Leave Confederate Soldier Statues Alone

[Correll]

You've already admitted that there were other issues in the war. Why are you backtracking?

I am not backtracking. My statement was keeping the slave system was the main objective of the southern secession movement. I think the "state's rights" argument as the cause of the war is stupid because it is just a mask for the previous mentioned objection- slavery.

"states rights" in this case amounts to "the right to own slaves" - to me, that is invalid.

Main objective indicates other secondary objectives.

You've admitted that poor southerns had little if any direct stake in the institution of slavery.

So, why are you focusing on slavery to the extent of ignoring everything else, and conflating poor southern whites with rich southern slave owners?

Maybe little at stake economically but they certainly had a lot at stake. Slavery in the south was not just about working conditions but it affected every aspect of society. I am conflating them because in this instance they were fighting on the same side for the same basic principles. Racism.

The majority of white southerns were subsidence farmers with little concern about slavery or the Cotton Trade.

Yet they supported their leadership in their attempt to break away from the US.


Saying "racism" as a reason is not an answer.

don't try the "state's rights" crap, no one has the right to own other humans. They were wrong.

You've already admitted that there were other issues in the war. Why are you backtracking?

I am not backtracking. My statement was keeping the slave system was the main objective of the southern secession movement. I think the "state's rights" argument as the cause of the war is stupid because it is just a mask for the previous mentioned objection- slavery.

"states rights" in this case amounts to "the right to own slaves" - to me, that is invalid.

Main objective indicates other secondary objectives.

You've admitted that poor southerns had little if any direct stake in the institution of slavery.

So, why are you focusing on slavery to the extent of ignoring everything else, and conflating poor southern whties with rich southern slave owners?

Every southerner, rich or poor, knew slavery was the blood engine that ran the south. It was the single most valuable commodity in the entire country .

To give you some perspective, The collective wealth tied up in those slaves was over 3 billion dollars.

That is yes, with a B. Three BILLION. Not in today dollars, adjusted for inflation -- Then dollars. Three BILLION in 1860 dollars.

If you wanted to buy all the railroads, factories and banks in the entire country at that time, it would have only cost you about $2.5 billion.

----> slaves were by far the largest concentration of property in the country. A stunning figure. Think on that.

4 out of every ten in the CSA were slaves, in some states, there were MAJORITY slave populations. Yes, more slave than free.

One third of southern families owned at least one slave -- and the myth it was just the rich who owned them -- is a myth. Plantation owners accounted for a very small percentage. The majority owned just one or two slaves.

Many of these slaves were mortgaged, making them very much in reach to the average southerner.

A bit of perspective on these two points:

Going back to this interesting map posted earlier:

​

--- see that gap in the middle that has no circle graph? That's where I am. This area (western NC/east Tennesee) voted against secession when it was put to a vote, and for the most part stayed loyal to the Union when the War was waged. Not coincidentally the same area did consist of subsistence farmers and little or no slaves, as noted by one poster above.

But that's the case for this area, i.e. Appalachia, not the entire South. In the case of secession and Confederacy this area was literally outvoted by other eastern and western areas of the same states, where there was more sympathy for secession, and more slaves.

The point being, "the South" is not a monolith. Some of it led the charge for secession and Confederacy, other parts of it were not interested.

How did Missouri, 90% white, vote?

 

[paperview]

Total slaveowners in 1860 ---> 393,975

Total free white households / families in the CSA: Approx: 1,000,000

 

[Correll]

You've already admitted that there were other issues in the war. Why are you backtracking?

I am not backtracking. My statement was keeping the slave system was the main objective of the southern secession movement. I think the "state's rights" argument as the cause of the war is stupid because it is just a mask for the previous mentioned objection- slavery.

"states rights" in this case amounts to "the right to own slaves" - to me, that is invalid.

Main objective indicates other secondary objectives.

You've admitted that poor southerns had little if any direct stake in the institution of slavery.

