On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 21:11:28 +0700, Jophn B. slocomb
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 07:40:52 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:16:31 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:41:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 08:16:03 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 04:35:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:


http://www.vice.com/read/hey-v12n5

An interesting article. Of course the first line in the article says
that it is for people in "elementary school" which, in the U.S. seems
to be the first 4 grads in the school system. the Wiki says for
children between the ages of 4 - 11.

Which apparently says something about either your reading, or
comprehensive, ability.

--
cheers,

John B.

I posted it because we have Leftists here and we all know that they
are dummer than dirt. Now do you have a problem with the Contents of
the article..or are you simply bitching because it explained things so
the Leftist could understand it?

Hummm?

Gunner

No, I didn't spend a lot of time studying the article, but it seemed
to say that at various times slavery has been a part of almost every
society, which, of course, is true. After winning the Battle of
Alesia, September, 52 BC, Julius Caesar gave each soldier in his army
one of the captured as a slave. This amounted to something like forty
thousand slaves.... from a single campaign. In his eight years of
campaigning against the Gaul's, he was said to have enslaved more than
a million people.

What the article seemed to ignore was that in nearly every society
slavery died out primarily because slaves, while cost effective in a
purely agricultural environment are somewhat less efficient when the
society becomes less dependent on agriculture and begins to depend
more on machinery.

That's not what happened in the US, however. Slavery died out because
the federal government prevented westward expansion of slavery, which
provoked a war that led to the outlawing of slavery.

Federal resistance to expansion of slavery limited the growth of
cotton agriculture. In fact, it guarenteed that it would become less
profitable, because cotton wears the hell out of the soil, and
southern plantations were already beginning to lose productivity.

I think that you are ignoring the decrease in slavery in the northern,
industrializing, States. The New England states, Maine - Connecticut,
had a slave population of 2,703 in 1790 and in 1820 it was 145. The
Middle States, New York - Delaware, had 45,910 in 1790 and by 1820
were at 22,305.

The Southern States, in contrast, went from 648,131 in 1790 to
1,319,208 in 1820.

Yet by 1860, a young strong male slave was valued at approx $40k
(todays price) and less than 13% of Southerners were slave
owners...with the top 30 slave owners/sellers...being
themselves...black.


The demand for cotton shy rocketed from the late 18th century with the
dev elopement of the spinning jenny, spinning mule, and the power
loom, while at the same time the Cotton Gin was invented in the U.S.

As for the cotton fields losing production:
In 1790 total cotton production in the U.S. was 3,135 bales of raw
cotton. In 1800 it was 73,145, and at ten year intervals it was
177,838, 334,378, 731,452, 1,346,252, 2,133,851, 3,837,402 in 1860.

Cotton was priced at $0.13/lb. in 1820 for a 225 lb. bale. so 1860
production (in 1860 prices) was about $112,244,008 which in 1820 was a
lot of money. so the cotton economy grew from ~ $91,698 in 1790 to
$112,244,008 in 1860 and while I do not have numbers on the 1961 crop
I have read references that it was larger than the 1960 crop.

It might also be of interest to note that in 1820 only some 42.5% of
U.S. labor was employed in non agricultural businesses but by 1860
that number had increased to 86.2%.

Ayup..slavery was ripe for destruction and if the Civil War hadnt
happened..slavery would have been largely abandoned by 1880...simply
because the costs of owning slaves was too great..and the millions of
immigrants coming to America..primarily Irish and Chinese..would work
cheaper than slaves

Gunner

On Fri, 03 Jul 2015 15:12:27 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 21:11:28 +0700, Jophn B. slocomb
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 07:40:52 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:16:31 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:41:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 08:16:03 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 04:35:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:


http://www.vice.com/read/hey-v12n5

An interesting article. Of course the first line in the article says
that it is for people in "elementary school" which, in the U.S. seems
to be the first 4 grads in the school system. the Wiki says for
children between the ages of 4 - 11.

Which apparently says something about either your reading, or
comprehensive, ability.

--
cheers,

John B.

I posted it because we have Leftists here and we all know that they
are dummer than dirt. Now do you have a problem with the Contents of
the article..or are you simply bitching because it explained things so
the Leftist could understand it?

Hummm?

Gunner

No, I didn't spend a lot of time studying the article, but it seemed
to say that at various times slavery has been a part of almost every
society, which, of course, is true. After winning the Battle of
Alesia, September, 52 BC, Julius Caesar gave each soldier in his army
one of the captured as a slave. This amounted to something like forty
thousand slaves.... from a single campaign. In his eight years of
campaigning against the Gaul's, he was said to have enslaved more than
a million people.

What the article seemed to ignore was that in nearly every society
slavery died out primarily because slaves, while cost effective in a
purely agricultural environment are somewhat less efficient when the
society becomes less dependent on agriculture and begins to depend
more on machinery.

That's not what happened in the US, however. Slavery died out because
the federal government prevented westward expansion of slavery, which
provoked a war that led to the outlawing of slavery.

Federal resistance to expansion of slavery limited the growth of
cotton agriculture. In fact, it guarenteed that it would become less
profitable, because cotton wears the hell out of the soil, and
southern plantations were already beginning to lose productivity.

I think that you are ignoring the decrease in slavery in the northern,
industrializing, States. The New England states, Maine - Connecticut,
had a slave population of 2,703 in 1790 and in 1820 it was 145. The
Middle States, New York - Delaware, had 45,910 in 1790 and by 1820
were at 22,305.

The Southern States, in contrast, went from 648,131 in 1790 to
1,319,208 in 1820.

Yet by 1860, a young strong male slave was valued at approx $40k
(todays price) and less than 13% of Southerners were slave
owners...with the top 30 slave owners/sellers...being
themselves...black.


While it is probably that some Blacks did own slaves, where did you
get "the with the top 30 slave owners/sellers...being
themselves...black"


The demand for cotton shy rocketed from the late 18th century with the
dev elopement of the spinning jenny, spinning mule, and the power
loom, while at the same time the Cotton Gin was invented in the U.S.

As for the cotton fields losing production:
In 1790 total cotton production in the U.S. was 3,135 bales of raw
cotton. In 1800 it was 73,145, and at ten year intervals it was
177,838, 334,378, 731,452, 1,346,252, 2,133,851, 3,837,402 in 1860.

Cotton was priced at $0.13/lb. in 1820 for a 225 lb. bale. so 1860
production (in 1860 prices) was about $112,244,008 which in 1820 was a
lot of money. so the cotton economy grew from ~ $91,698 in 1790 to
$112,244,008 in 1860 and while I do not have numbers on the 1961 crop
I have read references that it was larger than the 1960 crop.

It might also be of interest to note that in 1820 only some 42.5% of
U.S. labor was employed in non agricultural businesses but by 1860
that number had increased to 86.2%.

Ayup..slavery was ripe for destruction and if the Civil War hadnt
happened..slavery would have been largely abandoned by 1880...simply
because the costs of owning slaves was too great..and the millions of
immigrants coming to America..primarily Irish and Chinese..would work
cheaper than slaves


I'm not so sure. The majority of the immigrants were landing in the
North and the numbers of indentured whites was decreasing also as the
cost of immigration had decreased sharply so I suspect that chopping
cotton wasn't exactly what the average Irish planned on :-)

But it is true that Chinese laborers in the West were cheaper than
slaves would have been.

As for the cost of owning slaves, while the cost of a skilled
craftsman (blacksmith) slave in the 1860's was about $800 (1860
prices) the income derived from him would be in the neighborhood of
$80,000 (1860 prices) and if the slave was a plantation worker the
overhead of owning him/her was likely negligible.

Average weekly pay for an unskilled workingman in 1860 was in the
nine dollar a week range so 800/9 = 463 so the purchase cost of a
slave was less than 2 years salary for a free worker.

Remember that the cotton economy was such that the value of cotton
exports was more than all other U.S. exports combined and that the
U.S. supplied about 2/3rds of the world's cotton.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 07:00:11 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Fri, 03 Jul 2015 15:12:27 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 21:11:28 +0700, Jophn B. slocomb
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 07:40:52 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:16:31 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:41:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 08:16:03 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 04:35:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:


http://www.vice.com/read/hey-v12n5

An interesting article. Of course the first line in the article says
that it is for people in "elementary school" which, in the U.S. seems
to be the first 4 grads in the school system. the Wiki says for
children between the ages of 4 - 11.

