[Heyworth]

DeBow gives the enumerated figure of 347,255 persons as being slave-holders. That is the only slave-holder figure given by DeBow which may withstand scrutiny as "academically-acceptable evidence."

Fine by me. I'll concede that only the actual enumeration of the census be accepted if you will, too. That means the 1860 census results showing 30.8% of white households in the seceding states were also slaveholding households is correct, right?

[nolu chan]

It means somebody counted 347,255 slave holders.

You have provided no academically acceptable evidence that the 1860 census shows 30.8% of white households in the seceding states were also slaveholding households.

Simply saying it over and over is not a provision of evidence.

Take for example, actual words of DeBow, "Assuming the published returns, however, to be correct, it will appear that one-half of the population of South Carolina, Mississippi, and Louisiana, excluding the cites, are slaveholders...."

If you assume published returns to be correct, and if you exclude cities, you manufacture a desired statistic.

However, this is hardly an academically-accepted methodology.