So, why are you focusing on slavery to the extent of ignoring everything else, and conflating poor southern whties with rich southern slave owners?

Every southerner, rich or poor, knew slavery was the blood engine that ran the south. It was the single most valuable commodity in the entire country .

To give you some perspective, The collective wealth tied up in those slaves was over 3 billion dollars.

That is yes, with a B. Three BILLION. Not in today dollars, adjusted for inflation -- Then dollars. Three BILLION in 1860 dollars.

If you wanted to buy all the railroads, factories and banks in the entire country at that time, it would have only cost you about $2.5 billion.

----> slaves were by far the largest concentration of property in the country. A stunning figure. Think on that.

4 out of every ten in the CSA were slaves, in some states, there were MAJORITY slave populations. Yes, more slave than free.

One third of southern families owned at least one slave -- and the myth it was just the rich who owned them -- is a myth. Plantation owners accounted for a very small percentage. The majority owned just one or two slaves.

Many of these slaves were mortgaged, making them very much in reach to the average southerner.

Nice touch, counting FAMILIES, instead of actual slave owners.

THus you get to conflate the the red headed step child who would never inherit shit, with the slave owner who was in charge of the family.


Just the type of dishonest tactic we've come to expect from the left.

What a dolt.

There were only a total of one million free white families in the CSA>. Ponder that. To suppose their immediate families primarily consisted of "red headed step children" is fucking retarded.

Eat this: there were only a little over 5 million families in the entire US in 1860.

Does that figure stun you?

Now, consider: more than one on four rebels who took up arms against the North came from slaveholding families (and one in two in a few other states) it presents a different picture.

One could say, yes, well, those were families - just because pop owned the slave, doesn't mean the kids did too.

Yeah, they did, more or less. they were part of the household. That slave labor on their property, in some form or another, helped provide them food, shelter and money, and also helped formulate their future wealth they could, and most often did, inherit.

Slave labor provided so much of just about everything when it came to the commerce of the South. Stop being a toadstool dunce.

1. So almost 3 out of 4 rebels did NOT come from a slave holding family. Got it.

2. No, the children did not. Most would not inherit a slave or the farm.

3. Of commerce, yes. Of the actual domestic economy, less so.

 

[koshergrl]

You've already admitted that there were other issues in the war. Why are you backtracking?

I am not backtracking. My statement was keeping the slave system was the main objective of the southern secession movement. I think the "state's rights" argument as the cause of the war is stupid because it is just a mask for the previous mentioned objection- slavery.

"states rights" in this case amounts to "the right to own slaves" - to me, that is invalid.

Main objective indicates other secondary objectives.

You've admitted that poor southerns had little if any direct stake in the institution of slavery.

So, why are you focusing on slavery to the extent of ignoring everything else, and conflating poor southern whties with rich southern slave owners?

Every southerner, rich or poor, knew slavery was the blood engine that ran the south. It was the single most valuable commodity in the entire country .

To give you some perspective, The collective wealth tied up in those slaves was over 3 billion dollars.

That is yes, with a B. Three BILLION. Not in today dollars, adjusted for inflation -- Then dollars. Three BILLION in 1860 dollars.

If you wanted to buy all the railroads, factories and banks in the entire country at that time, it would have only cost you about $2.5 billion.

----> slaves were by far the largest concentration of property in the country. A stunning figure. Think on that.

4 out of every ten in the CSA were slaves, in some states, there were MAJORITY slave populations. Yes, more slave than free.

One third of southern families owned at least one slave -- and the myth it was just the rich who owned them -- is a myth. Plantation owners accounted for a very small percentage. The majority owned just one or two slaves.

Many of these slaves were mortgaged, making them very much in reach to the average southerner.

Nice touch, counting FAMILIES, instead of actual slave owners.

THus you get to conflate the the red headed step child who would never inherit shit, with the slave owner who was in charge of the family.


Just the type of dishonest tactic we've come to expect from the left.