Which apparently says something about either your reading, or
comprehensive, ability.

--
cheers,

John B.

I posted it because we have Leftists here and we all know that they
are dummer than dirt. Now do you have a problem with the Contents of
the article..or are you simply bitching because it explained things so
the Leftist could understand it?

Hummm?

Gunner

No, I didn't spend a lot of time studying the article, but it seemed
to say that at various times slavery has been a part of almost every
society, which, of course, is true. After winning the Battle of
Alesia, September, 52 BC, Julius Caesar gave each soldier in his army
one of the captured as a slave. This amounted to something like forty
thousand slaves.... from a single campaign. In his eight years of
campaigning against the Gaul's, he was said to have enslaved more than
a million people.

What the article seemed to ignore was that in nearly every society
slavery died out primarily because slaves, while cost effective in a
purely agricultural environment are somewhat less efficient when the
society becomes less dependent on agriculture and begins to depend
more on machinery.

That's not what happened in the US, however. Slavery died out because
the federal government prevented westward expansion of slavery, which
provoked a war that led to the outlawing of slavery.

Federal resistance to expansion of slavery limited the growth of
cotton agriculture. In fact, it guarenteed that it would become less
profitable, because cotton wears the hell out of the soil, and
southern plantations were already beginning to lose productivity.

I think that you are ignoring the decrease in slavery in the northern,
industrializing, States. The New England states, Maine - Connecticut,
had a slave population of 2,703 in 1790 and in 1820 it was 145. The
Middle States, New York - Delaware, had 45,910 in 1790 and by 1820
were at 22,305.

The Southern States, in contrast, went from 648,131 in 1790 to
1,319,208 in 1820.

Yet by 1860, a young strong male slave was valued at approx $40k
(todays price) and less than 13% of Southerners were slave
owners...with the top 30 slave owners/sellers...being
themselves...black.


While it is probably that some Blacks did own slaves, where did you
get "the with the top 30 slave owners/sellers...being
themselves...black"

http://slaverebellion.org/index.php?...k-slave-owners

Lots and lots more out there..need more?



The demand for cotton shy rocketed from the late 18th century with the
dev elopement of the spinning jenny, spinning mule, and the power
loom, while at the same time the Cotton Gin was invented in the U.S.

As for the cotton fields losing production:
In 1790 total cotton production in the U.S. was 3,135 bales of raw
cotton. In 1800 it was 73,145, and at ten year intervals it was
177,838, 334,378, 731,452, 1,346,252, 2,133,851, 3,837,402 in 1860.

Cotton was priced at $0.13/lb. in 1820 for a 225 lb. bale. so 1860
production (in 1860 prices) was about $112,244,008 which in 1820 was a
lot of money. so the cotton economy grew from ~ $91,698 in 1790 to
$112,244,008 in 1860 and while I do not have numbers on the 1961 crop
I have read references that it was larger than the 1960 crop.

It might also be of interest to note that in 1820 only some 42.5% of
U.S. labor was employed in non agricultural businesses but by 1860
that number had increased to 86.2%.

Ayup..slavery was ripe for destruction and if the Civil War hadnt
happened..slavery would have been largely abandoned by 1880...simply
because the costs of owning slaves was too great..and the millions of
immigrants coming to America..primarily Irish and Chinese..would work
cheaper than slaves


I'm not so sure. The majority of the immigrants were landing in the
North and the numbers of indentured whites was decreasing also as the
cost of immigration had decreased sharply so I suspect that chopping
cotton wasn't exactly what the average Irish planned on :-)


The Irish who left NYC had few choices. They could and did..chop
cotton. So did the Chinese..who were better known for building the
railroads.
But it is true that Chinese laborers in the West were cheaper than
slaves would have been.

As for the cost of owning slaves, while the cost of a skilled
craftsman (blacksmith) slave in the 1860's was about $800 (1860
prices) the income derived from him would be in the neighborhood of
$80,000 (1860 prices) and if the slave was a plantation worker the
overhead of owning him/her was likely negligible.

Average weekly pay for an unskilled workingman in 1860 was in the
nine dollar a week range so 800/9 = 463 so the purchase cost of a
slave was less than 2 years salary for a free worker.

Remember that the cotton economy was such that the value of cotton
exports was more than all other U.S. exports combined and that the
U.S. supplied about 2/3rds of the world's cotton.

I suggest you review other sources for your numbers

https://www.google.com/search?q=cost...utf-8&oe=utf-8


And you may wish to change your ignorance about the Irish slaves as
well

https://www.google.com/search?q=iris...utf-8&oe=utf-8

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 01:49:11 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 07:00:11 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Fri, 03 Jul 2015 15:12:27 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 21:11:28 +0700, Jophn B. slocomb
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 07:40:52 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:16:31 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:41:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 08:16:03 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 04:35:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:


http://www.vice.com/read/hey-v12n5

An interesting article. Of course the first line in the article says
that it is for people in "elementary school" which, in the U.S. seems
to be the first 4 grads in the school system. the Wiki says for
children between the ages of 4 - 11.

Which apparently says something about either your reading, or
comprehensive, ability.

--
cheers,

John B.

I posted it because we have Leftists here and we all know that they
are dummer than dirt. Now do you have a problem with the Contents of
the article..or are you simply bitching because it explained things so
the Leftist could understand it?

Hummm?

Gunner

No, I didn't spend a lot of time studying the article, but it seemed
to say that at various times slavery has been a part of almost every
society, which, of course, is true. After winning the Battle of
Alesia, September, 52 BC, Julius Caesar gave each soldier in his army
one of the captured as a slave. This amounted to something like forty
thousand slaves.... from a single campaign. In his eight years of
campaigning against the Gaul's, he was said to have enslaved more than
a million people.

What the article seemed to ignore was that in nearly every society
slavery died out primarily because slaves, while cost effective in a
purely agricultural environment are somewhat less efficient when the
society becomes less dependent on agriculture and begins to depend
more on machinery.

That's not what happened in the US, however. Slavery died out because
the federal government prevented westward expansion of slavery, which
provoked a war that led to the outlawing of slavery.

Federal resistance to expansion of slavery limited the growth of
cotton agriculture. In fact, it guarenteed that it would become less
profitable, because cotton wears the hell out of the soil, and
southern plantations were already beginning to lose productivity.

I think that you are ignoring the decrease in slavery in the northern,
industrializing, States. The New England states, Maine - Connecticut,
had a slave population of 2,703 in 1790 and in 1820 it was 145. The
Middle States, New York - Delaware, had 45,910 in 1790 and by 1820
were at 22,305.

The Southern States, in contrast, went from 648,131 in 1790 to
1,319,208 in 1820.

Yet by 1860, a young strong male slave was valued at approx $40k
(todays price) and less than 13% of Southerners were slave
owners...with the top 30 slave owners/sellers...being
themselves...black.


While it is probably that some Blacks did own slaves, where did you
get "the with the top 30 slave owners/sellers...being
themselves...black"

http://slaverebellion.org/index.php?...k-slave-owners

Lots and lots more out there..need more?


Yes, I believe some more might be useful. Your reference states that
there were a number of black slave owners in Louisiana in 1860 and
lists approximately 550 slaves owned,,,, out of a slave population of
some 331,726. So according to your reference Blacks owned some 0.1% of
the slaves in Louisiana.

I must say, that is something to really get excited about!




The demand for cotton shy rocketed from the late 18th century with the
dev elopement of the spinning jenny, spinning mule, and the power
loom, while at the same time the Cotton Gin was invented in the U.S.

As for the cotton fields losing production:
In 1790 total cotton production in the U.S. was 3,135 bales of raw
cotton. In 1800 it was 73,145, and at ten year intervals it was
177,838, 334,378, 731,452, 1,346,252, 2,133,851, 3,837,402 in 1860.

Cotton was priced at $0.13/lb. in 1820 for a 225 lb. bale. so 1860
production (in 1860 prices) was about $112,244,008 which in 1820 was a
lot of money. so the cotton economy grew from ~ $91,698 in 1790 to
$112,244,008 in 1860 and while I do not have numbers on the 1961 crop
I have read references that it was larger than the 1960 crop.

It might also be of interest to note that in 1820 only some 42.5% of
U.S. labor was employed in non agricultural businesses but by 1860
that number had increased to 86.2%.

