- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Only 1.5% of Americans owned slaves at the height of chattel slavery.
Posted on 10/24/25 at 2:23 pm to Bass Tiger
Posted on 10/24/25 at 2:23 pm to Bass Tiger
quote:
chattel slavery
I don't get this distinction.
Isn't this redundant?
Isn't all slavery chattel slavery?
Edit: yep it's white progressive framing trying to pretend that what America did with their slaves was much worse than what other countries did with their slaves.
It's bullshite.
This post was edited on 10/24/25 at 2:25 pm
1
Posted on 10/24/25 at 3:08 pm to Bass Tiger
quote:
even though 360k Union soldiers died ending chattel slavery)
Posted on 10/24/25 at 3:12 pm to Bass Tiger
Where my reparations at white demon?
Posted on 10/24/25 at 4:23 pm to TigerAxeOK
quote:Say what?
At the time of the passage of the 13th Amendment, all but nine Southern States voted to pass the Amendment. Those nine States were controlled by Democrats who fled to the North after the end of the Civil War to seek different employment after their slaves were freed.
They were replaced by many Republicans from the North because there was now a labor vacuum in the South and Northerners were happy to see the opportunities to make some coin in Southern States.
18 (northern) states ratified the 13th before Appomattox. Then, before the end of the war, a couple of Confederate state legislatures ratified the 13th, under the threat of the guns of occupying Yankee armies.
After Appomattox, a few more Southern states ratified, based upon Andrew Johnson's promises that they would be able to retain a form of peonage, in place of formal slavery. In particular, Johnson promised (in person to the governor, in several cases) that each state would be able to set its own laws on the matter, so long as the result was not outright "slavery." Several state legislatures bought what Johnson was selling.
The bulk of the remaining Southern states ratified the 13th after passage of the various pieces of Reconstruction legislation prevented most White Southern men from voting for about a decade.
There was NEVER a significant migration of Southern Whites to the Northern states until WW2, when many Southerners moved north to work in the defense factories.
quote:Because it never happened. Not during the 19th century, anyway.
This "flip" that happened is not-surprisingly left untaught in classrooms and the history books.
This post was edited on 10/24/25 at 5:08 pm
Posted on 10/24/25 at 4:38 pm to Gus007
quote:I recommend going beyond internet memes when attempting to learn history.
According to Google, the two largest slave owners was a black in puth (South?) Carolina, named Johnson and a black in Louisiana named, Antoine Dubuclet, Jr.: The Creole Savior of Louisiana
The free Black "Johnson" that you reference may be "Anthony Johnson," but he lived in 17th century Virginia, not 19th century South Carolina. He is not known for being the "largest" slave owner in Virginia. Instead, he is known for obtaining one of the first court rulings converting an African's indenture into outright slavery. (In the 17th century, most Africans were initially brought to the western hemisphere as indentured servants).
The South Carolinian that you reference is probably William Ellison, but he was not REMOTELY the largest slave owner in South Carolina. He was the largest BLACK slave owner, owning 53 slaves at the time of the Civil War. The largest overall slave owner in the state was a White man named was Joshua John Ward. Ward owned approximately 1200 slaves at the time of the Civil War (20x more than Ellison) There were many dozens of South Carolina White slave owners who owned fewer slaves than Ward, but more than Ellison. As an aside, Ellison's daughter did marry a man named Johnson, but he was not a slave owner.
As to Louisiana, Antoine Duboclet (a Black man) was not remotely the largest slave owner in the state. At the outset of the Civil War, he owned approximately 100 slaves. The largest slave owner in Louisiana was John Burnside (a White man), and he owned approximately 750 slaves at the start of the war. Again, there were many dozens of (White) slave owners with holdings somewhere between Duboclet and Burnside.
Of course, none of that would justify payment of reparations to American Blacks in the 21st Century. The very notion of such reparations is ridiculous. But you don't need false historical claims to prove that axiom.
This post was edited on 10/24/25 at 4:47 pm
Posted on 10/24/25 at 4:39 pm to TheHarahanian
quote:
Most of the population was in the north, and some slave owners lived in the north so the percentage was not zero there.
Let's also acknowledge that Northern slave owners weren't altruistic to the plight of slaves. They rarely freed their slaves. Most were sold to plantations in the South, hence the old saying "being sold down the river"
And even those that were freed in the North weren't allowed to own property and made life difficult in many States (aka Black Laws). Jim Crow started in the North.
The point is neither the North, nor the South really gave a damn about the humanity of black people.
Posted on 10/24/25 at 5:45 pm to Azkiger
quote:No. There are dozens of variances upon the theme of slavery in general. Some forms last only one generation. Some provide extensive protections to the "rights" of slaves, including enshrining rights to property ownership and the like and strict limits upon corporal punishment. Historically, some forms of slavery even allowed a slave to own slaves himself.quote:I don't get this distinction.
chattel slavery
Isn't this redundant?
