Statue of Confederate General R.E.Lee Removed.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Lol the 8% is the country as a whole...

35% of southern families owned slaves, and honestly less northern families did than I thought... bringing the number down to 8% nationally.

Literally 49% of Mississippi families owned slaves..


Maybe you are only counting the male patriarch as a slave owner, omitting the rest of their families and employees???

I just checked your link and it clearly shows the same percentages I quoted...

a reply to: Irishhaf

That is if you are only counting the male head of household as a slave owner.. I'm guessing..

The wife doesn't count, because she isn't a real person...

The kids don't count, because they are not yet real people..

The overseer just tortures them, he doesn't actually own them..


I guess..


I know 35% of southern families , in no way equals 7%8% of the southern population..

Slaves out numbered whites in at least Mississippi..

a reply to: JoshuaCox

So if a parent bought a slave the children carry the guilt as well?

400k out of 5.5 million... I keep getting 7% and change for the percentage.

a reply to: Irishhaf

This is from your NPS source:

Populations
In the Confederacy, the population was listed as 5.5 million free and 3.5 million enslaved. In the Border States there were 2.5 million free inhabitants and 500,000 enslaved people.

And with the numbers reflecting only slave states:

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: JoshuaCox

So if a parent bought a slave the children carry the guilt as well?

400k out of 5.5 million... I keep getting 7% and change for the percentage.

That's all Americans, not just the south..

Also , yes a kid would still be a slave owner.. there every need is being met by slaves who are owned by their parents. Who later inherit those same slaves..


especially in the antebellum south where EVERYTHING was based around your families land.. you didn't move away from the plantation when you got married.. you moved your wife in with your family.

So yes , they absolutely should be counted..

Why do you think they counted families??

The northern states pull the percentage down dramatically..



1/3rd of southern families owned slaves.. the only way you get that number is if your only counting the head of house hold..

The overseer just did the torturing.. he didn't actually own slaves..

Slaves outnumbered

a reply to: Irishhaf

There were 5 million total number of families in the whole country. There were less than that in the Southern states, of course. The average percent of families owning slaves in the South would be more like 30%, give or take.

And that doesn't account for some families who didn't own slaves, but would rent them from the slave holders for limited periods of time for big harvests, etc.(have no idea what the number is for that, will have to try to look it up)

The point is, there was a pretty significant number of families who depended on slaves.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Irishhaf

This is from your NPS source:

Populations
In the Confederacy, the population was listed as 5.5 million free and 3.5 million enslaved. In the Border States there were 2.5 million free inhabitants and 500,000 enslaved people.

Then they are only counting head of household..

The overseer doesn't count, he just tortures them for the owner..


That's the fallacy in whatever point your after..

The entire southern economy was 100% based around cotton and slavery..

So much that they turned down innovation , to keep manual labor at a high demand, increasing the amount they could rent out their slaves for..

Speaking of which..

All the people who rented others slaves wouldn't count either..because they don't actually own them...

It is saying ..

"I didn't actually rape her.. I just held her down while he did.. so I'm innocent right?? "

a reply to: JoshuaCox

So you agree that the actions of a few reflect on the majority then?

How right wing of you...

ETA:

1860 census begs to differ on the pop

U.S. Resident Population: 31,443,321

a reply to: JoshuaCox

See my edit, I added more.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Yea they are only counting head of household as one slave owner..

That said I think the original point was that "only 1% owned slaves.. so nothing to see here.."

Which is patently ridiculous..

If they would just watch one documentary on the civil war, lol...

a reply to: JoshuaCox

This will be my last stab at this..

So if Family A owns slaves... in your opinion the entire family is guilty of slave ownership...even if members of the family left the south to fight for the north... they will still be guilty of slave ownership right?

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: JoshuaCox

This will be my last stab at this..

So if Family A owns slaves... in your opinion the entire family is guilty of slave ownership...even if members of the family left the south to fight for the north... they will still be guilty of slave ownership right?

I think the point is, more than just 1-7% of the South depended on slaves for its economy. It was a pretty big deal.

Quote from Jefferson Davis about the slaves growth and in his eyes the prosperity of the south.

