U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-08-2021, 07:18 PM
 
2,362 posts, read 988,024 times
Reputation: 3421

Advertisements

They may not have owned slaves but they were dependent on it. In fact, the wealth of the United States was dependent on slavery.

According to the Federal Reserve Bulletin of May 1923 which is online, over 86% of the cotton crop was exported - 1,854,000 bales of cotton. It brought in immense tariff revenue to the national government and employing fleets of ships and employment for thousands to take it to Europe; it accounted for 61% of all US exports. American cotton from slave labor was what was used in the northern mills. Banking in the south was dependent on it. Edward Baptist's book The Half Has Never Been Told is a good introduction to this. Take away southern cotton and all of that goes away and take away slavery would be taking away how America grew cotton.

Cotton and the Civil*War | Mississippi History Now

By 1840 over 700 steamships were on the Mississippi transporting cotton. The ports at St. Louis, Memphis and countless small towns were dependent on. By 1860, it had grown to over 3,500. It wasn't just the ship's owners and crews which were dependent on slavery, but those associated with the trade: the shipbuilders, the ship chandlers, the farmers who supplied the chandlers, the shoemakers who would go out to the ships when they were in port and so forth.

Its why after slavery was abolished, share cropping was introduced as its replacement; share cropping was a different form of servitude enforced through the law and terror.

Its not a matter of going on or not going on about history, its about recognizing it and not forgetting it. If not, why bother about history at all. I don't think it divides us, rather it unites us in understanding how we got to where we are; otherwise we are lost as if we were dropped down from another planet where in reality we are rooted here. It explains how and why some states were settled, how the people got there and why patterns of development have existed and continue to exist.

And of course, there is the morbid way in which non-slave owners benefited...when the Medical College of VA was estabished in Richmond it was part of Hampton Sydney College which is not in Richmond. Its location in Richmond was due in large part to the proximity of slave bodies both dead and live for medical use. These pits are still being uncovered:

https://news.vcu.edu/article/VCU_Pro...ng_for_Medical

In the end, to think American wealth was not built with slavery as a fundamental component is to ignore what happened and deprive us all.

Last edited by webster; 05-08-2021 at 07:58 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-08-2021, 07:43 PM
 
5,249 posts, read 3,265,788 times
Reputation: 4215
Here's an interesting critique of the 1619 Project found on reddit:

The 1619 project is an ongoing initiative developed by the New York Times. The stated purpose is "to reframe the country’s history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of [the United States'] national narrative." The message of the project is that racism and slavery are an intrinsic part of all aspects of American history/culture - aka every part of American culture cannot be comprehensively analyzed without considering its relation to racism. This includes wars, elections, historical events, music, medicine, fashion, etc. Everything is intimately connected to racism. Articles include "America Wasn't a Democracy Until Black Americans Made It One", "How Segregation Caused Your Traffic Jam", "How False Beliefs in Physical Racial Difference Still Live in Medicine Today". As you can see, some of these arguments are quite provocative, including statements like racism is responsible for traffic jams.

The reaction can be divided into two categories: pop media (ie news/politicians/etc) and academic historians. The media has been largely supportive and enthusiastic about this project, especially since the BLM and George Floyd made their way into the public consciousness this summer. The founder, Nikole Hannah-Jones, was awarded the 2020 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary. Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Kamala Harris has said "The #1619Project is a powerful and necessary reckoning of our history. We cannot understand and address the problems of today without speaking truth about how we got here".

Reactions from Republicans has been negative. Leading politicians like Donald Trump, Tom Cotton, Newt Gingrich, and Ted Cruz have expressed their belief that it is a revisionist account of history that aims to push a left-wing agenda.

Now that we have established where this project stands on political lines, what about actual experts on the subject? The reaction from actual historians has been... considerably negative. I'll just copy and paste the wiki section because it does a good job explaining.

Beginning in October 2019, the World Socialist Web Site published a series of interviews with prominent historians critical of the 1619 Project, including Victoria E. Bynum, James M. McPherson, Gordon S. Wood, James Oakes, Richard Carwardine and Clayborne Carson. In an essay for The New York Review of Books, historian Sean Wilentz accused the 1619 Project of cynicism for its portrayal of the American Revolution, the Civil War and Abraham Lincoln, who Wilentz wrote is "rendered as a white supremacist."