Ayup..slavery was ripe for destruction and if the Civil War hadnt
happened..slavery would have been largely abandoned by 1880...simply
because the costs of owning slaves was too great..and the millions of
immigrants coming to America..primarily Irish and Chinese..would work
cheaper than slaves


I'm not so sure. The majority of the immigrants were landing in the
North and the numbers of indentured whites was decreasing also as the
cost of immigration had decreased sharply so I suspect that chopping
cotton wasn't exactly what the average Irish planned on :-)


The Irish who left NYC had few choices. They could and did..chop
cotton. So did the Chinese..who were better known for building the
railroads.
But it is true that Chinese laborers in the West were cheaper than
slaves would have been.

As for the cost of owning slaves, while the cost of a skilled
craftsman (blacksmith) slave in the 1860's was about $800 (1860
prices) the income derived from him would be in the neighborhood of
$80,000 (1860 prices) and if the slave was a plantation worker the
overhead of owning him/her was likely negligible.

Average weekly pay for an unskilled workingman in 1860 was in the
nine dollar a week range so 800/9 = 463 so the purchase cost of a
slave was less than 2 years salary for a free worker.

Remember that the cotton economy was such that the value of cotton
exports was more than all other U.S. exports combined and that the
U.S. supplied about 2/3rds of the world's cotton.

I suggest you review other sources for your numbers

https://www.google.com/search?q=cost...utf-8&oe=utf-8


And you may wish to change your ignorance about the Irish slaves as
well

https://www.google.com/search?q=iris...utf-8&oe=utf-8


Perhaps. But you need to read a bit more carefully. The article seems
to relate to places like Antigua and Montserrat.

"At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish
slaves", Virginia and New England. "In this decade, 52,000 Irish
(mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia.
Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to
the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children
be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers. They also
mention the West Indies, Barbados, and Jamaica. and then the mention
Virginia and New England."

"During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10
and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West
Indies, Virginia and New England."

Wow! But then we look at the population figures for New England or
Virginia, we don't see those numbers. For example the population of
New England in 1640 was 13,679, in 1650 it was 22,732 and in 1660 it
was 33,336. From 1650 to 1660 the population increased by some 10,600
people.

I suggest that the bulk of these "white slaves" were shipped to
English colonies in the Caribbean. Not the Americas.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:13:10 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 01:49:11 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 07:00:11 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Fri, 03 Jul 2015 15:12:27 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 21:11:28 +0700, Jophn B. slocomb
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 07:40:52 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:16:31 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:41:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 08:16:03 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 04:35:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:


http://www.vice.com/read/hey-v12n5

An interesting article. Of course the first line in the article says
that it is for people in "elementary school" which, in the U.S. seems
to be the first 4 grads in the school system. the Wiki says for
children between the ages of 4 - 11.

Which apparently says something about either your reading, or
comprehensive, ability.

--
cheers,

John B.

I posted it because we have Leftists here and we all know that they
are dummer than dirt. Now do you have a problem with the Contents of
the article..or are you simply bitching because it explained things so
the Leftist could understand it?

Hummm?

Gunner

No, I didn't spend a lot of time studying the article, but it seemed
to say that at various times slavery has been a part of almost every
society, which, of course, is true. After winning the Battle of
Alesia, September, 52 BC, Julius Caesar gave each soldier in his army
one of the captured as a slave. This amounted to something like forty
thousand slaves.... from a single campaign. In his eight years of
campaigning against the Gaul's, he was said to have enslaved more than
a million people.

What the article seemed to ignore was that in nearly every society
slavery died out primarily because slaves, while cost effective in a
purely agricultural environment are somewhat less efficient when the
society becomes less dependent on agriculture and begins to depend
more on machinery.

That's not what happened in the US, however. Slavery died out because
the federal government prevented westward expansion of slavery, which
provoked a war that led to the outlawing of slavery.

Federal resistance to expansion of slavery limited the growth of
cotton agriculture. In fact, it guarenteed that it would become less
profitable, because cotton wears the hell out of the soil, and
southern plantations were already beginning to lose productivity.

I think that you are ignoring the decrease in slavery in the northern,
industrializing, States. The New England states, Maine - Connecticut,
had a slave population of 2,703 in 1790 and in 1820 it was 145. The
Middle States, New York - Delaware, had 45,910 in 1790 and by 1820
were at 22,305.

The Southern States, in contrast, went from 648,131 in 1790 to
1,319,208 in 1820.

Yet by 1860, a young strong male slave was valued at approx $40k
(todays price) and less than 13% of Southerners were slave
owners...with the top 30 slave owners/sellers...being
themselves...black.


While it is probably that some Blacks did own slaves, where did you
get "the with the top 30 slave owners/sellers...being
themselves...black"

http://slaverebellion.org/index.php?...k-slave-owners

Lots and lots more out there..need more?


Yes, I believe some more might be useful. Your reference states that
there were a number of black slave owners in Louisiana in 1860 and
lists approximately 550 slaves owned,,,, out of a slave population of
some 331,726. So according to your reference Blacks owned some 0.1% of
the slaves in Louisiana.

I must say, that is something to really get excited about!




The demand for cotton shy rocketed from the late 18th century with the
dev elopement of the spinning jenny, spinning mule, and the power
loom, while at the same time the Cotton Gin was invented in the U.S.

As for the cotton fields losing production:
In 1790 total cotton production in the U.S. was 3,135 bales of raw
cotton. In 1800 it was 73,145, and at ten year intervals it was
177,838, 334,378, 731,452, 1,346,252, 2,133,851, 3,837,402 in 1860.

Cotton was priced at $0.13/lb. in 1820 for a 225 lb. bale. so 1860
production (in 1860 prices) was about $112,244,008 which in 1820 was a
lot of money. so the cotton economy grew from ~ $91,698 in 1790 to
$112,244,008 in 1860 and while I do not have numbers on the 1961 crop
I have read references that it was larger than the 1960 crop.

It might also be of interest to note that in 1820 only some 42.5% of
U.S. labor was employed in non agricultural businesses but by 1860
that number had increased to 86.2%.

Ayup..slavery was ripe for destruction and if the Civil War hadnt
happened..slavery would have been largely abandoned by 1880...simply
because the costs of owning slaves was too great..and the millions of
immigrants coming to America..primarily Irish and Chinese..would work
cheaper than slaves


I'm not so sure. The majority of the immigrants were landing in the
North and the numbers of indentured whites was decreasing also as the
cost of immigration had decreased sharply so I suspect that chopping
cotton wasn't exactly what the average Irish planned on :-)


The Irish who left NYC had few choices. They could and did..chop
cotton. So did the Chinese..who were better known for building the
railroads.
But it is true that Chinese laborers in the West were cheaper than
slaves would have been.

As for the cost of owning slaves, while the cost of a skilled
craftsman (blacksmith) slave in the 1860's was about $800 (1860
prices) the income derived from him would be in the neighborhood of
$80,000 (1860 prices) and if the slave was a plantation worker the
overhead of owning him/her was likely negligible.

Average weekly pay for an unskilled workingman in 1860 was in the
nine dollar a week range so 800/9 = 463 so the purchase cost of a
slave was less than 2 years salary for a free worker.

Remember that the cotton economy was such that the value of cotton
exports was more than all other U.S. exports combined and that the
U.S. supplied about 2/3rds of the world's cotton.

I suggest you review other sources for your numbers

https://www.google.com/search?q=cost...utf-8&oe=utf-8


And you may wish to change your ignorance about the Irish slaves as
well

https://www.google.com/search?q=iris...utf-8&oe=utf-8


Perhaps. But you need to read a bit more carefully. The article seems
to relate to places like Antigua and Montserrat.

"At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish
slaves", Virginia and New England. "In this decade, 52,000 Irish
(mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia.
Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to
the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children
be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers. They also
mention the West Indies, Barbados, and Jamaica. and then the mention
Virginia and New England."

"During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10
and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West
Indies, Virginia and New England."

Wow! But then we look at the population figures for New England or
Virginia, we don't see those numbers. For example the population of
New England in 1640 was 13,679, in 1650 it was 22,732 and in 1660 it
was 33,336. From 1650 to 1660 the population increased by some 10,600
people.

