be life different in Alabama?

[tipofthespear]

with regards to your family being "now southern," there are those who would quickly point out the difference between a Yankee and a Damn Yankee..........the latter being those who come for a visit and stay...........just saying... while I do not subscribe to that belief, there are many that do...and they also believe that being "southern" is a birthright not a relocation benefit. As well, racism is not specifically located in the South, there are racists in every State of this Nation, and they come in all colors, shapes and sizes.

You make my point. If being "southern" (and by that being southern white) is a birthright, then it is racism pure and simple. Racism is present in every state, its the intensity and the targets that vary. But the south will never recover until white southerners decide they are Americans first and stop trying to justify slavery and racism in their past and continually refighting the Civil War.

with regards to Texas...........uh, don't all Americans have the right to "succeed?" I surely hope so........elsewise we would be a Nation of underachievers.......uh, no, wait,

I am spelling challenged (it comes with being "brain-damaged"). Peace.

with regards to the second comment..........I resemble that as well, "creative spelling" is on of my virtues........

with regards to the first..........it just seems as if you are "broad brush" painting all southerners, and that is a mistake in my opinion.......I have to wonder who you are talking to, or listening to for you to state: "stop trying to justify slavery......" Who in the world is trying to justify slavery? Not one single person I know believes that slavery was justified. Don't know anyone who wants to refight the Civil War either, just saying......these are oft stated assumptions of those who have a bias against southerners in my experience.

Now, with regards to being "American" first, this applies to everyone does it not? So how exactly do those who incessantly belittle southerners excuse their own bias? That being said, you need to read the writings of the Founding Fathers to understand why Texans feel the way they do.......

 

[Ernie S.]

This "Americans first" bullshit is another of those personal foibles Liberals project onto target groups.

Clean up your own party first, Oldfart. Chastise your protected victim groups to self identify as "Americans" first and not hyphenated Americans or other invented terms denoting heritage.

 

[oldfart]

Your perspective needs a bit of work. It is based in a different era.

My perspective is weighted toward what I experience and see every day. I just have forty years of living in the South to factor in. I'll spare you the war stories if you can spot me the reality of what I encounter on a daily basis. BTW are you going to listen in to the George Zimmerman trial down the road from me?

I'm Connecticut born and raised and have lived in Lower Alabama for 3 years.
I see rural Connecticut far more racist than rural Alabama. The town I grew up in didn't have its first black residents until the early 80's and they were very unwelcomed in local businesses.

I was raised in Springfield IL, you know, the place where the 1908 race riot and others like it led to the formation of the NAACP. I honestly can't compare racial animosity/tolerance there and in Mississippi because I haven't really been back in over forty years. When my brother moved to Texas and sold his house in Springfield, a lot of his "friends" didn't want to speak to him because he sold to a black lady who supported herself and her mother. It was the first black family in the subdivision. I have trouble separating what is different because of region (Illinois isn't hung up on the Civil War like the South) and what varies with time (polite white society no longer uses certain language in racially mixed company).

Here in Southern Alabama, people just accept our differences. It may be because Alabama has double the national percentage of black residents or familiarity, but it may surprise others to know that there are not KKK cross burnings every Friday night and it's been quite a while since the old lynchin' tree's been used.

The last classic public lynching in America was the 14-year old Emmitt Till in Money, MS in 1955. The preferred method since the 50's has been shooting and is generally not carried out in public. Mississippi has in the last decade or so finally convicted the most notorious of the civil rights murderers, for which it is given scant credit.

There is a lot of regional variation in Alabama. I've had businesses in Mobile and Northport, and things were quite a bit different than where my aunt lived in the Black Belt.

Actually, I don't have a lot of black friends, but I have several close ones. Skin color is not a consideration. Character is. My daughter dated a Jamaican fellow for several years and we became quite close. Then there's my second wife, a black/Portuguese woman who grew up in Recife, Brazil.
No sir. I choose to be close to people based on character, not complexion.

Go ahead. Call me a racist if you like. I know better.

