Posted on 06/20/2022 12:21:51 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
There were 15 slave states in 1860. West Virginia, illegally created during the war, had slavery (with a plan for gradual emancipation), which makes 16. 50 minus 16 equals 34 states which were free states in 1860 or which became states later.
No, they ate goober peas ("goodness how delicious!") and sipped on mint juleps while sitting on the verandah.
Was popcorn a thing back in the 1860s?
“Would the south have been more advanced and more economically developed if it never had slavery? I find the claim ridiculous, but think what you want.”
As a southerner, I say slavery held the South back. Southerners hated slavery. Very few, less than 1.4% ever held slaves at all. Slaves displaced paid workers. What Republican Wildcat posted is dead on.
Less than 5% of the Whites in American owned slaves in the
United States in 1860. Some have said it was as low as 1.4%.
Despite this, and despite slavery being relegated to the
southern states, and most of the industrialized America in
the northern states, it is still run up the flag pole that
slaves built this nation.
Slaves did not build this nation.
In the interest of being open about the slave owner
percentage, some people with an axe to grind state it was
20% or over. They achieved his by not only counting the
owner and his wife as slave owners, but any other family
members on the plantation. Any other paid workers that
may have been there to supervise, were also counted as
slave owners, even though they weren’t.
These are known as the family, and household, categories
and they blew out the numbers counted as ‘owners.’
Another ploy these folks used was to limit the counting
to only southern states. Why is this important.
Today every White is held in contempt as the descendant
of slave owners. That is patently false. Every White
today is not related to a slave owner.
There were 30 million Whites in the nation in 1860.
There are 204 million today.
It’s a fantasy that all Whites are guilty. Based on
the between 2% and 5% ownership back in the day, it’s
very wrong to label every White a descendant of slave
owners.
If memory serves, over 300,000 Whites died in the Civil
War, which resulted in freedom for slaves. It should
be noted that some freed African slaves also fought in
that war against the south, and some of them fought
and died as well.
It is also noted that around 3,000 freed African Slaves
owned around 20,000 slaves in 1860.
Resources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_demographics_of_the_United_States
Next is a factual presentation of slavery, but there are
parts of it that I ponder as to accuracy.
For instance, in this presentation the writer suggests that
25% of the homes in the south had slaves. This would assume that 25% of the population was wealthy enough to purchase
a slave. Maybe I’m being a but stubborn, but it seems to
me that back in the day, being able to pay upwards of
$1,000 to $1,200 for a slave, would have been a real stretch. Those were the top dollar slaves though, and perhaps
they could afford slaves selling for less.
My point isn’t to short-change the truth or facts of
slavery, but I don’t want the White populace to be trashed
on a level that isn’t accurate either.
Some states are credited with close to 50% of the populace
as being slave owners. To me that seems nearly impossible.
I believe that the family and household techniques, and
only counting in the south, really skews the numbers and
percentages. I think these methods are used to skew the
numbers.
Let’s remember, none of the activists look at any White
today and thinks, oh their family lived in the north. For
that reason, I believe all the nation should be included
in the counting and assessment.
Remember also, that there is a lot more power behind
claiming that close to 25% or even up to 50% of the
population at large, or only in one state were slave
owners.
The writer of the materials at this link also talks
about the U. S. only having taken 4.5% or so of the
slaves globally, back in the day.
I think the presentation has value, and I chose to
link it.
https://theconversation.com/american-slavery-separating-fact-from-myth-79620
I provided these links because they were pertinent to
the subject matter.
I don’t believe every factoid I addressed is covered at
these two links.
I read other materials yesterday, and I couldn’t find the
same link today.
I am sure there are some things around today built by slaves......but not much. Most of America as we know it was built within the last 120 years......maybe much less and not by anyone enslaved.
This isn’t at all meant to disregard the enormity of slavery in the US.
Other than a few cars, nothing I own is more than 10 years old, other than my home which is less than 30 years old.
There is a good chance some of the stuff I own which was made in China could have been made by slaves.......
This “holiday” will ensure blacks whining like little bitches for the rest of the US’s history.
Thanks for the comments.
No, and I’m not here to undersell the terrible effects of
slavery. As I said in comments I made yesterday, I wish
the people of the day had never brought slavery to our
shores. The British did it, but by the time our nation
was founded, it was just too late to put the brakes on
and found a cohesive nation.
The concept of owning another human being is unfathomable
to me. I grew up a mile from the George Washington Carver
plantation in southwestern Missouri. I went over there a
number of times and realized the treachery of slaver as
a young kid.
Wealth does linger, and whatever wealth from the south
associated with slavery, that did help our nation grow is
fair game.
As an example, I’ll use a car company that probably was
not impacted by wealth from slavery.
If say Ford was started with funds associated with slavery,
it could still be considered to be benefiting today from
it’s founding using those funds.
Should that company be taken to task now, and forced to
make a payout? I think it’s a relevant concept, but
anything that impacts the company’s bottom line, is
going to drive up costs for the very people that are
supposedly being helped.
At some point we have to move on.
Others may disagree with me, and I’m willing to accept
that there may be good arguments from another vantage
point.
My degree is bigger than his. Ha!
You provided no support for your argument at all.
“Southerners hated slavery.”
“Very few, less than 1.4% ever held slaves at all.”
{I looked it up, was up to 6% at the peak}
” Slaves displaced paid workers.”
You made 3 statements, and none of them have any relevance to the question of whether the South would have been better off or more economically developed or more advanced if it had never had slaves at all.
So why do you believe it?
>>”The United States we know today was built with the labor of enslaved Black Americans,” he said on Sunday<<
How bout the backs of the Chinese and Irish slaves? Libs never seem to recall this portion of history.
Funny that...
It’s not.
This is pure pandering, and it is sickening.
These are personal statements, not research articles.
“I guess the keyboard warriors of 2022 knew more than the people actually there at the time what was best for their interests.”
Seems you’re the keyboard warrior, making challenges to people’s personal statements.
Only an idiot thinks slave labor is better than free market capitalism.
Is it wrong to challenge personal statements?
I guess you want to close this forum down then.
I liked how the entirety of your argument was that “anyone who thinks differently than I do is an idiot”.
I guess the next obvious step in the debate is for you to smear me by saying I love slavery, just because I question whether it resulted in more or less economic development than the alternative of never having had it.
One way to help people appreciate the economic situation of slavery is to equate it to an oil-economy.
Are the Saudis rich? Sure. Does the rest of the world benefit from its oil? Yep. But what happens if you take away the easy oil from the Saudis? Demand doesn’t go away, but more efficient producers take over.
US cotton production skyrocketed after the abolishment of slavery, doubling from 1850 to 1870 and more than doubling by 1900. See https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/files/docs/publications/FRB/pages/1920-1924/26396_1920-1924.pdf
The North was not slave free, per the census of 1790 only Maine and Massachusetts had no slaves.
New York was 6% slave, the rest of the North had 1% or less per state, see below:
When did it become official since I've never heard of it before.
I guess that explains why my garbage wasn't picked up today.
Juneteenth = no garbage pick up day........Works for me.
So you must also believe that allowing millions of illegal aliens swarm across our border every year is good for the U.S. They could be stopped at any point (Eisenhower proved that in the 1950s). But year after year they continue.
Comparing slavery and illegal immigration is actually a perfect analogy. Democrats have wanted both for the same reason, to do work that they don't want to pay enough to hire U.S. citizens to do, and in both cases they get really mad when Republicans try to take their cheap laborers away.
ok, that’s the first actual support for the argument I’ve seen.
Good job, thank you
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.