In December 2019, five leading American historians, Sean Wilentz, James McPherson, Gordon Wood, Victoria Bynum and James Oakes, sent a letter to the Times expressing objections to the framing of the project and accusing the authors of a "displacement of historical understanding by ideology". The letter disputed the claim, made in the Hannah-Jones' introductory essay to the 1619 Project, that "one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery". The Times published the letter along with a rebuttal from the magazine's editor-in-chief, Jake Silverstein. Wood responded in a letter, "I don't know of any colonist who said that they wanted independence in order to preserve their slaves. No colonist expressed alarm that the mother country was out to abolish slavery in 1776." In an article in The Atlantic, Wilentz responded to Silverstein, writing, "No effort to educate the public in order to advance social justice can afford to dispense with a respect for basic facts", and disputing the factual accuracy of Silverstein's defense of the project.

Also during December 2019, twelve scholars and political scientists specializing in the American Civil War sent a letter to the Times saying that "The 1619 Project offers a historically-limited view of slavery." While agreeing to the importance of examining American slavery, they objected to the portrayal of slavery as a uniquely American phenomenon, to construing slavery as a capitalist venture despite documented anti-capitalist sentiment among many Southern slaveholders, and to presenting out-of-context quotes of a conversation between Abraham Lincoln and "five esteemed free black men". The following month, Times editor Jake Silverstein replied with notes from the research desk, concluding that the scholars had requested the inclusion of additional information, rather than corrections to existing information.

The 1619 project has received a lot of support from media and public figures, but academically it has been sharply criticized for being biased, slanted and misrepresenting basic facts about history.


Here's a piece from Politico:
I Helped Fact-Check the 1619 Project. The Times Ignored Me.
The paper’s series on slavery made avoidable mistakes. But the attacks from its critics are much more dangerous.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...mistake-122248

Last edited by john3232; 05-08-2021 at 08:07 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2021, 08:10 PM
 
Location: Right here; Right now
12,078 posts, read 5,531,718 times
Reputation: 1867
Quote:
Originally Posted by webster View Post
That is a bit misleading. According to the 1860 census, the confederacy’s 11 states had 316,632 slave owners out of a free population of 5,582,222. That's about 5.6% percent of the free population.

But slave ownership was usually by the patriarch of the family and the entire family benefited from the ownership. When family units and the free people in them are counted over 30 % of the free families in the confederacy owned slaves. That means that every third white person had a direct benefit of owning slaves.

That is only part of the story in an economy which was dependent on slavery. A very simple example is a business where the owner did not own slaves yet whose business exported cotton (Richmond is a deep sea port even now) or which sold goods to a slave owning family whose wealth was dependent on slave labor.

https://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/...tates-in-1860/

Slavery was
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon View Post
This figure factors that in. If you go strictly by the patriarch of a family, the actual figure drops to about 3 or 4 percent of the population of southern states.

So I'm saying 25 percent of the population of southern states owned slaves and you're saying 30 percent. I'd bet the truth is somewhere in there, maybe (gasp) in the middle. Not that much spread. Even by your standards, at least 70 percent of southerners didn't own slaves.
Overall 32.27 1860 slave population table 3:
EH.net Slavery in the United States

Ownership?

Slave Ownership Patterns

"Despite their numbers, slaves typically comprised a minority of the local population. Only in antebellum South Carolina and Mississippi did slaves outnumber free persons. Most Southerners owned no slaves and most slaves lived in small groups rather than on large plantations. Less than one-quarter of white Southerners held slaves, with half of these holding fewer than five and fewer than 1 percent owning more than one hundred. In 1860, the average number of slaves residing together was about ten."
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2021, 08:18 PM
 
Location: Right here; Right now
12,078 posts, read 5,531,718 times
Reputation: 1867
Quote:
Originally Posted by webster View Post
They may not have owned slaves but they were dependent on it. In fact, the wealth of the United States was dependent on slavery.

According to the Federal Reserve Bulletin of May 1923 which is online, over 86% of the cotton crop was exported - 1,854,000 bales of cotton. It brought in immense tariff revenue to the national government and employing fleets of ships and employment for thousands to take it to Europe; it accounted for 61% of all US exports. American cotton from slave labor was what was used in the northern mills. Banking in the south was dependent on it. Edward Baptist's book The Half Has Never Been Told is a good introduction to this. Take away southern cotton and all of that goes away and take away slavery would be taking away how America grew cotton.

Cotton and the Civil*War | Mississippi History Now

By 1840 over 700 steamships were on the Mississippi transporting cotton. The ports at St. Louis, Memphis and countless small towns were dependent on. By 1860, it had grown to over 3,500. It wasn't just the ship's owners and crews which were dependent on slavery, but those associated with the trade: the shipbuilders, the ship chandlers, the farmers who supplied the chandlers, the shoemakers who would go out to the ships when they were in port and so forth.