In the meantime, under the mild and genial climate of the Southern States and the increasing care and attention for the well-being and comfort of the laboring class, dictated alike by interest and humanity, the African slaves had augmented in number from about 600,000, at the date of the adoption of the constitutional compact, to upward of 4,000,000. In moral and social condition they had been elevated from brutal savages into docile, intelligent, and civilized agricultural laborers, and supplied not only with bodily comforts but with careful religious instruction. Under the supervision of a superior race their labor had been so directed as not only to allow a gradual and marked amelioration of their own condition, but to convert hundreds of thousands of square miles of the wilderness into cultivated lands covered with a prosperous people; towns and cities had sprung into existence, and had rapidly increased in wealth and population under the social system of the South; the white population of the Southern slave-holding States had augmented from about 1,250,000 at the date of the adoption of the Constitution to more than 8,500,000 in 1860; and the productions of the South in cotton, rice, sugar, and tobacco, for the full development and continuance of which the labor of African slaves was and is indispensable, had swollen to an amount which formed nearly three-fourths of the exports of the whole United States and had become absolutely necessary to the wants of civilized man.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: The3murph

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: The3murph
1. NOT NEARLY ENOUGH.

2, Those people were not Americans.

The second the confederacy tried to break off and decided to go to war with the PRESIDENT of the US over slavery, they were no longer Americans, and why does that make a difference? Bad actions are bad, I don't care what land mass you were born on. Slavery is wrong. The revolutionary war was not about slavery. It was about England imposing unfair tariffs and not giving the colonists representation in the government.

And to act like African American slaves weren't mistreated or executed for disobedience is straight up laughable. Yeah they didn't have mass executions and death camps, because that doesn't make sense when slaves are part of the economy and made their lives easier. They aren't just going to kill them all, they kept them in fear for their lives so they wouldn't try to escape.

The SOVEREIGN States had, and HAVE, the right to leave the union in the same manner in which they joined it. VOLUNTARILY.

Here is President Eisenhower's take on General Robert Edward Lee CSA...

August 9, 1960

Dear Dr. Scott:

Respecting your August 1 inquiry calling attention to my often expressed admiration for General Robert E. Lee, I would say, first, that we need to understand that at the time of the War between the States the issue of secession had remained unresolved for more than 70 years. Men of probity, character, public standing and unquestioned loyalty, both North and South, had disagreed over this issue as a matter of principle from the day our Constitution was adopted.

General Robert E. Lee was, in my estimation, one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation. He believed unswervingly in the Constitutional validity of his cause which until 1865 was still an arguable question in America; he was a poised and inspiring leader, true to the high trust reposed in him by millions of his fellow citizens; he was thoughtful yet demanding of his officers and men, forbearing with captured enemies but ingenious, unrelenting and personally courageous in battle, and never disheartened by a reverse or obstacle. Through all his many trials, he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his faith in God. Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history.

From deep conviction, I simply say this: a nation of men of Lee’s calibre would be unconquerable in spirit and soul. Indeed, to the degree that present-day American youth will strive to emulate his rare qualities, including his devotion to this land as revealed in his painstaking efforts to help heal the Nation’s wounds once the bitter struggle was over, we, in our own time of danger in a divided world, will be strengthened and our love of freedom sustained.

Such are the reasons that I proudly display the picture of this great American on my office wall.

Sincerely,

Dwight D. Eisenhower

BWAHAHAHAH

Robert E Lee revered the constitution so much he trash canned the American constitution and decided to go with a different one....what?!?!

That is literally the funniest history based comment I have maybe ever seen...


What he never acted disheartened????


He walked weeping onto the battlefield after Gettysburg almost catatonic while repeating over and over. "It's all my fault boys.."

Because it was..... his subordinates even told him attacking was a horrible idea.. but he did it anyway and caused the deaths of most (I think most) of his men...


What country in the history of the world, allows pieces of their nation to just leave on a whim???

How would America look today if any generation since its founding could decide to leave for any reason????

A "nation" full of Robert E Lee's got their butts whipped , all while America had one arm tied behind their back....

America didn't even need the upper class to fight... DURING the civil war you had the homestead act and hell the Ivy League boating tournament even didn't miss a year....


