dagblog - Comments for "America's Richest Enslavers"

When freedom came after the

rmrd0000 — Mon, 16 Sep 2019 16:03:48 +0000

In reply to America's Richest Enslavers

When freedom came after the Civil War, blacks went through the painful process of trying to reunite with stolen family members.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/09/07/my-mother-was-sold-from-me-after-slavery-the-desperate-search-for-loved-ones-in-last-seen-ads/

Cruelty was the purpose of the slave trade just as cruelty is the purpose of locking children in concentration camps. The mindset of the enslavers continues today. Companies are profiting from the enslaver mindset

https://wearyourvoicemag.com/news-politics/companies-profit-migrants-detention

Alright, maybe my census

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 15 Sep 2019 02:29:21 +0000

In reply to The Smithsonian article I

Alright, maybe my census numbers weren't quite accurate, didn't seem to reflect that level of population shift.

The Smithsonian article I

artappraiser — Sat, 14 Sep 2019 22:05:38 +0000

In reply to My question was where the

The Smithsonian article I linked to goes into depth on this. How many on the coast didn't need all the slaves they had and were eager to sell some. A detail of interest I recall from the piece is that Virginia and Maryland slaves had a good "brand" as not being overworked, less likely to be trouble, therefore were considered more valuable....along the same lines, at point of sale in the deep south, buyers looked for whipping scars and those that had them were less valuable as it indicated they were uppity and not happy with their lot as slaves. My point: these people did not think like we do today.

The Smithsonian article

artappraiser — Sat, 14 Sep 2019 21:59:44 +0000

In reply to Slave population may have

The Smithsonian article emphasizes the economic situation, that these guys were gamblers on the market of human capital, trying to take advantage of the explosion in cotton farming in the south when the tobacco farming had no growth and people didn't need so many slaves there. (Population of slaves growing naturally by birth, small farms in Virginia didn't need all of them and they needed cash.) It goes into detail how they heavily solicited to buy in the tobacco farming areas and then tried to sell in the deep south. But also, later in the article, it talks about how when the finally got their human cargo to the deep South, the price of cotton had fallen a great deal and they didn't make out so good. The overall point that comes across is more than the buying and selling of humans, but of their trade-ability as a commodity at the time. It is also interesting in that the role of auctions in the histories seems to have been overplayed, these guys bought and sold humans more like they were automobiles, they presented them all cleaned up and dressed and sorted into types, and then they and potential buyers with certain needs would dicker. Certain needs interestingly included "fancy girls" who appeared to be very expensive...

My question was where the

PeraclesPlease — Sat, 14 Sep 2019 21:34:36 +0000

In reply to Slave population may have

My question was where the transferred slaves came from if Virginia & Kentucky were still growing, while Maryland was barely falling - i.e. a tiny percentage of 800,000.

Slave population may have

NCD — Sat, 14 Sep 2019 21:16:14 +0000

In reply to Don't get the numbers - slave

Slave population may have increased in Maryland and Virginia, but exploded in the southwestern, and western states, like Louisiana, Alabama, Missouri, Mississippi, Georgia.

The states where from 1800-1860 slave population skyrocketed were the region of cotton production.

Those slaves came from "internal relocation" of slaves from the east, which was legal "trade in property.' They were marched overland in chains, or crammed in slave ships going to New Orleans.

Baptist in his book has figures that between 1800 and 1859, over 800,000 slaves were sold and moved to cotton slave camps. Of course, younger slaves were more valuable, and Edward Baptist (The Half has Never Been Told) notes records show women usually exceeded men in the crucial pounds per day of cotton harvesting, their daily output being on average twice that of free labor field hands after the war, workers who were not under the whip and torture.

Selling slaves financially saved many rural Virginian enslavers with dropping incomes and depleted farm lands.

Don't get the numbers - slave

PeraclesPlease — Sat, 14 Sep 2019 19:32:00 +0000

In reply to America's Richest Enslavers

Don't get the numbers - slave population was increasing in Virginia and ~~Maryland~~ Kentucky, and only decreasing by 10k in ~~Kentucky~~ .Maryland

(The Atlantic article talks about some million tramsferred)

https://www.uscria.com/slave_pop_by_state.pdf

Is it total coincidence that

artappraiser — Sat, 14 Sep 2019 19:14:37 +0000

In reply to America's Richest Enslavers

Is it total coincidence that I just read the much longer 2015 Smithsonian story by Edward Ball on the very same yesterday because it was pointed out by someone on Twitter that I respect in their choice of reading matter? No, because buzz creates buzz, making us turn our eyes to that subject; it's the effect of the 1619 Project and similar.

Just beware of the "in fashion" effect. What was neglected in teaching history in the past doesn't mean to put all the eggs in that basket. It's not a zero sum game, teaching history. As a matter of fact, part of the job of historians is to see the patterns of when some subject is being over-emphasized due to contemporary populist impulses...or you keep repeating the error of neglecting areas of importance.

That said, any buzz that interests anyone in history is better than no interest at all.