What a dolt.

There were only a total of one million free white families in the CSA>. Ponder that. To suppose their immediate families primarily consisted of "red headed step children" is fucking retarded.

Eat this: there were only a little over 5 million families in the entire US in 1860.

Does that figure stun you?

Now, consider: more than one on four rebels who took up arms against the North came from slaveholding families (and one in two in a few other states) it presents a different picture.

One could say, yes, well, those were families - just because pop owned the slave, doesn't mean the kids did too.

Yeah, they did, more or less. they were part of the household. That slave labor on their property, in some form or another, helped provide them food, shelter and money, and also helped formulate their future wealth they could, and most often did, inherit.

Slave labor provided so much of just about everything when it came to the commerce of the South. Stop being a toadstool dunce.

No, they really didn't.

Total - 1860 CENSUS

Total Population

31,183,582

Free Colored Persons
476,748

Total Free Population
27,233,198

Total Number of Slaves
3,950,528

Slaves as % of Population
13%

Total Number of Families
5,155,608

Total Number of Slaveholders
393,975

% of Families Owning Slaves
8%

American Civil War Census Data

slaves replaced indentured servants as the primary plantation labor class in the south, and the system was falling apart. It was anticipated it would have totally dissolved in about ten more years, according to most estimates.

But the feds didn't want to wait, because it was NEVER about slaves. Per usual, they were just using those people to advance their own agenda..which was to wipe out rural land owners and put their own garbage carpetbaggers and judges in there.

 

[koshergrl]

Total slaveowners in 1860 ---> 393,975

Total free white households / families in the CSA: Approx: 1,000,000

Give up, pig.

 

[koshergrl]

Eight percent of families owned slaves.

That's 8 out of every 100.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

What an insult to US veterans who fought in that war for the Union.

To think Confederate traitors should be placed on the same footing as those who took up arms against the US, and killed hundreds of thousands of US Citizens --

in the cause to perpetuate human bondage.

Sickening.

Going by that standard shouldn't every American monument be taken down? The nation was founded on slavery.

Wrong. The nation was founded on hard work and a pioneer spirit.

And slaves.

 

[Pogo]

I am not backtracking. My statement was keeping the slave system was the main objective of the southern secession movement. I think the "state's rights" argument as the cause of the war is stupid because it is just a mask for the previous mentioned objection- slavery.

"states rights" in this case amounts to "the right to own slaves" - to me, that is invalid.

Main objective indicates other secondary objectives.

You've admitted that poor southerns had little if any direct stake in the institution of slavery.

So, why are you focusing on slavery to the extent of ignoring everything else, and conflating poor southern whites with rich southern slave owners?

Maybe little at stake economically but they certainly had a lot at stake. Slavery in the south was not just about working conditions but it affected every aspect of society. I am conflating them because in this instance they were fighting on the same side for the same basic principles. Racism.

The majority of white southerns were subsidence farmers with little concern about slavery or the Cotton Trade.

Yet they supported their leadership in their attempt to break away from the US.


Saying "racism" as a reason is not an answer.

You've already admitted that there were other issues in the war. Why are you backtracking?

I am not backtracking. My statement was keeping the slave system was the main objective of the southern secession movement. I think the "state's rights" argument as the cause of the war is stupid because it is just a mask for the previous mentioned objection- slavery.

"states rights" in this case amounts to "the right to own slaves" - to me, that is invalid.

Main objective indicates other secondary objectives.

You've admitted that poor southerns had little if any direct stake in the institution of slavery.

So, why are you focusing on slavery to the extent of ignoring everything else, and conflating poor southern whties with rich southern slave owners?

Every southerner, rich or poor, knew slavery was the blood engine that ran the south. It was the single most valuable commodity in the entire country .

To give you some perspective, The collective wealth tied up in those slaves was over 3 billion dollars.

That is yes, with a B. Three BILLION. Not in today dollars, adjusted for inflation -- Then dollars. Three BILLION in 1860 dollars.