Isn't all slavery chattel slavery?
The 18th-19th century form of Western Hemisphere chattel slavery was among the most severe on the historical spectrum.
Posted on 10/24/25 at 8:51 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
No. There are dozens of variances upon the theme of slavery in general. Some forms last only one generation. Some provide extensive protections to the "rights" of slaves, including enshrining rights to property ownership and the like and strict limits upon corporal punishment. Historically, some forms of slavery even allowed a slave to own slaves himself.
The 18th-19th century form of Western Hemisphere chattel slavery was among the most severe on the historical spectrum.
Stop.
Many african tribes would sacrifice their slaves.
Posted on 10/24/25 at 8:55 pm to Azkiger
quote:I would like to see your documentation of this assertion.
Many african tribes would sacrifice their slaves.
Historically, sacrifice of war captives has been quite common, but slaves have generally been considered too valuable for that.
Of course, there are exceptions (such as the death of a ruler), so I would love to see your data.
This post was edited on 10/24/25 at 8:57 pm
Posted on 10/24/25 at 9:22 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
I would like to see your documentation of this assertion.
Start with Dahomey, same time period as slavery in America. They'd sacrifice thousands of slaves during their Annual Customs festival.
quote:
Historically, sacrifice of war captives has been quite common, but slaves have generally been considered too valuable for that.
You're not aware that a large source of slaves were war captives?Posted on 10/24/25 at 9:38 pm to Azkiger
quote:Of course.
You're not aware that a large source of slaves were war captives?
But (pretty much everywhere on the planet) they would start as war captives, and some of them would thereafter be made into slaves. Others would be killed rather than retained for their labor (slavery). For example, most Mesoamerican cultures did not even TRY to enslave most war captives. They just immediately put them to sacrifice.
For the most part and in most places, once forced into docility and trained with some useful skill, a former war captive would be considered too valuable to randomly kill.
Again, there are exceptions to every rule of thumb.
I've not had time for extensive research, obviously, but my cursory search says that the victims of human sacrifice at the Dahomey Customs Festival were almost entirely comprised of foreign war captives, not domestic slaves. But it does appear that some small percentage of the victims WERE domestic slaves.
It is interesting to note that Dahomey was one of the nation-states in which the children of slaves in many cases DID NOT inherit the slave status of their parents.
The point is that slavery has historically just NOT been as binary as the poster above suggested.
This post was edited on 10/24/25 at 9:48 pm
Posted on 10/24/25 at 9:47 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
but my cursory search says that the victims of human sacrifice at the Dahomey Customs Festival were almost entirely comprised of foreign war captives
That's where their slaves came from.
They'd wage war and raids *TO* capture people for slavery.
quote:
It is interesting to note that Dahomey was one of the nation-states in which the children of slaves in many cases DID NOT inherit the slave status of their parents.
"In many cases" = the mother was free.
I'm not sure why you're trying to blur the lines here.
The form of slavery that occurred in America wasn't much different than the way slavery was practiced around most of the world, most of the time.
You can find minor differences, sure, but to claim it was among the most severe is only true in the sense that most forms of slavery were quite extreme.
Posted on 10/24/25 at 10:27 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
But (pretty much everywhere on the planet) they would start as war captives, and some of them would thereafter be made into slaves. Others would be killed rather than retained for their labor (slavery). For example, most Mesoamerican cultures did not even TRY to enslave most war captives. They just immediately put them to sacrifice.
So many civilizations had the same or worse slavery traditions than America did. Got it.
Posted on 10/24/25 at 11:43 pm to Azkiger
Every single person alive today has 64 or more direct ancestors from that era.
How many people know who they all are?
How many people know who they all are?
Posted on 10/25/25 at 4:45 am to Bass Tiger
First off, I am against reparations. Secondly, why do so many people not understand what a reparations claim would look like? A reparations claim would be against the US government, not individual Amerivans, or white people in general.
So to say you were not alive then or that your ancestors did not own slaves does not matter. The claim is against the US government for allowing slavery. If reparations were paid (and I hope to God that they are not), all taxpayers would be paying this...even black people.
So to say you were not alive then or that your ancestors did not own slaves does not matter. The claim is against the US government for allowing slavery. If reparations were paid (and I hope to God that they are not), all taxpayers would be paying this...even black people.
Posted on 10/25/25 at 7:20 am to Bass Tiger
quote:
Only 1.5% of Americans owned slaves at the height of chattel slavery.
And how many of those were black slave owners?
Posted on 10/25/25 at 7:37 am to HagaDaga
quote:Approximately 1% of that 1.5% … or 0.015% of Americans in the mid-19th Century.
Only 1.5% of Americans owned slaves at the height of chattel slavery.quote:
And how many of those were black slave owners?
A rounding error on a rounding error on a rounding error.
Posted on 10/25/25 at 7:41 am to RelentlessAnalysis
But yet proof that it's not just a honkey thang.
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News