Started By
Message
re: How many poor dirt farmers owned slaves
Posted on 6/27/15 at 9:33 pm to PikeBishop
Posted on 6/27/15 at 9:33 pm to PikeBishop
Using the link Stonehog provided on another thread, Mississippi had the highest % and it was still under 10%. If memory serves, Arkansas was under 5%.
Numbers are manipulated to make them look much higher.
Numbers are manipulated to make them look much higher.
0
Posted on 6/27/15 at 9:45 pm to BlackPawnMartyr
quote:
LINK
Your math is off because you are using the wrong numbers to compile it!
LA = 376,276 represents free population in LA
LA = 22,033 represents slaveholder population in LA
22,033 / 376,276 = 5.86% (slaveholder population as percentage of free population)
5.86% < 29% claimed for Louisiana
Posted on 6/27/15 at 9:57 pm to Cheese Grits
Heres another LINK taken from a census archive site at the University of Virginia. Same #s
LINK
quote:
The figures given here are the percentage of slave-owning families as a fraction of total free households in the state
LINK
Posted on 6/27/15 at 10:00 pm to Cheese Grits
Slaves were property. If you do a poll on how many families own a television, you include everyone in the family.
99% of families in the U.S. have a television. You could constrict that number by only counting the the person who actually purchased the tv, but it doesn't change the fact that 99% of people have a tv in the home.
Likewise, about 30% of families in the South owned slaves. You can try to make that number appear smaller by only counting the head of household, but it doesn't change the fact of the matter.
99% of families in the U.S. have a television. You could constrict that number by only counting the the person who actually purchased the tv, but it doesn't change the fact that 99% of people have a tv in the home.
Likewise, about 30% of families in the South owned slaves. You can try to make that number appear smaller by only counting the head of household, but it doesn't change the fact of the matter.
Posted on 6/27/15 at 10:03 pm to Stonehog
(no message)
Posted on 6/27/15 at 10:14 pm to Stonehog
quote:
Likewise, about 30% of families in the South owned slaves. You can try to make that number appear smaller by only counting the head of household, but it doesn't change the fact of the matter.
Good grief, dude. This makes no sense.
Does the fact that something like 95% of slaves were owned by 5% mean anything to you? I think it's rather significant.
For many people, who may have owned a couple slaves, it wasn't anything more than an arrangement no different, and in many ways better, than the arrangement between factory worker and factory owner.
These infomercial type statistics you're sharing don't paint a picture of how things were at all. You have no interest in the full truth, in the full story, you're interested in pushing your agenda.
This post was edited on 6/27/15 at 10:16 pm
Posted on 6/27/15 at 10:15 pm to BigBrod81
I think you left a word out after correcting me. But that is OK
Posted on 6/27/15 at 10:18 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
Does the fact that something like 95% of slaves were owned by 5% mean anything to you? I think it's rather significant.
What do you think is significant about that?
Posted on 6/27/15 at 10:21 pm to BlackPawnMartyr
quote:
LINK
Yes, and the link within that link is a dead link (meaning no way to verify)
quote:quote:
Stonehog
Slaves were property. If you do a poll on how many families own a television, you include everyone in the family.
Are you really that slow, property is the property of the purchaser! If I buy a TV for my family to watch it is my TV and I am just letting them benefit from my ownership. If I die I can will that TV to another family member and then it is their property but not until.
Lets say I own the Stonehog Plantation. I am married and have 6 kids (8 members of household if you are keeping count). On this plantation I have 50 slaves and I own them outright.
Stonehog = 50 slaves
Stonehog wife = 0 slaves
Stonehog children = 0 slaves
Families do not constitute slaveholders therefore dividing by families is moot. As slaves were property, records were pretty clear who owned whom. As minors can not enter contracts and women did not get the vote till around 1920 you can not view the past by substituting the present.
Posted on 6/27/15 at 10:23 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
Does the fact that something like 95% of slaves were owned by 5% mean anything to you? I think it's rather significant.
Its very significant. It tells an important part of the story. But it doesnt tell the whole story. When using either stat alone you are being deceptive. Both stats should be told together to give the full picture. Most of the slaves and wealth were owned by the very few. But a good many of the southern families did own slaves. Really it goes to show how small the middle class was.
My next question would be to anyone out there who knows the answer, is how much did (if at all) the northern banks play into these southern plantations?
This post was edited on 6/27/15 at 10:25 pm
Posted on 6/27/15 at 10:24 pm to Stonehog
Obviously "poor" dirt farmers didn't own slaves, by definition. They were expensive. But not everyone was poor.
Slaveholders had political influence beyond their numbers. Southern elected officials believed what was good for slaveholders was good for America.
Slaveholders had political influence beyond their numbers. Southern elected officials believed what was good for slaveholders was good for America.
Posted on 6/27/15 at 10:30 pm to Cheese Grits
quote:
Are you really that slow, property is the property of the purchaser! If I buy a TV for my family to watch it is my TV and I am just letting them benefit from my ownership. If I die I can will that TV to another family member and then it is their property but not until.
Dude, it's pretty simple. 30% of families owned slaves. You can keep jumping through hoops to lower that number if it makes you feel better though.
Posted on 6/27/15 at 10:39 pm to Stonehog
quote:
Dude, it's pretty simple.
Yes, simple division and multiplication is pretty simple, yet it still evades you.
I had a relative that worked as a recorder of legal documents when VA, KY, and WVU were still all part of VA and have seen documents they recorded. It is very specific who owns what and if you look though enough records it becomes pretty clear you had to have money and property to own slaves. That was a very small part of the free population.
Posted on 6/27/15 at 11:07 pm to Stonehog
quote:
The confederates had a draft. People fought because they were legally required to. They faced imprisonment or execution for deserting.
The Union did the same thing to immigrants. There was an ironclad sunk near Vicksburg that had 6 different languages spoken in it.
Not taking up for any side or end result, just throwing out related facts.
Posted on 6/27/15 at 11:32 pm to namvet6566
Goes from talking about people who fought to preserve their slave-labor dependent society, then proceeds to tell black people what to do.
Interesting. Who the frick are you, OP?
Interesting. Who the frick are you, OP?
Posted on 6/28/15 at 7:34 am to namvet6566
quote:
Facts are Facts.
Don't bring facts to an anonymous message board.
Posted on 6/28/15 at 7:50 am to Stonehog
quote:
Slaves were property. If you do a poll on how many families own a television, you include everyone in the family.
99% of families in the U.S. have a television. You could constrict that number by only counting the the person who actually purchased the tv, but it doesn't change the fact that 99% of people have a tv in the home.
Likewise, about 30% of families in the South owned slaves. You can try to make that number appear smaller by only counting the head of household, but it doesn't change the fact of the matter.
Post of the year, and that's a bad thing. This is the dumbest thing I've read for a while. Thank you.
Posted on 6/28/15 at 8:04 am to namvet6566
At least one person in my family owned slaves. We're rich, bitch!
Page 2 of 6
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News