It's interesting that the black people you know are not originally from America. The area I'm in now has substantial Brazilian and Jamaican communities (along with Puerto Rican, Honduran, Mexican, Portuguese, Greek, and Cuban communities). There's a lot of cultural diversity. But there is also a Black American community where for at least five or six generations families have been in the United States. Their culture is substantially different from the immigrant cultures and they interact differently with white people than the immigrant cultures. Brazilians in America have more in common with Greeks (regardless of the Brazilians skin color) than they do with the grandsons of tenant farmers.

I try not to label people as "racist" and if I implied that, I am mistaken and apologize. But certain beliefs and attitudes are racist, and the people who hold them need to address them if we to "all get along".

 

[tipofthespear]

concerning Texas, and the attitudes of Texans...........these same attitudes led to the founding of this Nation.....please consider an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence:

QUOTE: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world." END QUOTE.....

Please pay special attention to this part.............. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

 

[oldfart]

with regards to the first..........it just seems as if you are "broad brush" painting all southerners, and that is a mistake in my opinion.......I have to wonder who you are talking to, or listening to for you to state: "stop trying to justify slavery......" Who in the world is trying to justify slavery? Not one single person I know believes that slavery was justified. Don't know anyone who wants to refight the Civil War either, just saying......these are oft stated assumptions of those who have a bias against southerners in my experience.

First to my sources: I'm an enrolled agent and and a lot of the people I meet are in the course of business. I've met quite a few white police officers, black police officers,
other law enforcement, university professors, small business owners, truck drivers, shrimpers, farmers, construction tradesmen, factory workers, mayors, professional rabble-rousers, athletes, barbers, pipeline welders, nuclear power plant construction workers and operators (no Homer Simpson yet!), and God knows what else. I chat a lot while the computer cranks. A sizable number of people wish to express their feelings about their government when they get their taxes done. Even more have an opinion when they get audited. I listen a lot more than I talk.

As to justifying slavery, there are a bunch of "historians" who continue to do so, and it seems to come in waves. I get a lot of it from clients and casual acquaintances also. "Re-fighting the Civil War" is our shorthand for blaming all social and economic ills on the outcome of the Civil War, and it's pretty common among white southerners.

I may be biased against certain attitudes and beliefs expressed by white southerners. I'm also biased against another set of attitudes in the southern black community. It comes from a fundamental belief of mine that there is more to patriotism than waving a gun around and blaming problems on everybody else. If folks are committed to making their communities work, including the schools, law enforcement, legal system, economic development, and public services; I think they are the good guys.

Now, with regards to being "American" first, this applies to everyone does it not? So how exactly do those who incessantly belittle southerners excuse their own bias? That being said, you need to read the writings of the Founding Fathers to understand why Texans feel the way they do.......

I don't belittle Southerners, I belittle certain attitudes that make people behave badly and become negative influences on society. Please tell me the social utility of anti-intellectualism, whether it is the redneck or the black gangsta variety.

If you think you are better read than I in the basic documents of our Union and in the history of Texas, bring it on. Most folks who do end up blathering on inane absurdities afte the first exchange or two and resort to foolish arguments. But if you want to try that, I'm game!

Finally, I refrain from telling you that what you see and hear may not be everything that is going on in your community. Please extend me the much more narrow courtesy of not telling me that what I experience is not happening. You may be sheltered or not, but pretending that something does not exist because you don't see it is calling me a liar. I don't appreciate that, but I expect that from Southerners. It's a part of southern culture, you see. "All them darkies are not only expected to work, they are expected to sing!" (Eugene Genovese).

 

[Lonestar_logic]

[MENTION=11278]editec[/MENTION] LINK?

I'll take your failure to support your claim as proof that you lied.

I guess I could look for it, Lone.

That stat isn't one I found on the net but perhaps I can find supporting links.

But before I do that let me ask you why you doubt it.

Do you realize how much slaves were worth in those days compared to other things?

The value of a strong field hand was about equivalent to the value of a small farm back in the years leading up to the Civil War.

Their capitalization value really took off after Eli Whiney invented the cotton gin and vast plantations in MI and AL formed from about 1820 - 1860.

Ironically this was IN PART because American had made it illegal to import slaves so the value of them as means of production was rapidly rising in the first half of the 19th century.

This site may give you some idea of just how many slaves there were and help you to understand why losing them as CAPITALIZED ASSETS so thorughly destroyed the southern plantation economy.