If you wanted to buy all the railroads, factories and banks in the entire country at that time, it would have only cost you about $2.5 billion.

----> slaves were by far the largest concentration of property in the country. A stunning figure. Think on that.

4 out of every ten in the CSA were slaves, in some states, there were MAJORITY slave populations. Yes, more slave than free.

One third of southern families owned at least one slave -- and the myth it was just the rich who owned them -- is a myth. Plantation owners accounted for a very small percentage. The majority owned just one or two slaves.

Many of these slaves were mortgaged, making them very much in reach to the average southerner.

A bit of perspective on these two points:

Going back to this interesting map posted earlier:

​

--- see that gap in the middle that has no circle graph? That's where I am. This area (western NC/east Tennesee) voted against secession when it was put to a vote, and for the most part stayed loyal to the Union when the War was waged. Not coincidentally the same area did consist of subsistence farmers and little or no slaves, as noted by one poster above.

But that's the case for this area, i.e. Appalachia, not the entire South. In the case of secession and Confederacy this area was literally outvoted by other eastern and western areas of the same states, where there was more sympathy for secession, and more slaves.

Fatter o' mact in the election of 1860 immediately preceding the War, the state of Tennessee voted for John Bell of the Constitutional Union Party, an offshoot of the Whigs that favored holding on to the Union. So did Virginia. Bell IIRC was a slaveholder who nevertheless opposed expansion of slavery into new states.

The point being, "the South" is not a monolith. Some of it led the charge for secession and Confederacy, other parts of it were not interested.

How did Missouri, 90% white, vote?

Missouri was the only state that the Democratic candidate Stephen Douglas carried. He also got a couple of EVs from New Jersey which split its EV between Douglas and Lincoln. But in the field of four, Douglas came in dead last. And once it was over he worked with the President-Elect to try to preseve the Union.

No idea what "90% white" is supposed to mean, since in the rest of the country including Appalachia, the vote was "100% white".

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

Eight percent of families owned slaves.

That's 8 out of every 100.

Depends which state.

1860 Census Results

 

[paperview]

I am not backtracking. My statement was keeping the slave system was the main objective of the southern secession movement. I think the "state's rights" argument as the cause of the war is stupid because it is just a mask for the previous mentioned objection- slavery.

"states rights" in this case amounts to "the right to own slaves" - to me, that is invalid.

Main objective indicates other secondary objectives.

You've admitted that poor southerns had little if any direct stake in the institution of slavery.

So, why are you focusing on slavery to the extent of ignoring everything else, and conflating poor southern whties with rich southern slave owners?

Every southerner, rich or poor, knew slavery was the blood engine that ran the south. It was the single most valuable commodity in the entire country .

To give you some perspective, The collective wealth tied up in those slaves was over 3 billion dollars.

That is yes, with a B. Three BILLION. Not in today dollars, adjusted for inflation -- Then dollars. Three BILLION in 1860 dollars.

If you wanted to buy all the railroads, factories and banks in the entire country at that time, it would have only cost you about $2.5 billion.

----> slaves were by far the largest concentration of property in the country. A stunning figure. Think on that.

4 out of every ten in the CSA were slaves, in some states, there were MAJORITY slave populations. Yes, more slave than free.

One third of southern families owned at least one slave -- and the myth it was just the rich who owned them -- is a myth. Plantation owners accounted for a very small percentage. The majority owned just one or two slaves.

Many of these slaves were mortgaged, making them very much in reach to the average southerner.

Nice touch, counting FAMILIES, instead of actual slave owners.

THus you get to conflate the the red headed step child who would never inherit shit, with the slave owner who was in charge of the family.


Just the type of dishonest tactic we've come to expect from the left.

What a dolt.

There were only a total of one million free white families in the CSA>. Ponder that. To suppose their immediate families primarily consisted of "red headed step children" is fucking retarded.