I suggest that the bulk of these "white slaves" were shipped to
English colonies in the Caribbean. Not the Americas.

We went over this with Gunner some months ago, and reached exactly the
same conclusion.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:13:10 +0700, John B.
wrote:



While it is probably that some Blacks did own slaves, where did you
get "the with the top 30 slave owners/sellers...being
themselves...black"

http://slaverebellion.org/index.php?...k-slave-owners

Lots and lots more out there..need more?


Yes, I believe some more might be useful. Your reference states that
there were a number of black slave owners in Louisiana in 1860 and
lists approximately 550 slaves owned,,,, out of a slave population of
some 331,726. So according to your reference Blacks owned some 0.1% of
the slaves in Louisiana.

I must say, that is something to really get excited about!

Johnny...several of those were slave sellers. They bought and sold
slaves..so your claim they only owned 550 is bogus.




The demand for cotton shy rocketed from the late 18th century with the
dev elopement of the spinning jenny, spinning mule, and the power
loom, while at the same time the Cotton Gin was invented in the U.S.

As for the cotton fields losing production:
In 1790 total cotton production in the U.S. was 3,135 bales of raw
cotton. In 1800 it was 73,145, and at ten year intervals it was
177,838, 334,378, 731,452, 1,346,252, 2,133,851, 3,837,402 in 1860.

Cotton was priced at $0.13/lb. in 1820 for a 225 lb. bale. so 1860
production (in 1860 prices) was about $112,244,008 which in 1820 was a
lot of money. so the cotton economy grew from ~ $91,698 in 1790 to
$112,244,008 in 1860 and while I do not have numbers on the 1961 crop
I have read references that it was larger than the 1960 crop.

It might also be of interest to note that in 1820 only some 42.5% of
U.S. labor was employed in non agricultural businesses but by 1860
that number had increased to 86.2%.

Ayup..slavery was ripe for destruction and if the Civil War hadnt
happened..slavery would have been largely abandoned by 1880...simply
because the costs of owning slaves was too great..and the millions of
immigrants coming to America..primarily Irish and Chinese..would work
cheaper than slaves


I'm not so sure. The majority of the immigrants were landing in the
North and the numbers of indentured whites was decreasing also as the
cost of immigration had decreased sharply so I suspect that chopping
cotton wasn't exactly what the average Irish planned on :-)


The Irish who left NYC had few choices. They could and did..chop
cotton. So did the Chinese..who were better known for building the
railroads.
But it is true that Chinese laborers in the West were cheaper than
slaves would have been.

As for the cost of owning slaves, while the cost of a skilled
craftsman (blacksmith) slave in the 1860's was about $800 (1860
prices) the income derived from him would be in the neighborhood of
$80,000 (1860 prices) and if the slave was a plantation worker the
overhead of owning him/her was likely negligible.

Average weekly pay for an unskilled workingman in 1860 was in the
nine dollar a week range so 800/9 = 463 so the purchase cost of a
slave was less than 2 years salary for a free worker.

Remember that the cotton economy was such that the value of cotton
exports was more than all other U.S. exports combined and that the
U.S. supplied about 2/3rds of the world's cotton.

I suggest you review other sources for your numbers

https://www.google.com/search?q=cost...utf-8&oe=utf-8


And you may wish to change your ignorance about the Irish slaves as
well

https://www.google.com/search?q=iris...utf-8&oe=utf-8


Perhaps. But you need to read a bit more carefully. The article seems
to relate to places like Antigua and Montserrat.

"At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish
slaves", Virginia and New England. "In this decade, 52,000 Irish
(mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia.
Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to
the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children
be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers. They also
mention the West Indies, Barbados, and Jamaica. and then the mention
Virginia and New England."

"During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10
and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West
Indies, Virginia and New England."

Wow! But then we look at the population figures for New England or
Virginia, we don't see those numbers. For example the population of
New England in 1640 was 13,679, in 1650 it was 22,732 and in 1660 it
was 33,336. From 1650 to 1660 the population increased by some 10,600
people.

I suggest that the bulk of these "white slaves" were shipped to
English colonies in the Caribbean. Not the Americas.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 08:06:41 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:13:10 +0700, John B.
wrote:



While it is probably that some Blacks did own slaves, where did you
get "the with the top 30 slave owners/sellers...being
themselves...black"

http://slaverebellion.org/index.php?...k-slave-owners

Lots and lots more out there..need more?


Yes, I believe some more might be useful. Your reference states that
there were a number of black slave owners in Louisiana in 1860 and
lists approximately 550 slaves owned,,,, out of a slave population of
some 331,726. So according to your reference Blacks owned some 0.1% of
the slaves in Louisiana.

I must say, that is something to really get excited about!

Johnny...several of those were slave sellers. They bought and sold
slaves..so your claim they only owned 550 is bogus.

It isn't my claim that I quoted. I read the article that you
referenced and quoted numbers that the article stated. Just as I said
I did.

But the fact that some free blacks in the South had slaves, or traded
slaves, is sort of silly isn't it? After all, where did the slaves
come from?

You don't really think that those scoundrels on the slave ships
discovered a tree in Africa that grew "slaves" and they sailed over
there and just picked them off the tree.... do you?

But a little more research seems to show that the Free Black
population of the United States in 1830 was 319,599. or about 2% of
the total U.S. population. Of these apparently some 3,775 were slave
owners and they owned some 12,760 slaves out of a total slave
population of 2,009,043 slaves.

So, 1% of the Free Blacks owned some 0.6% of the slaves.

By Godfery! That is something to really ruffle a fellows feathers,
isn't it.

--
cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 13:49:45 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 08:06:41 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:13:10 +0700, John B.
wrote:



While it is probably that some Blacks did own slaves, where did you
get "the with the top 30 slave owners/sellers...being
themselves...black"

http://slaverebellion.org/index.php?...k-slave-owners

Lots and lots more out there..need more?


Yes, I believe some more might be useful. Your reference states that
there were a number of black slave owners in Louisiana in 1860 and
lists approximately 550 slaves owned,,,, out of a slave population of
some 331,726. So according to your reference Blacks owned some 0.1% of
the slaves in Louisiana.

I must say, that is something to really get excited about!

Johnny...several of those were slave sellers. They bought and sold
slaves..so your claim they only owned 550 is bogus.

It isn't my claim that I quoted. I read the article that you
referenced and quoted numbers that the article stated. Just as I said
I did.

But the fact that some free blacks in the South had slaves, or traded
slaves, is sort of silly isn't it? After all, where did the slaves
come from?

You don't really think that those scoundrels on the slave ships
discovered a tree in Africa that grew "slaves" and they sailed over
there and just picked them off the tree.... do you?

But a little more research seems to show that the Free Black
population of the United States in 1830 was 319,599. or about 2% of
the total U.S. population. Of these apparently some 3,775 were slave
owners and they owned some 12,760 slaves out of a total slave
population of 2,009,043 slaves.

So, 1% of the Free Blacks owned some 0.6% of the slaves.

By Godfery! That is something to really ruffle a fellows feathers,
isn't it.

Ruffle feathers? Whatever for? Slavery was ended by 1867 in the US

Were you trying to make some point?

Gunner

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:13:10 +0700, John B.
wrote:



While it is probably that some Blacks did own slaves, where did you
get "the with the top 30 slave owners/sellers...being
themselves...black"

http://slaverebellion.org/index.php?...k-slave-owners

Lots and lots more out there..need more?


Yes, I believe some more might be useful. Your reference states that
there were a number of black slave owners in Louisiana in 1860 and
lists approximately 550 slaves owned,,,, out of a slave population of
some 331,726. So according to your reference Blacks owned some 0.1% of
the slaves in Louisiana.

I must say, that is something to really get excited about!

You may wish to read this..all nicely cited with names and numbers

http://www.theroot.com/articles/hist...hey_exist.html

And climb down off your high horse..you might get a nose bleed up
there.





The demand for cotton shy rocketed from the late 18th century with the
dev elopement of the spinning jenny, spinning mule, and the power
loom, while at the same time the Cotton Gin was invented in the U.S.

As for the cotton fields losing production:
In 1790 total cotton production in the U.S. was 3,135 bales of raw
cotton. In 1800 it was 73,145, and at ten year intervals it was
177,838, 334,378, 731,452, 1,346,252, 2,133,851, 3,837,402 in 1860.

