Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The map shows that they were only 32% enslaved (vs Anderson...which was 37% enslaved). That's small potatoes compared to the great rice plantations of the Lowcountry. Beaufort and Georgetown Counties both ranked in the low 80s. Interestingly enough, Charleston only ranked in at 60%.
Sure there was some cotton and other cash crops grown in the upstate but compared to other South Carolina counties, we were relatively low on slavery scale. The upstate soil was not conducive to growing the big cash crops of the 19th century. Too much red clay, I guess.
The interesting thing this map shows is that slavery was not as prevalent as we're all taught. The vast plantations with hundreds of slaves only represented 3% of the total population in the south. Of course those areas are easy to see on the map. The worst being Mississippi and Louisiana with some heavily concentrated areas in South Carolina and Alabama. The average small hold farmer would have only had a handful of slaves at best as seen on the map (North Carolina, for example).
My theory (my education is in history, particularly southern history) is that the ideas promulgated by abolitionists of the time (i.e. all southerners were whip wielding slavers) is was generally false. The stories of escaped slaves publicized by abolitionists were most likely the worst case scenario. Most slave owners could not afford to mistreat their slaves as they were too expensive.
The map shows that they were only 32% enslaved (vs Anderson...which was 37% enslaved). That's small potatoes compared to the great rice plantations of the Lowcountry. Beaufort and Georgetown Counties both ranked in the low 80s. Interestingly enough, Charleston only ranked in at 60%.
Sure there was some cotton and other cash crops grown in the upstate but compared to other South Carolina counties, we were relatively low on slavery scale. The upstate soil was not conducive to growing the big cash crops of the 19th century. Too much red clay, I guess.
The interesting thing this map shows is that slavery was not as prevalent as we're all taught. The vast plantations with hundreds of slaves only represented 3% of the total population in the south. Of course those areas are easy to see on the map. The worst being Mississippi and Louisiana with some heavily concentrated areas in South Carolina and Alabama. The average small hold farmer would have only had a handful of slaves at best as seen on the map (North Carolina, for example).
My theory (my education is in history, particularly southern history) is that the ideas promulgated by abolitionists of the time (i.e. all southerners were whip wielding slavers) is was generally false. The stories of escaped slaves publicized by abolitionists were most likely the worst case scenario. Most slave owners could not afford to mistreat their slaves as they were too expensive.
At the same time the Civil war drums started beating, famine hit Ireland. Southern ports were one of the places the refugees escaped to. They weren't seen in any better a light there than in the north. But its interesting that cities hired IRISH workers to do things like dig canals for a small pittance paid only if they survived. Canals were one of the most dangerous jobs because of mudslides which could bury the workers. Many didn't get their wages, but people who are sufficently desperate will take the chance and there were always more.
They didn't use slaves as diggers since there was far too much chance they'd end up buried in mud. A slave was an investment. A starving Irishman was a resource which you could get as many as you wanted.
This is not to say that there were not vicious slave holders. But the majority were on large estates and amounted to the largest portion of wealth in the estate. This is one reason why those with estates fought so hard against change. That was their estate and their claim to fame. Their land and household goods was a pittacnce for a large planter.
The above speaks to the lack of respect for *human beings* in general if you were the wrong color or poor or not part of the gang. It was a highly ordered class system as well and what got you the right notice was the image, not how much cash on hand. It was a war fated to happen.
The abolitionists were motivated by many things including religion and outrage. But at the core they could see through the veil. For the relatively few they made a big splash. That nobody really thought past emancipation is what has left us with a continuing flashpoint. Not even most Abolitionists had any real idea what to do next.
That is a gross misstatement because it denies the fact that abolitionist from proffered a myriad of solutions for post slavery, from repatriation to Africa to full enfranchisement. It also flies in the face of the record of the Reconstruction, the Freedman's Bureau and the subsequent civil rights acts those presaged those enacted in the 1960's.
That is a gross misstatement because it denies the fact that abolitionist from proffered a myriad of solutions for post slavery, from repatriation to Africa to full enfranchisement. It also flies in the face of the record of the Reconstruction, the Freedman's Bureau and the subsequent civil rights acts those presaged those enacted in the 1960's.
I'm thinking in the immediate, not the sixties. Thousands of people with nowhere to go and no plans is not something to leave to fate. Yes, abolitionists had ideas, but they didn't agree with each other and there was no plan. The actual emancipation was as much political as anything else, though Lincoln was passionate about it by then. If you set loose that many people without any idea where they go, how they are cared for, and so forth then you're passing the buck. I don't know that anyone ask the slaves either.
During Reconstruction, the approach was as much to stick it to white southerners in revenge without really caring. Yes there were those who did and tried, but the whole era was overshadowed by political agendas. The payoff for this has been a lingering legacy which resounds today. Passion is good but practicality is necessary too. The practical would have had those who had led the movement come together and realistically look at the situation and seek out the needs directly from those left adrift.
The goal of ending slavery was the focus, but along with that what happens after should have been as important. The civil rights movement doesn't count in those terms and is a move to correct something left undone. Doing nothing simply meant when the victors were tired of the mess it just went back to something exerting the control that had been lost. That is what not dealing with reality does to a problem.
And for comparison, it is interesting to see how similar 2010 African-American populations still reflect 1861 slave populations, despite the passage of 150 years. http://www.raconline.org/racmaps/map...blackafram.png
Not particularly surprising, but still an interesting demonstration of how early population distributions establish enduring long-term trends.
It is rarely noted though, that The Emancipation Proclamation resulted in the freeing of few, if any, slaves. It was a brilliant PR move, and offered hope to those enslaved, but it only applied to the states which had seceded and thus were no longer under Lincoln's administration. It did not apply to any slave held in the North, which was still part of the union.
Quote:
The Emancipation Proclamation did not free all slaves in the United States. Rather, it declared free only those slaves living in states not under Union control. William Seward, Lincoln's secretary of state, commented, "We show our symapthy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free." Lincoln was fully aware of the irony, but he did not want to antagonize the slave states loyal to the Union by setting their slaves free.
The proclamation allowed black soldiers to fight for the Union -- soldiers that were desperately needed. It also tied the issue of slavery directly to the war.
It made it clear to slaves that there was help available, and I'm sure that had an impact. But it had no legal bearing on the issue, since The Confederate States of America was a separate country The United States of America.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