Eat this: there were only a little over 5 million families in the entire US in 1860.

Does that figure stun you?

Now, consider: more than one on four rebels who took up arms against the North came from slaveholding families (and one in two in a few other states) it presents a different picture.

One could say, yes, well, those were families - just because pop owned the slave, doesn't mean the kids did too.

Yeah, they did, more or less. they were part of the household. That slave labor on their property, in some form or another, helped provide them food, shelter and money, and also helped formulate their future wealth they could, and most often did, inherit.

Slave labor provided so much of just about everything when it came to the commerce of the South. Stop being a toadstool dunce.

No, they really didn't.

Total - 1860 CENSUS

Total Population

31,183,582

Free Colored Persons
476,748

Total Free Population
27,233,198

Total Number of Slaves
3,950,528

Slaves as % of Population
13%

Total Number of Families
5,155,608

Total Number of Slaveholders
393,975

% of Families Owning Slaves
8%

American Civil War Census Data

slaves replaced indentured servants as the primary plantation labor class in the south, and the system was falling apart. It was anticipated it would have totally dissolved in about ten more years, according to most estimates.

But the feds didn't want to wait, because it was NEVER about slaves. Per usual, they were just using those people to advance their own agenda..which was to wipe out rural land owners and put their own garbage carpetbaggers and judges in there.

kosherpig showing again what an idiot she is. You can't take the whole of the US which most all the northern states had abolished slavery into the equation, you fucking retard.

Nearly one third of southern families -- where slavery was the be all and end all.

Gawd, of all the ignorant, Lost Cause internet trolls I have ever run into, you are definitely in the top 5 as one of the stupidest.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

Eight percent of families owned slaves.

That's 8 out of every 100.[/QUOTE

There's a lot of incomplete information being passed on this thread.

 

[koshergrl]

What an insult to US veterans who fought in that war for the Union.

To think Confederate traitors should be placed on the same footing as those who took up arms against the US, and killed hundreds of thousands of US Citizens --

in the cause to perpetuate human bondage.

Sickening.

Going by that standard shouldn't every American monument be taken down? The nation was founded on slavery.

Wrong. The nation was founded on hard work and a pioneer spirit.

And slaves.

Actually, indentured servants. Slaves only figured prominently for about 50 years. Before that, indentured servants.

Tell me..why aren't the descendants of Irish slaves blaming us for the fact that half their men are in prison, more than half their children are on welfare, and the fact that they live like animals in the inner cities?

Oh yeah. Because they aren't Democrat slaves anymore.

Gosh I wish we'd been able to eradicate slavery.

 

[paperview]

Total slave population growth by decade - From US Census:
Year
1790 ----- 694,207
1800 ------ 887,612
1810 --- 1,130,781
1820 ---- 1,529,012
1830 ----- 1,987,428
1840----- 2,482,798
1850 ---- 3,200,600
1860----3,950,546

After the US abolished the Atlantic Slave Trade in 1808, we were breeding them here on our own. At an astounding rate.

Any smart fella here wanna tell the forum what the total population of the CSA was?

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

the soldiers specifically may not have been fighting to keep slaves, but that was the objective of the war. You can see that in the secession declarations of each state. Example: Mississippi's declaration statement reads, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization."
It is certainly a case of the poor man fighting the rich mans war (as all wars go) but the war was totally about slavery, make no mistake.

DOes it thus strike you are relevant that the statues in question, are statues of regular soldiers, not rich slaver owners?

I have seen no statues or plaques celebrating the institution of slavery being discussed.

Trying to stumble through that question was rather difficult but I'll do my best to answer... The confederate army is a stain on american history and no patriotic citizen should be glamorizing said stain. It is our past, it is ugly, let's leave it there.

I would have fought for the South.

I would have, too.

But my great, great Grandfather, my great, great granduncles on my mom's side were majors in the Union Army.

On my dad's side, they were Confederates.