This site Measuring Worth - Measuring the Value of a Slave will help you get a grasp of just how much VALUE was being held in the form of human beings.

Now AFTER you check that link to get an idea of the value of a SLAVE back then.

COMPARE those numbers to the value of say A FAMILY FARM. back then.

What you see is that a slave was worth about as much as a small farm!

Now multiply the number of slaves times the average value and you have the CAPITALIZATION numbers for all slaves held in the south.

My souirce for that startling statistic was some economic history, I read.

I'm sorry but I read so much I have no idea what book I am recalling that stat.

But fwiw, no studnet of economic history would much argue the point I was making even if their capitalization estimate was somewhat different.

MOST of the CSA's capitalization was not in land, or factories, or equipment, either,

Most of the Souths CAPITAL was tied up in the its SLAVES.

I doubt it because of the small percentage of slave owners.

It is also fair to say that, while everybody tolerated it, very few whites practiced slavery: in 1860 there were 385,000 USA citizens who owned slaves, or about 1.4% of the white population (there were 27 million whites in the USA). That percentage was zero in the states that did not allow slavery (only 8 million of the 27 million whites lived in states that allowed slavery). Incidentally, in 1830 about 25% of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves: that is a much higher percentage (ten times more) than the number of white slave owners. Thus slave owners were a tiny minority (1.4%) and it was not only whites: it was just about anybody who could, including blacks themselves.

 

[tipofthespear]

with regards to the first..........it just seems as if you are "broad brush" painting all southerners, and that is a mistake in my opinion.......I have to wonder who you are talking to, or listening to for you to state: "stop trying to justify slavery......" Who in the world is trying to justify slavery? Not one single person I know believes that slavery was justified. Don't know anyone who wants to refight the Civil War either, just saying......these are oft stated assumptions of those who have a bias against southerners in my experience.

First to my sources: I'm an enrolled agent and and a lot of the people I meet are in the course of business. I've met quite a few white police officers, black police officers,
other law enforcement, university professors, small business owners, truck drivers, shrimpers, farmers, construction tradesmen, factory workers, mayors, professional rabble-rousers, athletes, barbers, pipeline welders, nuclear power plant construction workers and operators (no Homer Simpson yet!), and God knows what else. I chat a lot while the computer cranks. A sizable number of people wish to express their feelings about their government when they get their taxes done. Even more have an opinion when they get audited. I listen a lot more than I talk.

As to justifying slavery, there are a bunch of "historians" who continue to do so, and it seems to come in waves. I get a lot of it from clients and casual acquaintances also. "Re-fighting the Civil War" is our shorthand for blaming all social and economic ills on the outcome of the Civil War, and it's pretty common among white southerners.

I may be biased against certain attitudes and beliefs expressed by white southerners. I'm also biased against another set of attitudes in the southern black community. It comes from a fundamental belief of mine that there is more to patriotism than waving a gun around and blaming problems on everybody else. If folks are committed to making their communities work, including the schools, law enforcement, legal system, economic development, and public services; I think they are the good guys.

Now, with regards to being "American" first, this applies to everyone does it not? So how exactly do those who incessantly belittle southerners excuse their own bias? That being said, you need to read the writings of the Founding Fathers to understand why Texans feel the way they do.......

I don't belittle Southerners, I belittle certain attitudes that make people behave badly and become negative influences on society. Please tell me the social utility of anti-intellectualism, whether it is the redneck or the black gangsta variety.

If you think you are better read than I in the basic documents of our Union and in the history of Texas, bring it on. Most folks who do end up blathering on inane absurdities afte the first exchange or two and resort to foolish arguments. But if you want to try that, I'm game!

Finally, I refrain from telling you that what you see and hear may not be everything that is going on in your community. Please extend me the much more narrow courtesy of not telling me that what I experience is not happening. You may be sheltered or not, but pretending that something does not exist because you don't see it is calling me a liar. I don't appreciate that, but I expect that from Southerners. It's a part of southern culture, you see. "All them darkies are not only expected to work, they are expected to sing!" (Eugene Genovese).