Cotton was priced at $0.13/lb. in 1820 for a 225 lb. bale. so 1860
production (in 1860 prices) was about $112,244,008 which in 1820 was a
lot of money. so the cotton economy grew from ~ $91,698 in 1790 to
$112,244,008 in 1860 and while I do not have numbers on the 1961 crop
I have read references that it was larger than the 1960 crop.

It might also be of interest to note that in 1820 only some 42.5% of
U.S. labor was employed in non agricultural businesses but by 1860
that number had increased to 86.2%.

Ayup..slavery was ripe for destruction and if the Civil War hadnt
happened..slavery would have been largely abandoned by 1880...simply
because the costs of owning slaves was too great..and the millions of
immigrants coming to America..primarily Irish and Chinese..would work
cheaper than slaves


I'm not so sure. The majority of the immigrants were landing in the
North and the numbers of indentured whites was decreasing also as the
cost of immigration had decreased sharply so I suspect that chopping
cotton wasn't exactly what the average Irish planned on :-)


The Irish who left NYC had few choices. They could and did..chop
cotton. So did the Chinese..who were better known for building the
railroads.
But it is true that Chinese laborers in the West were cheaper than
slaves would have been.

As for the cost of owning slaves, while the cost of a skilled
craftsman (blacksmith) slave in the 1860's was about $800 (1860
prices) the income derived from him would be in the neighborhood of
$80,000 (1860 prices) and if the slave was a plantation worker the
overhead of owning him/her was likely negligible.

Average weekly pay for an unskilled workingman in 1860 was in the
nine dollar a week range so 800/9 = 463 so the purchase cost of a
slave was less than 2 years salary for a free worker.

Remember that the cotton economy was such that the value of cotton
exports was more than all other U.S. exports combined and that the
U.S. supplied about 2/3rds of the world's cotton.

I suggest you review other sources for your numbers

https://www.google.com/search?q=cost...utf-8&oe=utf-8

What..no comment?


And you may wish to change your ignorance about the Irish slaves as
well

https://www.google.com/search?q=iris...utf-8&oe=utf-8


Perhaps. But you need to read a bit more carefully. The article seems
to relate to places like Antigua and Montserrat.

"At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish
slaves", Virginia and New England. "In this decade, 52,000 Irish
(mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia.
Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to
the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children
be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers. They also
mention the West Indies, Barbados, and Jamaica. and then the mention
Virginia and New England."

"During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10
and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West
Indies, Virginia and New England."

Wow! But then we look at the population figures for New England or
Virginia, we don't see those numbers. For example the population of
New England in 1640 was 13,679, in 1650 it was 22,732 and in 1660 it
was 33,336. From 1650 to 1660 the population increased by some 10,600
people.

I suggest that the bulk of these "white slaves" were shipped to
English colonies in the Caribbean. Not the Americas.

Your suggestion of the "bulk" is noted with some interest.

You do know that the vast majority of black slaves went to South
America, right?

You may also wish to read this..noting that more Irish slaves were
brought to New England than black ones.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-iri...e-slaves/31076

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/1...at-time-forgot

--
cheers,

John B.

Cheers, pip pip!

Gunner

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 08:15:52 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:13:10 +0700, John B.
wrote:



While it is probably that some Blacks did own slaves, where did you
get "the with the top 30 slave owners/sellers...being
themselves...black"

http://slaverebellion.org/index.php?...k-slave-owners

Lots and lots more out there..need more?


Yes, I believe some more might be useful. Your reference states that
there were a number of black slave owners in Louisiana in 1860 and
lists approximately 550 slaves owned,,,, out of a slave population of
some 331,726. So according to your reference Blacks owned some 0.1% of
the slaves in Louisiana.

I must say, that is something to really get excited about!

You may wish to read this..all nicely cited with names and numbers

http://www.theroot.com/articles/hist...hey_exist.html

And climb down off your high horse..you might get a nose bleed up
there.

As usual, Gunner is full of crap. The largest number of slaves owned
by a black, as noted in his article, was 163. Numerous white
slaveholders owned more than 500; in one case, 1,200 at one time.

So his claim is ****. Not that we should be surprised.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 08:15:52 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:13:10 +0700, John B.
wrote:



While it is probably that some Blacks did own slaves, where did you
get "the with the top 30 slave owners/sellers...being
themselves...black"

http://slaverebellion.org/index.php?...k-slave-owners

Lots and lots more out there..need more?


Yes, I believe some more might be useful. Your reference states that
there were a number of black slave owners in Louisiana in 1860 and
lists approximately 550 slaves owned,,,, out of a slave population of
some 331,726. So according to your reference Blacks owned some 0.1% of
the slaves in Louisiana.

I must say, that is something to really get excited about!

You may wish to read this..all nicely cited with names and numbers

http://www.theroot.com/articles/hist...hey_exist.html

And climb down off your high horse..you might get a nose bleed up
there.

I did read it and I quoted numbers from it which in another message
you implied that I made up. Which rather demonstrates that you didn't
read it at all.

But "high horse".... you mean that researching a question and finding
the truth, or as much of it as possible, causes nose bleeds?





The demand for cotton shy rocketed from the late 18th century with the
dev elopement of the spinning jenny, spinning mule, and the power
loom, while at the same time the Cotton Gin was invented in the U.S.

As for the cotton fields losing production:
In 1790 total cotton production in the U.S. was 3,135 bales of raw
cotton. In 1800 it was 73,145, and at ten year intervals it was
177,838, 334,378, 731,452, 1,346,252, 2,133,851, 3,837,402 in 1860.

Cotton was priced at $0.13/lb. in 1820 for a 225 lb. bale. so 1860
production (in 1860 prices) was about $112,244,008 which in 1820 was a
lot of money. so the cotton economy grew from ~ $91,698 in 1790 to
$112,244,008 in 1860 and while I do not have numbers on the 1961 crop
I have read references that it was larger than the 1960 crop.

It might also be of interest to note that in 1820 only some 42.5% of
U.S. labor was employed in non agricultural businesses but by 1860
that number had increased to 86.2%.

Ayup..slavery was ripe for destruction and if the Civil War hadnt
happened..slavery would have been largely abandoned by 1880...simply
because the costs of owning slaves was too great..and the millions of
immigrants coming to America..primarily Irish and Chinese..would work
cheaper than slaves


I'm not so sure. The majority of the immigrants were landing in the
North and the numbers of indentured whites was decreasing also as the
cost of immigration had decreased sharply so I suspect that chopping
cotton wasn't exactly what the average Irish planned on :-)


The Irish who left NYC had few choices. They could and did..chop
cotton. So did the Chinese..who were better known for building the
railroads.
But it is true that Chinese laborers in the West were cheaper than
slaves would have been.

As for the cost of owning slaves, while the cost of a skilled
craftsman (blacksmith) slave in the 1860's was about $800 (1860
prices) the income derived from him would be in the neighborhood of
$80,000 (1860 prices) and if the slave was a plantation worker the
overhead of owning him/her was likely negligible.

Average weekly pay for an unskilled workingman in 1860 was in the
nine dollar a week range so 800/9 = 463 so the purchase cost of a
slave was less than 2 years salary for a free worker.

Remember that the cotton economy was such that the value of cotton
exports was more than all other U.S. exports combined and that the
U.S. supplied about 2/3rds of the world's cotton.

I suggest you review other sources for your numbers

https://www.google.com/search?q=cost...utf-8&oe=utf-8

What..no comment?


And you may wish to change your ignorance about the Irish slaves as
well

https://www.google.com/search?q=iris...utf-8&oe=utf-8


Perhaps. But you need to read a bit more carefully. The article seems
to relate to places like Antigua and Montserrat.

"At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish
slaves", Virginia and New England. "In this decade, 52,000 Irish
(mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia.
Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to
the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children
be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers. They also
mention the West Indies, Barbados, and Jamaica. and then the mention
Virginia and New England."

"During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10
and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West
Indies, Virginia and New England."

Wow! But then we look at the population figures for New England or
Virginia, we don't see those numbers. For example the population of
New England in 1640 was 13,679, in 1650 it was 22,732 and in 1660 it
was 33,336. From 1650 to 1660 the population increased by some 10,600
people.

I suggest that the bulk of these "white slaves" were shipped to
English colonies in the Caribbean. Not the Americas.

