re: Just a reminder that only 6% of the Southern population owned slaves

Schools tend to focus on the fact the Civil War was fought for slavery when in reality it was fought for states rights. It was one of the first time the federal government was actively trying to tell states what they HAD to do and many states felt it was an overreach of government. The call of slavery was the government's justification to assume more power in the United States. Much like 9/11 was their justification to start watching citizens more actively.

Yeah people screw up that stat (although I think it's mostly irrelevant to the current manufactured issues) I think. Last time I bothered to look into it, the sort of surprising stat was that a tiny tiny percentage of Southerners owned statistically almost all of the slaves.

So even if a significant percentage of Southerners at one point did own at least one slave, the % of slaves was concentrated on bigger plantations.

To me the more relevant history is in the 20th Century, and the most relevant question is, what freaking "systems" need changing and how (in what way)???

quote:

---

The census numbers are correct /conducted by the US Marshalls. 

---

False.

Old census numbers are wildly inaccurate.

quote:

---

Because it wasn't white people who controlled and owned the majority of slaves.

---

Since we’re talking about the US and the civil war is love to hear who did own the slaves if not what people

most segregated cities maps by Business Insider

Just a reminder that NOW, the only relevant time for discussion, there a slew of cities where holier than thou leftist assholes live that are the most segregated in all the land.

and this is from "Business Insider", that leftists like to cite because "Business" sounds like it is an "even Business Insider says" sort of thing, when in fact it is a leftist rag

quote:

---

when in fact it is a leftist rag

---

It's so bad. I called out some terrible reporter on her nutrition beat last year. It was shocking how poorly researched her pieces were and when I pointed it out she flat out lied about her "sources." She actually did write a "counterpoint" piece after I railed her. Still awful.

American Indians owned slaves and took them to the Indian Nations during the Trail of Tears. Black people owned slaves as did Yankees.
The Emancipation Proclamation was a pr gimmick as a Constitutional Amendment was required to change the law. Plus the EP did not free slaves in DC or anywhere outside the South.

quote:

---

And it’s silly to argue that the civil war wasn’t about slavery, it absolutely was

---

But, it wasn't solely.

quote:

---

There is no way in hell those percentages were right. Maybe, it was distorted for some political reason.

---

quote:

---

Even more revealing was their attachment to slavery. Among the enlistees in 1861, slightly more than one in ten owned slaves personally. This compared favorably to the Confederacy as a whole, in which one in every twenty white persons owned slaves. Yet more than one in every four volunteers that first year lived with parents who were slaveholders. Combining those soldiers who owned slaves with those soldiers who lived with slaveholding family members, the proportion rose to 36 percent. That contrasted starkly with the 24.9 percent, or one in every four households, that owned slaves in the South, based on the 1860 census. Thus, volunteers in 1861 were 42 percent more likely to own slaves themselves or to live with family members who owned slaves than the general population.

---

quote:

---

The attachment to slavery, though, was even more powerful. One in every ten volunteers in 1861 did not own slaves themselves but lived in households headed by non family members who did. This figure, combined with the 36 percent who owned or whose family members owned slaves, indicated that almost one of every two 1861 recruits lived with slaveholders. Nor did the direct exposure stop there. Untold numbers of enlistees rented land from, sold crops to, or worked for slaveholders. In the final tabulation, the vast majority of the volunteers of 1861 had a direct connection to slavery. For slaveholder and nonslaveholder alike, slavery lay at the heart of the Confederate nation. The fact that their paper notes frequently depicted scenes of slaves demonstrated the institution's central role and symbolic value to the Confederacy.

More than half the officers in 1861 owned slaves, and none of them lived with family members who were slaveholders. Their substantial median combined wealth ($5,600) and average combined wealth ($8,979) mirrored that high proportion of slave ownership. By comparison, only one in twelve enlisted men owned slaves, but when those who lived with family slave owners were included, the ratio exceeded one in three. That was 40 percent above the tally for all households in the Old South. With the inclusion of those who resided in nonfamily slaveholding households, the direct exposure to bondage among enlisted personnel was four of every nine. Enlisted men owned less wealth, with combined levels of $1,125 for the median and $7,079 for the average, but those numbers indicated a fairly comfortable standard of living. Proportionately, far more officers were likely to be professionals in civil life, and their age difference, about four years older than enlisted men, reflected their greater accumulated wealth.

---

quote:

---

In the vast majority of cases, each household (termed a "family" in the 1860 document, even when the group consisted of unrelated people living in the same residence) that owned slaves had only one slaveholder listed, the head of the household. It is thus possible to compare the number of slaveholders in a given state to the numbers of families/households, and get a rough estimation of the proportion of free households that owned at least one slave. The numbers varies considerably, ranging from 1 in 5 in Arkansas to 1 in 2 in Mississippi and South Carolina. In the eleven states that formed the Confederacy, there were in aggregate just over 1 million free households, which between them represented 316,632 slaveholders—meaning that just under one-third of households in the Confederate States counted among its assets at least one human being.

---

Small Truth Papering Over a Big Lie

quote:

---

Schools tend to focus on the fact the Civil War was fought for slavery when in reality it was fought for states rights. It was one of the first time the federal government was actively trying to tell states what they HAD to do and many states felt it was an overreach of government. The call of slavery was the government's justification to assume more power in the United States. Much like 9/11 was their justification to start watching citizens more actively.

---

This argument is rendered as the complete bullshite it is if you just remember the Fugitive Slave Act.

You know - the FEDERAL LAW which required American citizens and official in EVERY state to cooperate in returning apprehended slaves to their owners.

All of the "states rights" assholes sure didn't seem to mind this massive federal overreach.

The truth is that union bent over backwards to accommodate the south - which always had disproportionate representation in its favor.

frick the "southern cause".