You speak of all those you meet doing their taxes, and that a "sizeable" number of them like to complain about the Government while waiting for you to do your job......That's pretty much normal for anyone who works with the public........Please note you said they like to talk about their "feelings for their government," I do not see that they are "arguing for the justification of slavery." I'm not aware of any living individual who spends more than a few passing moments each day reading a newspaper, or watching the TV News who does not have "feelings concerning their Government," and, given the chance, they will surely share them.......hardly a "southern" oddity in human behavior in my opinion.

You speak of "a bunch of historians" who attempt to justify slavery, can you please provide a list of these? As for this refighting the Civil War being pretty common among white southerners, again you are using that "broad brush" I spoke of. I probably know as many, if not far more white southerners than you, dunno, never bothered to count, but of all those I know, or have dealt with over the past 50 some odd years, only a very small percent are "still fighting" the Civil War, and these few are the exception not the rule. Maybe you need to upgrade your customer base, or consider their words with a grain of salt. I really would like to have a list of that "bunch of historians" though, so that I can review how they justify slavery.

Again, with regards to Texas, and the desire of thousands of Texans wanting to leave the Union and reclaim their Independence, I don't know why you are acting defensive because I simply gave you a reason for their feelings. I never claimed to know more than you, or to be an expert, but I surely know why there is a strong movement in Texas to leave the Union and reestablish the Republic of Texas........the words from the Declaration clearly show and effectively express how these people feel about our current Government.

I have no idea who you are, or what your level of "expertise" is, and have not questioned it, so your defensive attitude is puzzling to me. I don't question what you experience, rather I am stating what I experience.......and I certainly have extended courtesy to you, and it is amusing that you say you will "refrain from telling me" and then proceed to tell me....that brought a smile to my face.

It is clear to me by the words in your closing paragraph that you are far too wrapped up in this opinion of yours to discuss it without being upset........all I have suggested is that what you have experienced may well not be the "norm," for the entire population of the Southern States. I seriously doubt that you or I have interacted with the entire population so as to be able to establish a "norm." And when we make statements suggesting the "norm," that is the definition of broad brushing is it not?

So, in closing, let me say that I meant you no disrespect, only offered some opinion/information for your consideration......and I can surely say that living here in the South all these many years, what you are speaking of was very true for a long time, far too long, but for many years now it has certainly not been the "norm" in my experience.

 

[oldfart]

So, in closing, let me say that I meant you no disrespect, only offered some opinion/information for your consideration......and I can surely say that living here in the South all these many years, what you are speaking of was very true for a long time, far too long, but for many years now it has certainly not been the "norm" in my experience.

I think this is a good point to close this discussion. I wish you well, and if you make to the Ft Walton Beach area, I'll spot you lunch!

 

[tipofthespear]

So, in closing, let me say that I meant you no disrespect, only offered some opinion/information for your consideration......and I can surely say that living here in the South all these many years, what you are speaking of was very true for a long time, far too long, but for many years now it has certainly not been the "norm" in my experience.

I think this is a good point to close this discussion. I wish you well, and if you make to the Ft Walton Beach area, I'll spot you lunch!

thanks for the invite, but be careful what you offer, I'm only about 3 hours away........as I live on Brindlee Mt..........

 

[editec]

I'll take your failure to support your claim as proof that you lied.

I guess I could look for it, Lone.

That stat isn't one I found on the net but perhaps I can find supporting links.

But before I do that let me ask you why you doubt it.

Do you realize how much slaves were worth in those days compared to other things?

The value of a strong field hand was about equivalent to the value of a small farm back in the years leading up to the Civil War.

Their capitalization value really took off after Eli Whiney invented the cotton gin and vast plantations in MI and AL formed from about 1820 - 1860.

Ironically this was IN PART because American had made it illegal to import slaves so the value of them as means of production was rapidly rising in the first half of the 19th century.

This site may give you some idea of just how many slaves there were and help you to understand why losing them as CAPITALIZED ASSETS so thorughly destroyed the southern plantation economy.

This site Measuring Worth - Measuring the Value of a Slave will help you get a grasp of just how much VALUE was being held in the form of human beings.

Now AFTER you check that link to get an idea of the value of a SLAVE back then.

COMPARE those numbers to the value of say A FAMILY FARM. back then.

