The simplest way to show that those census figures are academically accepted is to show how many academics cite them. There's the link to the table I gave above showing the results of the 1860 census, offered by Prof. Benson of Furman University in South Carolina. http://alpha.furman.edu/~benson/docs/shfam60.htm
Here's Prof. Hansen at Virginia Western Community College linking to them: http://www.vw.vccs.edu/vwhansd/HIS121/Census.html
WIlma Dunaway at Virginia Tech uses the 1860 data. http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:dar1FbN1CEAJ:scholar.lib.vt.edu/faculty_archives/mountain_slavery/3tab.pdf+%221860+census%22+slaveholders&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Then of course, there's the University of Virginia, with its database of the census. http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/censusbin/census/cen.pl?year=860
Princeton University cites the 1860 census statistics. http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:Rj2WmbAsS1QJ:pup.princeton.edu/chapters/s7553.pdf+%221860+census%22+slaveholders&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
So, as you can see, the 1860 census statistics are repeated cited by academics for teaching purposes. If that isn't the test for "academically accepted" I don't know what is.
Are the census statistics dead-on accurate? Of course not. No census is. But it is the best source available. It's widely used by the government for any number of functions, not the least of which is the allocation of congressmen. Of course there's margin of error, but as Benson's footnote points out, the errors in the count most likely effectively cancel out.
Naturally, and as I've said before, if you've got some other numbers from another source than the US census, I'd be very happy to see them. But for you to claim that the census is so wrong that it can't be taken as correct within a reasonable margin of error is just plain wrong.
[Heyworth #108] The simplest way to show that those census figures are academically accepted is to show how many academics cite them. There's the link to the table I gave above showing the results of the 1860 census, offered by Prof. Benson of Furman University in South Carolina. http://alpha.furman.edu/~benson/docs/shfam60.htm [Heyworth #108] Here's Prof. Hansen at Virginia Western Community College linking to them: http://www.vw.vccs.edu/vwhansd/HIS121/Census.html
This position is ludicrous, as I shall demonstrate below. Citing something does not connote agreement or acceptance of it. Moreover, looking at what the citing source says may be relevant as more than adequately demonstrated below. Should you choose to accept the Virginia Westerm Community College table as authoritative, I am proud of you. You have seen the light. (Or you have not bothered to look at your source material.)
http://www.vw.vccs.edu/vwhansd/HIS121/Census.html
This link goes to a page with the following title and lists ten (10) hyperlinked tables.
Directly relevant to our discussion is Table 4:
TABLE 4. SLAVES AND SLAVEHOLDERS IN 1860 (SOUTH)
HIS 121/269 Research Document
U.S. Census Data on Slavery in America TABLE 1. SLAVE POPULATION BY STATE IN 1790 (US)
TABLE 2. SLAVE POPULATION BY STATE IN 1850 (US)
TABLE 3. SLAVES AND IMMIGRANTS IN 1860 (US)
TABLE 4. SLAVES AND SLAVEHOLDERS IN 1860 (SOUTH)
TABLE 5. SLAVE CONCENTRATION IN 1860 (SOUTH)
TABLE 6. MANUFACTURING IN 1860 (US)
TABLE 7. SECESSION AND SLAVERY IN 1861 (SOUTH)
TABLE 8. COLORED PERSONS 1860-1870 (SOUTH)
TABLE 9. COLORED PERSONS IN 1870 (US)
TABLE 10. COLORED PERSONS 1860-1880 (US)
[nc - boldface added]
http://www.vw.vccs.edu/vwhansd/HIS121/Census1860T4.html
Going to the link to TABLE 4, we get the following page, shown below in full by JPEG image.
HIS 121/269 Research Document
Census Table 4. Slaves and Slaveholders in 1860
The following notation appears:
This table reveals that despite the large number of slaveholders in some states, even in major
slave states like Mississippi, South Carolina and Virginia, they were less than 10% of the free population.
CENSUS TABLE 4 AT THE LINKED PAGE