Your suggestion of the "bulk" is noted with some interest.

You do know that the vast majority of black slaves went to South
America, right?

You may also wish to read this..noting that more Irish slaves were
brought to New England than black ones.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-iri...e-slaves/31076

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/1...at-time-forgot

Gunner, I read all that tripe and that is what it is. It is
undocumented bull****. And it doesn't match any numbers that come from
even suspect sources, never mind actual records or census.

Did you know that there are Irish records listing the people that left
Ireland for the colonies in the 17th century? They don't show these
fantastic numbers.

That Irish church records go back to the 1600's, and in some cases
much earlier, and they don't show these numbers.

You are quoting from the "Daily Kos" some sort of on-line blog sort of
thing that sells Tee-shirts for $20.00... that I can buy for $3.00. A
truly impressive source.

What's your next source? The walls in the Men's Room at the local pub?
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 14:17:56 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 08:15:52 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:13:10 +0700, John B.
wrote:



While it is probably that some Blacks did own slaves, where did you
get "the with the top 30 slave owners/sellers...being
themselves...black"

http://slaverebellion.org/index.php?...k-slave-owners

Lots and lots more out there..need more?


Yes, I believe some more might be useful. Your reference states that
there were a number of black slave owners in Louisiana in 1860 and
lists approximately 550 slaves owned,,,, out of a slave population of
some 331,726. So according to your reference Blacks owned some 0.1% of
the slaves in Louisiana.

I must say, that is something to really get excited about!

You may wish to read this..all nicely cited with names and numbers

http://www.theroot.com/articles/hist...hey_exist.html

And climb down off your high horse..you might get a nose bleed up
there.

I did read it and I quoted numbers from it which in another message
you implied that I made up. Which rather demonstrates that you didn't
read it at all.

But "high horse".... you mean that researching a question and finding
the truth, or as much of it as possible, causes nose bleeds?





The demand for cotton shy rocketed from the late 18th century with the
dev elopement of the spinning jenny, spinning mule, and the power
loom, while at the same time the Cotton Gin was invented in the U.S.

As for the cotton fields losing production:
In 1790 total cotton production in the U.S. was 3,135 bales of raw
cotton. In 1800 it was 73,145, and at ten year intervals it was
177,838, 334,378, 731,452, 1,346,252, 2,133,851, 3,837,402 in 1860.

Cotton was priced at $0.13/lb. in 1820 for a 225 lb. bale. so 1860
production (in 1860 prices) was about $112,244,008 which in 1820 was a
lot of money. so the cotton economy grew from ~ $91,698 in 1790 to
$112,244,008 in 1860 and while I do not have numbers on the 1961 crop
I have read references that it was larger than the 1960 crop.

It might also be of interest to note that in 1820 only some 42.5% of
U.S. labor was employed in non agricultural businesses but by 1860
that number had increased to 86.2%.

Ayup..slavery was ripe for destruction and if the Civil War hadnt
happened..slavery would have been largely abandoned by 1880...simply
because the costs of owning slaves was too great..and the millions of
immigrants coming to America..primarily Irish and Chinese..would work
cheaper than slaves


I'm not so sure. The majority of the immigrants were landing in the
North and the numbers of indentured whites was decreasing also as the
cost of immigration had decreased sharply so I suspect that chopping
cotton wasn't exactly what the average Irish planned on :-)


The Irish who left NYC had few choices. They could and did..chop
cotton. So did the Chinese..who were better known for building the
railroads.
But it is true that Chinese laborers in the West were cheaper than
slaves would have been.

As for the cost of owning slaves, while the cost of a skilled
craftsman (blacksmith) slave in the 1860's was about $800 (1860
prices) the income derived from him would be in the neighborhood of
$80,000 (1860 prices) and if the slave was a plantation worker the
overhead of owning him/her was likely negligible.

Average weekly pay for an unskilled workingman in 1860 was in the
nine dollar a week range so 800/9 = 463 so the purchase cost of a
slave was less than 2 years salary for a free worker.

Remember that the cotton economy was such that the value of cotton
exports was more than all other U.S. exports combined and that the
U.S. supplied about 2/3rds of the world's cotton.

I suggest you review other sources for your numbers

https://www.google.com/search?q=cost...utf-8&oe=utf-8

What..no comment?


And you may wish to change your ignorance about the Irish slaves as
well

https://www.google.com/search?q=iris...utf-8&oe=utf-8


Perhaps. But you need to read a bit more carefully. The article seems
to relate to places like Antigua and Montserrat.

"At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish
slaves", Virginia and New England. "In this decade, 52,000 Irish
(mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia.
Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to
the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children
be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers. They also
mention the West Indies, Barbados, and Jamaica. and then the mention
Virginia and New England."

"During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10
and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West
Indies, Virginia and New England."

Wow! But then we look at the population figures for New England or
Virginia, we don't see those numbers. For example the population of
New England in 1640 was 13,679, in 1650 it was 22,732 and in 1660 it
was 33,336. From 1650 to 1660 the population increased by some 10,600
people.

I suggest that the bulk of these "white slaves" were shipped to
English colonies in the Caribbean. Not the Americas.

Your suggestion of the "bulk" is noted with some interest.

You do know that the vast majority of black slaves went to South
America, right?

You may also wish to read this..noting that more Irish slaves were
brought to New England than black ones.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-iri...e-slaves/31076

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/1...at-time-forgot

Gunner, I read all that tripe and that is what it is. It is
undocumented bull****. And it doesn't match any numbers that come from
even suspect sources, never mind actual records or census.

So you dont like the numbers so they are not valid then. Fascinating.

Did you know that there are Irish records listing the people that left
Ireland for the colonies in the 17th century? They don't show these
fantastic numbers.

There are some various records with varying numbers of
immigrants...and there are OTHER records with verying numbers of
"indentured servants" and there are OTHER records of varying numbers
of Irish slaves. Take your pick.

That Irish church records go back to the 1600's, and in some cases
much earlier, and they don't show these numbers.

Nor do the church records show that 49% of Ireland was shipped off in
slave ships either. So either the Church records were not
particularly accurate...or they lied...or the folks shipped out wernt
recorded by the church. Take your pick

You are quoting from the "Daily Kos" some sort of on-line blog sort of
thing that sells Tee-shirts for $20.00... that I can buy for $3.00. A
truly impressive source.

What's your next source? The walls in the Men's Room at the local pub?

Golly Jonny...you missed the Global Research link too? What price do
they sell T-shirts for?

Bye Johnny.

Gunner

And let us not forget the NORTH was FORCED to give freedom to slaves
when and only when the constitution was amended to prevent slavery.
There were white, black and in the white batch lots of Irish.

And lets not forget that the slavers that captured the slaves in Africa
were black themselves. They sold off their neighbors to steal their
land or cattle or whatever. Often a tribe would capture another and
sell them off to the slave ships - owned by the NORTH. Just like the
RUM boats, owned by the NORTH.

Martin

On 7/4/2015 3:49 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 07:00:11 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Fri, 03 Jul 2015 15:12:27 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 21:11:28 +0700, Jophn B. slocomb
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 07:40:52 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:16:31 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:41:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 08:16:03 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 04:35:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:


http://www.vice.com/read/hey-v12n5

An interesting article. Of course the first line in the article says
that it is for people in "elementary school" which, in the U.S. seems
to be the first 4 grads in the school system. the Wiki says for
children between the ages of 4 - 11.

Which apparently says something about either your reading, or
comprehensive, ability.

--
cheers,

John B.

I posted it because we have Leftists here and we all know that they
are dummer than dirt. Now do you have a problem with the Contents of
the article..or are you simply bitching because it explained things so
the Leftist could understand it?

Hummm?

Gunner

No, I didn't spend a lot of time studying the article, but it seemed
to say that at various times slavery has been a part of almost every
society, which, of course, is true. After winning the Battle of
Alesia, September, 52 BC, Julius Caesar gave each soldier in his army
one of the captured as a slave. This amounted to something like forty
thousand slaves.... from a single campaign. In his eight years of
campaigning against the Gaul's, he was said to have enslaved more than
a million people.

What the article seemed to ignore was that in nearly every society
slavery died out primarily because slaves, while cost effective in a
purely agricultural environment are somewhat less efficient when the
society becomes less dependent on agriculture and begins to depend
more on machinery.