What you see is that a slave was worth about as much as a small farm!

Now multiply the number of slaves times the average value and you have the CAPITALIZATION numbers for all slaves held in the south.

My souirce for that startling statistic was some economic history, I read.

I'm sorry but I read so much I have no idea what book I am recalling that stat.

But fwiw, no studnet of economic history would much argue the point I was making even if their capitalization estimate was somewhat different.

MOST of the CSA's capitalization was not in land, or factories, or equipment, either,

Most of the Souths CAPITAL was tied up in the its SLAVES.

I doubt it because of the small percentage of slave owners.

It is also fair to say that, while everybody tolerated it, very few whites practiced slavery: in 1860 there were 385,000 USA citizens who owned slaves, or about 1.4% of the white population (there were 27 million whites in the USA). That percentage was zero in the states that did not allow slavery (only 8 million of the 27 million whites lived in states that allowed slavery). Incidentally, in 1830 about 25% of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves: that is a much higher percentage (ten times more) than the number of white slave owners. Thus slave owners were a tiny minority (1.4%) and it was not only whites: it was just about anybody who could, including blacks themselves.

There seems to be a significant difference in our data about slave ownership, LoneStar.

I do not know where you data came from but I know where mine came from.

Census data can be appealed to in order to determine the extent of slave ownership in each of the states that allowed it in 1860. The figures given here are the percentage of slave-owning families as a fraction of total free households in the state. The data was taken from a census archive site at the University of Virginia.

Mississippi: 49%
South Carolina: 46%
Georgia: 37%
Alabama: 35%
Florida: 34%
Louisiana: 29%
Texas: 28%
North Carolina: 28%
Virginia: 26%
Tennessee: 25%
Kentucky: 23%
Arkansas: 20%
Missouri: 13%
Maryland: 12%
Delaware: 3%

In the Lower South (SC, GA, AL, MS, LA, TX, FL -- those states that seceded first), about 36.7% of the white families owned slaves. In the Middle South (VA, NC, TN, AR -- those states that seceded only after Fort Sumter was fired on) the percentage is around 25.3%, and the total for the two combined regions -- which is what most folks think of as the Confederacy -- is 30.8%. In the Border States (DE, MD, KY, MO -- those slave states that did not secede) the percentage of slave-ownership was 15.9%, and the total throughout the slave states was almost exactly 26%.

 

[tipofthespear]

I guess I could look for it, Lone.

That stat isn't one I found on the net but perhaps I can find supporting links.

But before I do that let me ask you why you doubt it.

Do you realize how much slaves were worth in those days compared to other things?

The value of a strong field hand was about equivalent to the value of a small farm back in the years leading up to the Civil War.

Their capitalization value really took off after Eli Whiney invented the cotton gin and vast plantations in MI and AL formed from about 1820 - 1860.

Ironically this was IN PART because American had made it illegal to import slaves so the value of them as means of production was rapidly rising in the first half of the 19th century.

This site may give you some idea of just how many slaves there were and help you to understand why losing them as CAPITALIZED ASSETS so thorughly destroyed the southern plantation economy.

This site Measuring Worth - Measuring the Value of a Slave will help you get a grasp of just how much VALUE was being held in the form of human beings.

Now AFTER you check that link to get an idea of the value of a SLAVE back then.

COMPARE those numbers to the value of say A FAMILY FARM. back then.

What you see is that a slave was worth about as much as a small farm!

Now multiply the number of slaves times the average value and you have the CAPITALIZATION numbers for all slaves held in the south.

My souirce for that startling statistic was some economic history, I read.

I'm sorry but I read so much I have no idea what book I am recalling that stat.

But fwiw, no studnet of economic history would much argue the point I was making even if their capitalization estimate was somewhat different.

MOST of the CSA's capitalization was not in land, or factories, or equipment, either,

Most of the Souths CAPITAL was tied up in the its SLAVES.

I doubt it because of the small percentage of slave owners.