Its why after slavery was abolished, share cropping was introduced as its replacement; share cropping was a different form of servitude enforced through the law and terror.

Its not a matter of going on or not going on about history, its about recognizing it and not forgetting it. If not, why bother about history at all. I don't think it divides us, rather it unites us in understanding how we got to where we are; otherwise we are lost as if we were dropped down from another planet where in reality we are rooted here. It explains how and why some states were settled, how the people got there and why patterns of development have existed and continue to exist.

And of course, there is the morbid way in which non-slave owners benefited...when the Medical College of VA was estabished in Richmond it was part of Hampton Sydney College which is not in Richmond. Its location in Richmond was due in large part to the proximity of slave bodies both dead and live for medical use. These pits are still being uncovered:

https://news.vcu.edu/article/VCU_Pro...ng_for_Medical

In the end, to think American wealth was not built with slavery as a fundamental component is to ignore what happened and deprive us all.
The world's economics revolved around the (government ordained, social construct) Institution of Slavery, for 3000 years before 1860; to ignore that it was a way of life, is ignoring its history that was not based on the u.s. and will deprive everyone of an understanding.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2021, 09:46 PM
 
Location: Southern MN
8,624 posts, read 4,983,397 times
Reputation: 31601
Quote:
Originally Posted by webster View Post
They may not have owned slaves but they were dependent on it. In fact, the wealth of the United States was dependent on slavery.
This is a falsehood that has been repeated entirely too often. The reason the North defeated the South was that it was dependent on industry for its wealth and strength as opposed to the South which was agrarian and dependent on slavery to maintain its economy.

Cotton served the North only as a small percentage of its production. "The North produced 94 percent of the country’s iron, 97 percent of its coal and – not incidentally – 97 percent of its firearms. It contained 22,000 miles of railroad to the South’s 8,500. The North outperformed the South agriculturally as well. Northerners held 75 percent of the country’s farm acreage, produced 60 percent of its livestock, 67 percent of its corn, and 81 percent of its wheat. All in all, they held 75 percent of the nation’s total wealth.”

It's the reason they won the Civil War.

There are many historical articles online which contradict your revisionism. My quote is from this one:

https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/...build-america/

It isn't necessary to try to convince people how lucrative slavery was to convince most of us that it is wrong, after all. Ironically your argument almost makes a case for the value of slave labor.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2021, 10:20 PM
 
7,143 posts, read 9,943,209 times
Reputation: 3282
I'm also wondering how the 1619 Project addressed the role of African involvement in the slave trade? Correct me if I'm wrong,but didn't Europeans get the majority of their slaves from Africans who had captured their rivals and then sold them to Europeans?

An interesting article:

'My Nigerian great-grandfather sold slaves'
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2021, 12:06 AM
 
Location: Right here; Right now
12,078 posts, read 5,531,718 times
Reputation: 1867
Quote:
Originally Posted by Motion View Post
I'm also wondering how the 1619 Project addressed the role of African involvement in the slave trade? Correct me if I'm wrong,but didn't Europeans get the majority of their slaves from Africans who had captured their rivals and then sold them to Europeans?

An interesting article:

'My Nigerian great-grandfather sold slaves'
Maybe their rivals, but for sure the people living on the Continent:

Ghana and the Slave Trade

"Slavery existed in Africa prior to the transatlantic trade, and in fact the earlier, trans-Saharan slave trade sent more enslaved Africans east to the Muslim world, over many centuries, than would be transported west to the Americas. However, the large-scale organization of European slave trading and the development of industry and massive plantations dependent on slave labor gave rise to a trade in humans that was staggering in its scale. Approximately 10 million enslaved people were transported in the transatlantic slave trade, at rates of up to 100,000 persons per year.

The remnants of the trade in Ghana are still visible today ---"


It's Time to Face the Whole Truth About the Atlantic Slave Trade

The historical record is incontrovertible—as documented in the PBS Africans in America series companion book:

"The white man did not introduce slavery to Africa . . . . And by the fifteenth century, men with dark skin had become quite comfortable with the concept of man as property . . . . Long before the arrival of Europeans on West Africa’s coast, the two continents shared a common acceptance of slavery as an unavoidable and necessary—perhaps even desirable—fact of existence. The commerce between the two continents, as tragic as it would become, developed upon familiar territory. Slavery was not a twisted European manipulation, although Europe capitalized on a mutual understanding and greedily expanded the slave trade into what would become a horrific enterprise . . . . It was a thunder that had no sound. Tribe stalked tribe, and eventually more than 20 million Africans would be kidnapped in their own homeland."

