods produced in the US North & West, so their export earnings quickly made their way to other parts of the country,
Well....again, False. The South bought manufactured goods. That is true since its economy was geared toward agricultural exports. Those manufactured goods - at least many of them - came from the UK and France. It was to squeeze the lower priced foreign competition out and simultaneously raise prices that Northern Manufacturers kept clamoring for the highest tariffs they could get.
And what Calhoun calls “Federal revenue disbursements” were not, in fact skewed towards the North, unless you include as “North” all states “North” of South Carolina!****
False. As once again, I have provided many sources in this thread which all showed.
In fact, data shows Federal revenues were disbursed pretty evenly between slave and non-slave states.****
False. Once again I quickly grow tired of this. You and a few others just LIVE to post the same BS in these threads day after day multiple times a day. You have no sources, you just spew BS. Repetitively
Its boring.