That's not what happened in the US, however. Slavery died out because
the federal government prevented westward expansion of slavery, which
provoked a war that led to the outlawing of slavery.

Federal resistance to expansion of slavery limited the growth of
cotton agriculture. In fact, it guarenteed that it would become less
profitable, because cotton wears the hell out of the soil, and
southern plantations were already beginning to lose productivity.

I think that you are ignoring the decrease in slavery in the northern,
industrializing, States. The New England states, Maine - Connecticut,
had a slave population of 2,703 in 1790 and in 1820 it was 145. The
Middle States, New York - Delaware, had 45,910 in 1790 and by 1820
were at 22,305.

The Southern States, in contrast, went from 648,131 in 1790 to
1,319,208 in 1820.

Yet by 1860, a young strong male slave was valued at approx $40k
(todays price) and less than 13% of Southerners were slave
owners...with the top 30 slave owners/sellers...being
themselves...black.


While it is probably that some Blacks did own slaves, where did you
get "the with the top 30 slave owners/sellers...being
themselves...black"

http://slaverebellion.org/index.php?...k-slave-owners

Lots and lots more out there..need more?



The demand for cotton shy rocketed from the late 18th century with the
dev elopement of the spinning jenny, spinning mule, and the power
loom, while at the same time the Cotton Gin was invented in the U.S.

As for the cotton fields losing production:
In 1790 total cotton production in the U.S. was 3,135 bales of raw
cotton. In 1800 it was 73,145, and at ten year intervals it was
177,838, 334,378, 731,452, 1,346,252, 2,133,851, 3,837,402 in 1860.

Cotton was priced at $0.13/lb. in 1820 for a 225 lb. bale. so 1860
production (in 1860 prices) was about $112,244,008 which in 1820 was a
lot of money. so the cotton economy grew from ~ $91,698 in 1790 to
$112,244,008 in 1860 and while I do not have numbers on the 1961 crop
I have read references that it was larger than the 1960 crop.

It might also be of interest to note that in 1820 only some 42.5% of
U.S. labor was employed in non agricultural businesses but by 1860
that number had increased to 86.2%.

Ayup..slavery was ripe for destruction and if the Civil War hadnt
happened..slavery would have been largely abandoned by 1880...simply
because the costs of owning slaves was too great..and the millions of
immigrants coming to America..primarily Irish and Chinese..would work
cheaper than slaves


I'm not so sure. The majority of the immigrants were landing in the
North and the numbers of indentured whites was decreasing also as the
cost of immigration had decreased sharply so I suspect that chopping
cotton wasn't exactly what the average Irish planned on :-)


The Irish who left NYC had few choices. They could and did..chop
cotton. So did the Chinese..who were better known for building the
railroads.
But it is true that Chinese laborers in the West were cheaper than
slaves would have been.

As for the cost of owning slaves, while the cost of a skilled
craftsman (blacksmith) slave in the 1860's was about $800 (1860
prices) the income derived from him would be in the neighborhood of
$80,000 (1860 prices) and if the slave was a plantation worker the
overhead of owning him/her was likely negligible.

Average weekly pay for an unskilled workingman in 1860 was in the
nine dollar a week range so 800/9 = 463 so the purchase cost of a
slave was less than 2 years salary for a free worker.

Remember that the cotton economy was such that the value of cotton
exports was more than all other U.S. exports combined and that the
U.S. supplied about 2/3rds of the world's cotton.

I suggest you review other sources for your numbers

https://www.google.com/search?q=cost...utf-8&oe=utf-8


And you may wish to change your ignorance about the Irish slaves as
well

https://www.google.com/search?q=iris...utf-8&oe=utf-8

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:05:24 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

And let us not forget the NORTH was FORCED to give freedom to slaves
when and only when the constitution was amended to prevent slavery.
There were white, black and in the white batch lots of Irish.

And lets not forget that the slavers that captured the slaves in Africa
were black themselves. They sold off their neighbors to steal their
land or cattle or whatever. Often a tribe would capture another and
sell them off to the slave ships - owned by the NORTH. Just like the
RUM boats, owned by the NORTH.

Martin

Well stated!!



On 7/4/2015 3:49 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 07:00:11 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Fri, 03 Jul 2015 15:12:27 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 21:11:28 +0700, Jophn B. slocomb
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 07:40:52 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:16:31 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:41:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 08:16:03 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 04:35:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:


http://www.vice.com/read/hey-v12n5

An interesting article. Of course the first line in the article says
that it is for people in "elementary school" which, in the U.S. seems
to be the first 4 grads in the school system. the Wiki says for
children between the ages of 4 - 11.

Which apparently says something about either your reading, or
comprehensive, ability.

--
cheers,

John B.

I posted it because we have Leftists here and we all know that they
are dummer than dirt. Now do you have a problem with the Contents of
the article..or are you simply bitching because it explained things so
the Leftist could understand it?

Hummm?

Gunner

No, I didn't spend a lot of time studying the article, but it seemed
to say that at various times slavery has been a part of almost every
society, which, of course, is true. After winning the Battle of
Alesia, September, 52 BC, Julius Caesar gave each soldier in his army
one of the captured as a slave. This amounted to something like forty
thousand slaves.... from a single campaign. In his eight years of
campaigning against the Gaul's, he was said to have enslaved more than
a million people.

What the article seemed to ignore was that in nearly every society
slavery died out primarily because slaves, while cost effective in a
purely agricultural environment are somewhat less efficient when the
society becomes less dependent on agriculture and begins to depend
more on machinery.

That's not what happened in the US, however. Slavery died out because
the federal government prevented westward expansion of slavery, which
provoked a war that led to the outlawing of slavery.

Federal resistance to expansion of slavery limited the growth of
cotton agriculture. In fact, it guarenteed that it would become less
profitable, because cotton wears the hell out of the soil, and
southern plantations were already beginning to lose productivity.

I think that you are ignoring the decrease in slavery in the northern,
industrializing, States. The New England states, Maine - Connecticut,
had a slave population of 2,703 in 1790 and in 1820 it was 145. The
Middle States, New York - Delaware, had 45,910 in 1790 and by 1820
were at 22,305.

The Southern States, in contrast, went from 648,131 in 1790 to
1,319,208 in 1820.

Yet by 1860, a young strong male slave was valued at approx $40k
(todays price) and less than 13% of Southerners were slave
owners...with the top 30 slave owners/sellers...being
themselves...black.


While it is probably that some Blacks did own slaves, where did you
get "the with the top 30 slave owners/sellers...being
themselves...black"

http://slaverebellion.org/index.php?...k-slave-owners

Lots and lots more out there..need more?



The demand for cotton shy rocketed from the late 18th century with the
dev elopement of the spinning jenny, spinning mule, and the power
loom, while at the same time the Cotton Gin was invented in the U.S.

As for the cotton fields losing production:
In 1790 total cotton production in the U.S. was 3,135 bales of raw
cotton. In 1800 it was 73,145, and at ten year intervals it was
177,838, 334,378, 731,452, 1,346,252, 2,133,851, 3,837,402 in 1860.

Cotton was priced at $0.13/lb. in 1820 for a 225 lb. bale. so 1860
production (in 1860 prices) was about $112,244,008 which in 1820 was a
lot of money. so the cotton economy grew from ~ $91,698 in 1790 to
$112,244,008 in 1860 and while I do not have numbers on the 1961 crop
I have read references that it was larger than the 1960 crop.

It might also be of interest to note that in 1820 only some 42.5% of
U.S. labor was employed in non agricultural businesses but by 1860
that number had increased to 86.2%.

Ayup..slavery was ripe for destruction and if the Civil War hadnt
happened..slavery would have been largely abandoned by 1880...simply
because the costs of owning slaves was too great..and the millions of
immigrants coming to America..primarily Irish and Chinese..would work
cheaper than slaves


I'm not so sure. The majority of the immigrants were landing in the
North and the numbers of indentured whites was decreasing also as the
cost of immigration had decreased sharply so I suspect that chopping
cotton wasn't exactly what the average Irish planned on :-)


The Irish who left NYC had few choices. They could and did..chop
cotton. So did the Chinese..who were better known for building the
railroads.
But it is true that Chinese laborers in the West were cheaper than
slaves would have been.