It is also fair to say that, while everybody tolerated it, very few whites practiced slavery: in 1860 there were 385,000 USA citizens who owned slaves, or about 1.4% of the white population (there were 27 million whites in the USA). That percentage was zero in the states that did not allow slavery (only 8 million of the 27 million whites lived in states that allowed slavery). Incidentally, in 1830 about 25% of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves: that is a much higher percentage (ten times more) than the number of white slave owners. Thus slave owners were a tiny minority (1.4%) and it was not only whites: it was just about anybody who could, including blacks themselves.

There seems to be a significant difference in our data about slave ownership, LoneStar.

I do not know where you data came from but I know where mine came from.

Census data can be appealed to in order to determine the extent of slave ownership in each of the states that allowed it in 1860. The figures given here are the percentage of slave-owning families as a fraction of total free households in the state. The data was taken from a census archive site at the University of Virginia.

Mississippi: 49%
South Carolina: 46%
Georgia: 37%
Alabama: 35%
Florida: 34%
Louisiana: 29%
Texas: 28%
North Carolina: 28%
Virginia: 26%
Tennessee: 25%
Kentucky: 23%
Arkansas: 20%
Missouri: 13%
Maryland: 12%
Delaware: 3%

In the Lower South (SC, GA, AL, MS, LA, TX, FL -- those states that seceded first), about 36.7% of the white families owned slaves. In the Middle South (VA, NC, TN, AR -- those states that seceded only after Fort Sumter was fired on) the percentage is around 25.3%, and the total for the two combined regions -- which is what most folks think of as the Confederacy -- is 30.8%. In the Border States (DE, MD, KY, MO -- those slave states that did not secede) the percentage of slave-ownership was 15.9%, and the total throughout the slave states was almost exactly 26%.

Ok, I'm confused..........just using Alabama as an example.......only 35% of white families owned slaves........that means that 65% DID NOT own slaves.......which surely places those who were slave owners in the certain minority............In fact, using your statistics, only SC and GA even come close to a 50/50 split.........concerning slave ownership, thus the overall average of white families who owned slaves rests quite firmly in the "minority" of the total population at that time........

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I guess I could look for it, Lone.

That stat isn't one I found on the net but perhaps I can find supporting links.

But before I do that let me ask you why you doubt it.

Do you realize how much slaves were worth in those days compared to other things?

The value of a strong field hand was about equivalent to the value of a small farm back in the years leading up to the Civil War.

Their capitalization value really took off after Eli Whiney invented the cotton gin and vast plantations in MI and AL formed from about 1820 - 1860.

Ironically this was IN PART because American had made it illegal to import slaves so the value of them as means of production was rapidly rising in the first half of the 19th century.

This site may give you some idea of just how many slaves there were and help you to understand why losing them as CAPITALIZED ASSETS so thorughly destroyed the southern plantation economy.

This site Measuring Worth - Measuring the Value of a Slave will help you get a grasp of just how much VALUE was being held in the form of human beings.

Now AFTER you check that link to get an idea of the value of a SLAVE back then.

COMPARE those numbers to the value of say A FAMILY FARM. back then.

What you see is that a slave was worth about as much as a small farm!

Now multiply the number of slaves times the average value and you have the CAPITALIZATION numbers for all slaves held in the south.

My souirce for that startling statistic was some economic history, I read.

I'm sorry but I read so much I have no idea what book I am recalling that stat.

But fwiw, no studnet of economic history would much argue the point I was making even if their capitalization estimate was somewhat different.

MOST of the CSA's capitalization was not in land, or factories, or equipment, either,

Most of the Souths CAPITAL was tied up in the its SLAVES.

I doubt it because of the small percentage of slave owners.

It is also fair to say that, while everybody tolerated it, very few whites practiced slavery: in 1860 there were 385,000 USA citizens who owned slaves, or about 1.4% of the white population (there were 27 million whites in the USA). That percentage was zero in the states that did not allow slavery (only 8 million of the 27 million whites lived in states that allowed slavery). Incidentally, in 1830 about 25% of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves: that is a much higher percentage (ten times more) than the number of white slave owners. Thus slave owners were a tiny minority (1.4%) and it was not only whites: it was just about anybody who could, including blacks themselves.

There seems to be a significant difference in our data about slave ownership, LoneStar.

I do not know where you data came from but I know where mine came from.