Now for present day slavery:

It Was As if We Weren’t Human.' Inside the Modern Slave Trade Trapping African Migrants

And Ghana right?

Slavery in Ghana

Slavery isn't history. Talking about it as if making it illegal ended it, is doing an estimate of 29.8 million people worldwide an injustice.

However to be fair:

'Willful amnesia': How Africans forgot — and remembered — their role in the slave trade

But I don't think the 1619 project deserves to be a commemorating event that is ongoing ...

However as for as accuracy of the project, an historians account:

I Helped Fact-Check the 1619 Project. The Times Ignored Me

imo though, unless a person lived it, they wouldn't know. It was a whole other era with a whole other culture, that today we can't even imagine it, much less know of it, to be sure of the facts. For me, I can't imagine what it would be like to see a black person for the first time and in doing so, what I would think about it or of them, in a time without our modern day conveniences. But for sure, the historical 1619 project will not include the African Overlord's involvement in the kidnapping, treatment and shipping of their people across the Atlantic. I doubt very seriously the agenda is accuracy, they just want to tell their story and have it believed, that's all.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2021, 07:19 AM
 
5,572 posts, read 5,197,147 times
Reputation: 4911
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon View Post
The slave owners were in the minority, both in the south and in general. Christian white folks were literally up in arms about the issue of slavery. And remember, about 75 percent of southerners didn't even own a single slave.
While the Baptist faith wasn't as centralized as some religions, it did have the Triennial Convention, starting in 1814. In 1845, Baptists from the American South split from their northern co-religionists specifically over the issue of slavery, forming the Southern Baptist Convention. in 1995, the Southern Baptist Convention formally adopted a resolution renouncing its previous stands on slavery, racism, segregation, and white nationalism.

The official stance of the Roman Catholic Church was against the international slave trade and for abolitionism. The Roman Catholic populations in the Southern states were largest in Louisiana and in Maryland, yet the local Catholic churches tolerated slavery in those states. Even some clerics and religious orders owned slaves in the 1800's. Georgetown College benefited financially from having its Jesuit leadership sell off 278 slaves owned by the order.

The Mormon founder Joseph Smith stated that Black were still under the Curse of Cain and the Curse of Ham and therefore all Blacks should be held in slavery. While Smith later recanted, upon his death Brigham Young still supported slavery, claiming that it was the will of God that Blacks be enslaved.

As for 75% of Southerners not owning slaves, for the majority it wasn't for lack of desire, but rather lack of funding. The majority of Southerners supported the institution of slavery. It was a big part of the economic engine of the South and any Southern white man, no matter how low, was comforted by the knowledge that he was still higher than any Black man.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2021, 09:29 AM
 
Location: Salt Lake City
24,399 posts, read 25,057,311 times
Reputation: 11832
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmilf View Post
The Mormon founder Joseph Smith stated that Black were still under the Curse of Cain and the Curse of Ham and therefore all Blacks should be held in slavery. While Smith later recanted, upon his death Brigham Young still supported slavery, claiming that it was the will of God that Blacks be enslaved.
I would appreciate some actual quotes to corroborate these statements. I suspect you got this information from an unreliable and biased source. Joseph Smith actually ran for President of the United States (a fact that few people know today). Part of his platform was a plan to eliminate slavery. He suggested we “pay every man a reasonable price for his slaves out of the surplus revenue arising from the sale of public lands, and from the deduction of pay from members of Congress.”

To be honest, there is a history of racism in the LDS Church. It is not, however, as you have presented it.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2021, 09:59 AM
 
30,756 posts, read 29,518,851 times
Reputation: 11654
Quote:
Originally Posted by webster View Post
That is a bit misleading. According to the 1860 census, the confederacy’s 11 states had 316,632 slave owners out of a free population of 5,582,222. That's about 5.6% percent of the free population.

But slave ownership was usually by the patriarch of the family and the entire family benefited from the ownership. When family units and the free people in them are counted over 30 % of the free families in the confederacy owned slaves. That means that every third white person had a direct benefit of owning slaves.

That is only part of the story in an economy which was dependent on slavery. A very simple example is a business where the owner did not own slaves yet whose business exported cotton (Richmond is a deep sea port even now) or which sold goods to a slave owning family whose wealth was dependent on slave labor.

https://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/...tates-in-1860/

Slavery was
I've read that about 30% of families in the slave-holding states owned at least one slave. So it wasn't universal but it was fairly common.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top