I had kin with Stonewall Jackson.

Sure you did.

 

[paperview]

What an insult to US veterans who fought in that war for the Union.

To think Confederate traitors should be placed on the same footing as those who took up arms against the US, and killed hundreds of thousands of US Citizens --

in the cause to perpetuate human bondage.

Sickening.

Going by that standard shouldn't every American monument be taken down? The nation was founded on slavery.

Wrong. The nation was founded on hard work and a pioneer spirit.

And slaves.

Actually, indentured servants. Slaves only figured prominently for about 50 years. Before that, indentured servants.

"Slaves only figured prominently for about 50 years."

Just when you thought she couldn't get any stupider.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

Main objective indicates other secondary objectives.

You've admitted that poor southerns had little if any direct stake in the institution of slavery.

So, why are you focusing on slavery to the extent of ignoring everything else, and conflating poor southern whties with rich southern slave owners?

Every southerner, rich or poor, knew slavery was the blood engine that ran the south. It was the single most valuable commodity in the entire country .

To give you some perspective, The collective wealth tied up in those slaves was over 3 billion dollars.

That is yes, with a B. Three BILLION. Not in today dollars, adjusted for inflation -- Then dollars. Three BILLION in 1860 dollars.

If you wanted to buy all the railroads, factories and banks in the entire country at that time, it would have only cost you about $2.5 billion.

----> slaves were by far the largest concentration of property in the country. A stunning figure. Think on that.

4 out of every ten in the CSA were slaves, in some states, there were MAJORITY slave populations. Yes, more slave than free.

One third of southern families owned at least one slave -- and the myth it was just the rich who owned them -- is a myth. Plantation owners accounted for a very small percentage. The majority owned just one or two slaves.

Many of these slaves were mortgaged, making them very much in reach to the average southerner.

Nice touch, counting FAMILIES, instead of actual slave owners.

THus you get to conflate the the red headed step child who would never inherit shit, with the slave owner who was in charge of the family.


Just the type of dishonest tactic we've come to expect from the left.

What a dolt.

There were only a total of one million free white families in the CSA>. Ponder that. To suppose their immediate families primarily consisted of "red headed step children" is fucking retarded.

Eat this: there were only a little over 5 million families in the entire US in 1860.

Does that figure stun you?

Now, consider: more than one on four rebels who took up arms against the North came from slaveholding families (and one in two in a few other states) it presents a different picture.

One could say, yes, well, those were families - just because pop owned the slave, doesn't mean the kids did too.

Yeah, they did, more or less. they were part of the household. That slave labor on their property, in some form or another, helped provide them food, shelter and money, and also helped formulate their future wealth they could, and most often did, inherit.

Slave labor provided so much of just about everything when it came to the commerce of the South. Stop being a toadstool dunce.

No, they really didn't.

Total - 1860 CENSUS

Total Population

31,183,582

Free Colored Persons
476,748

Total Free Population
27,233,198

Total Number of Slaves
3,950,528

Slaves as % of Population
13%

Total Number of Families
5,155,608

Total Number of Slaveholders
393,975

% of Families Owning Slaves
8%

American Civil War Census Data

slaves replaced indentured servants as the primary plantation labor class in the south, and the system was falling apart. It was anticipated it would have totally dissolved in about ten more years, according to most estimates.

But the feds didn't want to wait, because it was NEVER about slaves. Per usual, they were just using those people to advance their own agenda..which was to wipe out rural land owners and put their own garbage carpetbaggers and judges in there.

kosherpig showing again what an idiot she is. You can't take the whole of the US which most all the northern states had abolished slavery into the equation, you fucking retard.

Nearly one third of southern families -- where slavery was the be all and end all.

Gawd, of all the ignorant, Lost Cause internet trolls I have ever run into, you are definitely in the top 5 as one of the stupidest.

Again, not looking state by state.

 

[paperview]

Every southerner, rich or poor, knew slavery was the blood engine that ran the south. It was the single most valuable commodity in the entire country .