As for the cost of owning slaves, while the cost of a skilled
craftsman (blacksmith) slave in the 1860's was about $800 (1860
prices) the income derived from him would be in the neighborhood of
$80,000 (1860 prices) and if the slave was a plantation worker the
overhead of owning him/her was likely negligible.

Average weekly pay for an unskilled workingman in 1860 was in the
nine dollar a week range so 800/9 = 463 so the purchase cost of a
slave was less than 2 years salary for a free worker.

Remember that the cotton economy was such that the value of cotton
exports was more than all other U.S. exports combined and that the
U.S. supplied about 2/3rds of the world's cotton.

I suggest you review other sources for your numbers

https://www.google.com/search?q=cost...utf-8&oe=utf-8


And you may wish to change your ignorance about the Irish slaves as
well

https://www.google.com/search?q=iris...utf-8&oe=utf-8

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:05:24 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

And let us not forget the NORTH was FORCED to give freedom to slaves
when and only when the constitution was amended to prevent slavery.

And who amended the Constitution, Martin? Are you saying that the
northerners forced themselves?

There were white, black and in the white batch lots of Irish.

No there weren't. Not in North America. There were white indentured
servants. They were freed of their indenture after a contract period
-- usually five years.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 08:04:18 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:05:24 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

And let us not forget the NORTH was FORCED to give freedom to slaves
when and only when the constitution was amended to prevent slavery.

And who amended the Constitution, Martin? Are you saying that the
northerners forced themselves?

But I wonder. Was the 3/5th clause the part that caused the amendment?

There were white, black and in the white batch lots of Irish.

No there weren't. Not in North America. There were white indentured
servants. They were freed of their indenture after a contract period
-- usually five years.
--
cheers,

John B.

http://www.theroot.com/articles/poli...g_effects.html

http://www.theroot.com/articles/poli.../about_us.html
"

The Power of a Fraction

The three-fifths clause is perhaps the most misunderstood provision of
the U.S. Constitution. The clause provides that representation in
Congress will be based on "the whole Number of free Persons" and "three
fifths of all other Persons." The "other Persons" were slaves. Despite
popular understandings, this provision did not declare that African
Americans were three-fifths of a person. Rather, the provision declared
that the slave states would get extra representation in Congress for
their slaves, even though those states treated slaves purely as property.

Thus, this was a provision that was not directly about race but about
status and the allocation of political power. Free blacks were counted
in exactly the same way as whites. The clause did not say that a slave
was three-fifths of a person. The clause said nothing about free blacks,
who were treated by the clause exactly as free whites were.

Rather, the clause provided a mathematical formula that allowed for the
allocation of representatives in Congress that factored in the slave
population. No slaves could vote in the country (although free blacks
could vote in a number of states), and the clause did not provide a
voice for slaves. This was about the distribution of political power
among the states.
"
Remember slaves were not immigrated through government houses. They
were a source of hard labor. The south got representatives for the
House.


Martin

On 7/5/2015 9:03 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 08:04:18 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:05:24 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

And let us not forget the NORTH was FORCED to give freedom to slaves
when and only when the constitution was amended to prevent slavery.

And who amended the Constitution, Martin? Are you saying that the
northerners forced themselves?

But I wonder. Was the 3/5th clause the part that caused the amendment?

There were white, black and in the white batch lots of Irish.

No there weren't. Not in North America. There were white indentured
servants. They were freed of their indenture after a contract period
-- usually five years.
--
cheers,

John B.

The Radical Senate and House and then the states voted the Amendment
to become part of the constitution. Naturally who was left in the
South? Who was active in the Senate and House that came from the
south ? Jailed or run off or dead.

White indentured servants are slaves to the master. It might be
10, 20 or lifetime. And the work load was high and mean in many
cases. Remember the poor Irish - no money to begin with - indentured.
They were often beat and treated like trash.

The blacks in the north that were slaves were not freed by the
Gettysburg address (a speech) and didn't end when Atlanta was burned.
They were freed only after the constitution amendment came about.

Martin

On 7/5/2015 7:04 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:05:24 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

And let us not forget the NORTH was FORCED to give freedom to slaves
when and only when the constitution was amended to prevent slavery.

And who amended the Constitution, Martin? Are you saying that the
northerners forced themselves?

There were white, black and in the white batch lots of Irish.

No there weren't. Not in North America. There were white indentured
servants. They were freed of their indenture after a contract period
-- usually five years.

On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 21:12:22 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

The Radical Senate and House and then the states voted the Amendment
to become part of the constitution.

That's what I was suggesting. The North held the power. The
governments of the southern states were re-formed by delegations
approved by President Johnson. These were the "Reconstruction
Governments." In other words, puppet governments constrained by the
North.

So when you say that the North "was forced to give freedom to slaves,"
it's a contradiction in facts. It was the North that *voted* for
freedom for slaves. The southern states that also ratified the 13th
Amendment were run by northern-puppet governments.


Naturally who was left in the
South? Who was active in the Senate and House that came from the
south ? Jailed or run off or dead.

They had governments, ones that were "approved" by Johnson, and they
voted.


White indentured servants are slaves to the master.

No. Different laws. Their lives were protected much more than those of
slaves.

It might be
10, 20 or lifetime.

Show us an example. The standard term of indenture usually was five
years, although it varied with the cost of passage that was being paid
for.

And the work load was high and mean in many
cases.

Sure.

Remember the poor Irish - no money to begin with - indentured.
They were often beat and treated like trash.

Right.


The blacks in the north that were slaves were not freed by the
Gettysburg address (a speech) and didn't end when Atlanta was burned.
They were freed only after the constitution amendment came about.

Correct. But the North wasn't "forced" to give them up. It was the
North that VOTED to give them up.

--
Ed Huntress



Martin

On 7/5/2015 7:04 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 20:05:24 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

And let us not forget the NORTH was FORCED to give freedom to slaves
when and only when the constitution was amended to prevent slavery.

And who amended the Constitution, Martin? Are you saying that the
northerners forced themselves?

There were white, black and in the white batch lots of Irish.

No there weren't. Not in North America. There were white indentured
servants. They were freed of their indenture after a contract period
-- usually five years.

On 7/3/2015 3:12 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 21:11:28 +0700, Jophn B. slocomb
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 07:40:52 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 18:16:31 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:41:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 08:16:03 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 04:35:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:


http://www.vice.com/read/hey-v12n5

An interesting article. Of course the first line in the article says
that it is for people in "elementary school" which, in the U.S. seems
to be the first 4 grads in the school system. the Wiki says for
children between the ages of 4 - 11.

Which apparently says something about either your reading, or
comprehensive, ability.

--
cheers,

John B.

I posted it because we have Leftists here and we all know that they
are dummer than dirt. Now do you have a problem with the Contents of
the article..or are you simply bitching because it explained things so
the Leftist could understand it?

Hummm?

Gunner

No, I didn't spend a lot of time studying the article, but it seemed
to say that at various times slavery has been a part of almost every
society, which, of course, is true. After winning the Battle of
Alesia, September, 52 BC, Julius Caesar gave each soldier in his army
one of the captured as a slave. This amounted to something like forty
thousand slaves.... from a single campaign. In his eight years of
campaigning against the Gaul's, he was said to have enslaved more than
a million people.

What the article seemed to ignore was that in nearly every society
slavery died out primarily because slaves, while cost effective in a
purely agricultural environment are somewhat less efficient when the
society becomes less dependent on agriculture and begins to depend
more on machinery.

That's not what happened in the US, however. Slavery died out because
the federal government prevented westward expansion of slavery, which
provoked a war that led to the outlawing of slavery.

Federal resistance to expansion of slavery limited the growth of
cotton agriculture. In fact, it guarenteed that it would become less
profitable, because cotton wears the hell out of the soil, and
southern plantations were already beginning to lose productivity.

I think that you are ignoring the decrease in slavery in the northern,
industrializing, States. The New England states, Maine - Connecticut,
had a slave population of 2,703 in 1790 and in 1820 it was 145. The
Middle States, New York - Delaware, had 45,910 in 1790 and by 1820
were at 22,305.

The Southern States, in contrast, went from 648,131 in 1790 to
1,319,208 in 1820.

Yet by 1860, a young strong male slave was valued at approx $40k
(todays price) and less than 13% of Southerners were slave
owners...with the top 30 slave owners/sellers...being
themselves...black.

Cite.

It's bull****.