Census data can be appealed to in order to determine the extent of slave ownership in each of the states that allowed it in 1860. The figures given here are the percentage of slave-owning families as a fraction of total free households in the state. The data was taken from a census archive site at the University of Virginia.

Mississippi: 49%
South Carolina: 46%
Georgia: 37%
Alabama: 35%
Florida: 34%
Louisiana: 29%
Texas: 28%
North Carolina: 28%
Virginia: 26%
Tennessee: 25%
Kentucky: 23%
Arkansas: 20%
Missouri: 13%
Maryland: 12%
Delaware: 3%

In the Lower South (SC, GA, AL, MS, LA, TX, FL -- those states that seceded first), about 36.7% of the white families owned slaves. In the Middle South (VA, NC, TN, AR -- those states that seceded only after Fort Sumter was fired on) the percentage is around 25.3%, and the total for the two combined regions -- which is what most folks think of as the Confederacy -- is 30.8%. In the Border States (DE, MD, KY, MO -- those slave states that did not secede) the percentage of slave-ownership was 15.9%, and the total throughout the slave states was almost exactly 26%.

Let's assume your stats are correct. They still don't support your argument. Quite the opposite actually.

 

[oldfart]

Ok, I'm confused..........just using Alabama as an example.......only 35% of white families owned slaves........that means that 65% DID NOT own slaves.......which surely places those who were slave owners in the certain minority............In fact, using your statistics, only SC and GA even come close to a 50/50 split.........concerning slave ownership, thus the overall average of white families who owned slaves rests quite firmly in the "minority" of the total population at that time........

There's quite a bit of difference between 35% and 1.4% (which appeared in the original argument). The argument was over the economic dominance of slavery in the antebellum South. The 1.4% figure was used to "prove" that very few Southern whites were involved in slavery. This is a questionable figure, as it includes all free households, North and South.

Granted, the majority of white Southern farmers owned no slaves. In some states that majority was pretty thin, and in the counties where most slaves were located, the majority of white landowners owned slaves. Add to the slaveowners the whites who were employed as overseers (Genovese puts the number at one per every twelve slaves) and the merchants and professionals who sold goods and services to the larger slave operations, and the number involved grows quite a bit.

When you exclude areas like Delaware, western Virginia, and eastern Tennessee, where slavery was fairly rare, and concentrate on the major slave-holding areas like South Carolina, the Natchez District, and the Tidewater Region, practically all white households were dependent on slavery in one way or another. This also explains why the "fire-eaters" such as the early Jefferson Davis, John A. Quitman, William Barksdale, and James Dunwoody Brownson DeBow (publisher of DeBow's Review) were mainly from South Carolina and Misissippi.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Ok, I'm confused..........just using Alabama as an example.......only 35% of white families owned slaves........that means that 65% DID NOT own slaves.......which surely places those who were slave owners in the certain minority............In fact, using your statistics, only SC and GA even come close to a 50/50 split.........concerning slave ownership, thus the overall average of white families who owned slaves rests quite firmly in the "minority" of the total population at that time........

There's quite a bit of difference between 35% and 1.4% (which appeared in the original argument). The argument was over the economic dominance of slavery in the antebellum South. The 1.4% figure was used to "prove" that very few Southern whites were involved in slavery. This is a questionable figure, as it includes all free households, North and South.

Granted, the majority of white Southern farmers owned no slaves. In some states that majority was pretty thin, and in the counties where most slaves were located, the majority of white landowners owned slaves. Add to the slaveowners the whites who were employed as overseers (Genovese puts the number at one per every twelve slaves) and the merchants and professionals who sold goods and services to the larger slave operations, and the number involved grows quite a bit.

When you exclude areas like Delaware, western Virginia, and eastern Tennessee, where slavery was fairly rare, and concentrate on the major slave-holding areas like South Carolina, the Natchez District, and the Tidewater Region, practically all white households were dependent on slavery in one way or another. This also explains why the "fire-eaters" such as the early Jefferson Davis, John A. Quitman, William Barksdale, and James Dunwoody Brownson DeBow (publisher of DeBow's Review) were mainly from South Carolina and Misissippi.

Actually the statement that editec made that I challenged was that "the southern economy lost 75% of it capitalization when they lost their right to own slaves".

Either of those stats prove that statement to be false.