It's "lost cause" propaganda.. a well known attempt by the southern elite to put a good face on their treasonous rebellion and defeat...


No real historian would agree with any of your points..

None of them...

Joshuacox it isn't a good idea to attempt to pass off Shelby Foote's words as your own. That's called plagiarism. The South fought because it was invaded. No invasion there is no war.

While y'all are attempting through mathematics to figure out how many slaveholders there were in the antebellum period let us use even more basic math to attempt to figure out why the war was fought.


December 1860 Southern States begin to Secede.
12 April 1861 Fort Sumter fired upon. War begins.
The first two summers of the war the yankee is getting WHIPPED.
1 Jan 1863 Mr. lincoln, NOT MY PRESIDENT, issues Emancipation Proclamation.
I know that yankees aren't the smartest but I don't believe it took them 2 years to figure out what it was they were fighting for...

a reply to: The3murph

You must also be aware that the North had been pressuring Lincoln to abolish slavery since he was first elected. He initially refused because he was concerned how it would affect the South's economy, however he did agree to ban slavery in any new states forming in the West. The South felt it was only a matter of time before the North finally convinced Lincoln to do what they wanted. That was the main reason they seceded. They could see the writing on the wall.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: The3murph

You must also be aware that the North had been pressuring Lincoln to abolish slavery since he was first elected. He initially refused because he was concerned how it would affect the South's economy, however he did agree to ban slavery in any new states forming in the West. The South felt it was only a matter of time before the North finally convinced Lincoln to do what they wanted. That was the main reason they seceded. They could see the writing on the wall.

Abolitionists were a TINY minority of the northern population. Why shouldn't slavery been allowed in the territory that was won from Mexico? It was soldiers from the Southern States that did the fighting and dying in that war. Then to be excluded from the spoils that were won with Southern blood???

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: The3murph

You must also be aware that the North had been pressuring Lincoln to abolish slavery since he was first elected. He initially refused because he was concerned how it would affect the South's economy, however he did agree to ban slavery in any new states forming in the West. The South felt it was only a matter of time before the North finally convinced Lincoln to do what they wanted. That was the main reason they seceded. They could see the writing on the wall.

The republicans campaign was mostly about abolishing slavery.
When the southern states started to leave he then went against his word AFTER he was elected and said that slavery could be left where it was established. Lincoln as smart with his words as he was, was cornered and started pulling out all stops to keep unification.

originally posted by: strongfp

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: The3murph

You must also be aware that the North had been pressuring Lincoln to abolish slavery since he was first elected. He initially refused because he was concerned how it would affect the South's economy, however he did agree to ban slavery in any new states forming in the West. The South felt it was only a matter of time before the North finally convinced Lincoln to do what they wanted. That was the main reason they seceded. They could see the writing on the wall.

The republicans campaign was mostly about abolishing slavery.
When the southern states started to leave he then went against his word AFTER he was elected and said that slavery could be left where it was established. Lincoln as smart with his words as he was, was cornered and started pulling out all stops to keep unification.

It WAS??? No amount of mental gymnastics can EVER make that TRUE. Why don't you do some research into how the union army reacted to the Emancipation Proclamation. The President of the United States did not have the power to abolish the "peculiar institution" where it existed. The only way he did was as war power.

"Pulling out all the stops to keep unification". Like refusing to meet with Peace Commissioners sent by President Davis? Like calling for 75,000 volunteers to invade the South? Like suspending Habeas Corpus and locking up people who didn't agree with him without charges? Like locking up the duly elected Legislature of the State of Maryland?

It only takes one to look how the State of West Virginia was formed to see just how ludicrous the position of the national government REALLY was. The western counties of the State of Virginia were allowed to secede from Virginia even though the yankee fought the war to on the premise that secession was illegal. It was only legal when it favored the position of the government. Just like the Emancipation Proclamation freed zero servants in areas controlled by the national government. It became illegal to own other human beings UNLESS one was loyal to the union...

originally posted by: The3murph
Why shouldn't slavery been allowed in the territory that was won from Mexico?

I know, right! People should be able to enslave other people without care.

Let me know how much you want for the wife and kids. I'm feeling pimpish.