To give you some perspective, The collective wealth tied up in those slaves was over 3 billion dollars.

That is yes, with a B. Three BILLION. Not in today dollars, adjusted for inflation -- Then dollars. Three BILLION in 1860 dollars.

If you wanted to buy all the railroads, factories and banks in the entire country at that time, it would have only cost you about $2.5 billion.

----> slaves were by far the largest concentration of property in the country. A stunning figure. Think on that.

4 out of every ten in the CSA were slaves, in some states, there were MAJORITY slave populations. Yes, more slave than free.

One third of southern families owned at least one slave -- and the myth it was just the rich who owned them -- is a myth. Plantation owners accounted for a very small percentage. The majority owned just one or two slaves.

Many of these slaves were mortgaged, making them very much in reach to the average southerner.

Nice touch, counting FAMILIES, instead of actual slave owners.

THus you get to conflate the the red headed step child who would never inherit shit, with the slave owner who was in charge of the family.


Just the type of dishonest tactic we've come to expect from the left.

What a dolt.

There were only a total of one million free white families in the CSA>. Ponder that. To suppose their immediate families primarily consisted of "red headed step children" is fucking retarded.

Eat this: there were only a little over 5 million families in the entire US in 1860.

Does that figure stun you?

Now, consider: more than one on four rebels who took up arms against the North came from slaveholding families (and one in two in a few other states) it presents a different picture.

One could say, yes, well, those were families - just because pop owned the slave, doesn't mean the kids did too.

Yeah, they did, more or less. they were part of the household. That slave labor on their property, in some form or another, helped provide them food, shelter and money, and also helped formulate their future wealth they could, and most often did, inherit.

Slave labor provided so much of just about everything when it came to the commerce of the South. Stop being a toadstool dunce.

No, they really didn't.

Total - 1860 CENSUS

Total Population

31,183,582

Free Colored Persons
476,748

Total Free Population
27,233,198

Total Number of Slaves
3,950,528

Slaves as % of Population
13%

Total Number of Families
5,155,608

Total Number of Slaveholders
393,975

% of Families Owning Slaves
8%

American Civil War Census Data

slaves replaced indentured servants as the primary plantation labor class in the south, and the system was falling apart. It was anticipated it would have totally dissolved in about ten more years, according to most estimates.

But the feds didn't want to wait, because it was NEVER about slaves. Per usual, they were just using those people to advance their own agenda..which was to wipe out rural land owners and put their own garbage carpetbaggers and judges in there.

kosherpig showing again what an idiot she is. You can't take the whole of the US which most all the northern states had abolished slavery into the equation, you fucking retard.

Nearly one third of southern families -- where slavery was the be all and end all.

Gawd, of all the ignorant, Lost Cause internet trolls I have ever run into, you are definitely in the top 5 as one of the stupidest.

Again, not looking state by state.

Vague. It's intellectually honest to compare slaveholding states with non-slaveholding states -- not combining them to come up with a meaningless percentage.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

Nice touch, counting FAMILIES, instead of actual slave owners.

THus you get to conflate the the red headed step child who would never inherit shit, with the slave owner who was in charge of the family.


Just the type of dishonest tactic we've come to expect from the left.

What a dolt.

There were only a total of one million free white families in the CSA>. Ponder that. To suppose their immediate families primarily consisted of "red headed step children" is fucking retarded.

Eat this: there were only a little over 5 million families in the entire US in 1860.

Does that figure stun you?

Now, consider: more than one on four rebels who took up arms against the North came from slaveholding families (and one in two in a few other states) it presents a different picture.

One could say, yes, well, those were families - just because pop owned the slave, doesn't mean the kids did too.

Yeah, they did, more or less. they were part of the household. That slave labor on their property, in some form or another, helped provide them food, shelter and money, and also helped formulate their future wealth they could, and most often did, inherit.

Slave labor provided so much of just about everything when it came to the commerce of the South. Stop being a toadstool dunce.

No, they really didn't.

Total - 1860 CENSUS

Total Population

31,183,582

Free Colored Persons
476,748

Total Free Population
27,233,198

Total Number of Slaves
3,950,528

Slaves as % of Population
13%

Total Number of Families
5,155,608

Total Number of Slaveholders
393,975

% of Families Owning Slaves
8%

American Civil War Census Data

slaves replaced indentured servants as the primary plantation labor class in the south, and the system was falling apart. It was anticipated it would have totally dissolved in about ten more years, according to most estimates.

But the feds didn't want to wait, because it was NEVER about slaves. Per usual, they were just using those people to advance their own agenda..which was to wipe out rural land owners and put their own garbage carpetbaggers and judges in there.

kosherpig showing again what an idiot she is. You can't take the whole of the US which most all the northern states had abolished slavery into the equation, you fucking retard.

Nearly one third of southern families -- where slavery was the be all and end all.

Gawd, of all the ignorant, Lost Cause internet trolls I have ever run into, you are definitely in the top 5 as one of the stupidest.

Again, not looking state by state.

Vague. It's intellectually honest to compare slaveholding states with non-slaveholding states -- not combining them to come up with a meaningless percentage.

Try post #209. Not vague at all.

 

[paperview]

I'm waiting some of the resident neo-confederate ne're do wells to chime in (as they often do) and screech: it was tariffs!

lol

Just may happen soon.

 

[paperview]

What a dolt.

There were only a total of one million free white families in the CSA>. Ponder that. To suppose their immediate families primarily consisted of "red headed step children" is fucking retarded.

Eat this: there were only a little over 5 million families in the entire US in 1860.

Does that figure stun you?

Now, consider: more than one on four rebels who took up arms against the North came from slaveholding families (and one in two in a few other states) it presents a different picture.

One could say, yes, well, those were families - just because pop owned the slave, doesn't mean the kids did too.

Yeah, they did, more or less. they were part of the household. That slave labor on their property, in some form or another, helped provide them food, shelter and money, and also helped formulate their future wealth they could, and most often did, inherit.

Slave labor provided so much of just about everything when it came to the commerce of the South. Stop being a toadstool dunce.

No, they really didn't.

Total - 1860 CENSUS

Total Population

31,183,582

Free Colored Persons
476,748

Total Free Population
27,233,198

Total Number of Slaves
3,950,528

Slaves as % of Population
13%

Total Number of Families
5,155,608

Total Number of Slaveholders
393,975

% of Families Owning Slaves
8%

American Civil War Census Data

slaves replaced indentured servants as the primary plantation labor class in the south, and the system was falling apart. It was anticipated it would have totally dissolved in about ten more years, according to most estimates.

But the feds didn't want to wait, because it was NEVER about slaves. Per usual, they were just using those people to advance their own agenda..which was to wipe out rural land owners and put their own garbage carpetbaggers and judges in there.

kosherpig showing again what an idiot she is. You can't take the whole of the US which most all the northern states had abolished slavery into the equation, you fucking retard.

Nearly one third of southern families -- where slavery was the be all and end all.

Gawd, of all the ignorant, Lost Cause internet trolls I have ever run into, you are definitely in the top 5 as one of the stupidest.

Again, not looking state by state.

Vague. It's intellectually honest to compare slaveholding states with non-slaveholding states -- not combining them to come up with a meaningless percentage.

Try post #209. Not vague at all.

K. Thx.


No matter how you slice it, this is stoopid on stilts:


"slaves replaced indentured servants as the primary plantation labor class in the south, and the system was falling apart. It was anticipated it would have totally dissolved in about ten more years, according to most estimates.

But the feds didn't want to wait, because it was NEVER about slaves. Per usual, they were just using those people to advance their own agenda..which was to wipe out rural land owners and put their own garbage carpetbaggers and judges in there"