Slavery By Another Name

[O Really]

I started it. I may finish it.

[neoplacebo]

Has anyone else on BRD bothered to watch the documentary in question, "Slavery by Another Name"?

Instead of just making stupid and insensitive jokes about it?

I haven't watched it. But I am cognizant of the concept of it.......sharecroppers, convict leasing, coal miners living in company houses and being paid in company scrip and having to buy everything at the company store, being stuck in a minimum wage job. Past or present situations that are, in effect, slavery. And there's also the almost once a year story about an immigrant working as a housekeeper for some wealthy asshole who basically kept them in a condition of slavery. Just about once a year some rich bitch is convicted of this type thing. And there were the Turpin family who kept their more than a dozen kids chained up in the house until one escaped. I was waiting out on the sidewalk in anticipation of making stupid and insensitive jokes about her parents.

[Vrede too]

I haven't watched it. But I am cognizant of the concept of it.......sharecroppers, convict leasing, coal miners living in company houses and being paid in company scrip and having to buy everything at the company store, being stuck in a minimum wage job. Past or present situations that are, in effect, slavery. And there's also the almost once a year story about an immigrant working as a housekeeper for some wealthy asshole who basically kept them in a condition of slavery. Just about once a year some rich bitch is convicted of this type thing. And there were the Turpin family who kept their more than a dozen kids chained up in the house until one escaped. I was waiting out on the sidewalk in anticipation of making stupid and insensitive jokes about her parents.

Another victimized group:

A Grim, Long-Hidden Truth Emerges in Art: Native American Enslavement

[Ulysses]

OK, I was cleaning up a table full of old papers, books, and such, and found the following list I made around 2015:

Slave States 1860

% Families Owning Slaves

AL 35
AR 20
FL 34
GA 37
LA 29
MS 49
NC 28
SC 46
TN 25
TX 28
VR 26

AVG: 32.45%

[Ulysses]

Trying to find the source I used for the above stats.

I did find a website that puts the % of slave owning families slightly lower, at about 30%:

https://socialequity.duke.edu/wp-conten ... .10.20.pdf

[billy.pilgrim]

Trying to find the source I used for the above stats.

I did find a website that puts the % of slave owning families slightly lower, at about 30%:

https://socialequity.duke.edu/wp-conten ... .10.20.pdf

So?

[Ulysses]

Trying to find the source I used for the above stats.

I did find a website that puts the % of slave owning families slightly lower, at about 30%:

https://socialequity.duke.edu/wp-conten ... .10.20.pdf

So?

No idea. I know I wrote that list, it's in my handwriting. Why I made it I cannot recall. After all, it was 6 years ago.

In researching the topic I came across other stuff, mainly that says the claim that only 1% of families in the Old South owned slaves was, well, bunk. I found this on Politifact.com:

Viral post gets it wrong about extent of slavery in 1860

Confederate-themed posts are cropping up on social media in the wake of the Unite the Right march in Charlottesville, Va.

The march was sparked by efforts to remove a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee and included some marchers carrying Confederate symbols.

One viral post sent to us by a reader said, "At the PEAK of slavery in 1860, only 1.4% of Americans owned slaves. What your history books doesn’t tell you is that 3,000 blacks owned a total of 20,000 slaves the same year." The post is signed, "Proud Southern Deplorable - Southern Rebel" and goes on to say, "If you're sick of the race baiting, please LIKE and SHARE."

When we took a closer look, we found that the percentage of slaveholding families was dramatically higher than what the meme said, and that the number of slaves owned by blacks was presented in a misleading way.

...

[Ulysses]

Percent of families that owned slaves in Connecticut: Probably well under 1%. As compared to about 30% in the pre-civil war South. Southern states had to be forced at the point of a cannon to abolish slavery.

Legal history of abolition in Connecticut

Connecticut blocked the importation of slaves in 1774, via the passage in the state legislature of the "Act for Prohibiting the Importation of Indian, Negro or Molatto Slaves"[2] and began a gradual emancipation of slaves in 1784, through the passage by the state legislature of the "Gradual Abolition Act" of that year. Through this "freeing the womb" act, all slaves born after March 1, 1784, would become free upon attaining the age of 25 for men and 21 for women,[3] though it did not free the parents, or any other adult slaves. In 1844, Governor Roger Sherman Baldwin proposed legislation to end slavery, but the General Assembly did not pass it until it was reintroduced in 1848 as "An Act to Prevent Slavery".[4][5] Connecticut's last slave, Nancy Toney of Windsor, died in December of 1857.[6]

Prevalence of slavery

According to Anne Farrow, Joel Lang, and Jenifer Frank, "In 1790 most prosperous merchants in Connecticut owned at least one slave, as did 50 percent of the ministers. ...Our economic links to slavery were deeply entwined with our religious, political, and educational institutions. Slavery was part of the social contract in Connecticut."[7]

According to U.S. census data there were 2,764 slaves in Connecticut as of 1790, a little over 1% of the population at the time.[8] This declined during the early part of the 19th century, with the census indicating numbers (percentages) reported as slaves in the State of 951 (.34%) in 1800,[9] 97 (.04%) in 1820[10] and 25 (.008%) by 1830.[11]

You'll also note that Connecticut abolished slavery well before the Civil War.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... onnecticut

[billy.pilgrim]

Friday, December 10
7:00 pm
KQED Plus

Slavery By Another Name ...

Shocking.

If it comes around again I'm going to record it.

Your own "Look at me, look at me" What are you watching thread is no longer good enough?

2:30 a.m Wednesday 12/8

It also streams for free anytime through 02/12/28 and without Roku or other pay service:
https://video.kqed.org/video/slavery-an ... ery-video/

Amazing what Useless can learn from the KQED website . . . or from me if the child wasn't using ignore.

Isn't one of those many other names for slavery from the 1700s,1800s and 1900s the debt slave miners and milners who were forced to choose between feeding their children and debt. Once indebted to the company store, they were not allowed to leave their "jobs" without being hunted down by law the local sheriff.
These people were worked to a horrible black or brown lung death at a young age.

Still nowhere as bad as the worst of slavery. The brits calculated that they could work a slave to death in the cane fields in 7 years is about as bad as it gets in relative modern times.
Hard to imagine that so many otherwise good people could look at say, 100 lives and only see a 7 year investment.

[Ulysses]

The point remains: Pre-Civil War Connecticut at most had about 1/10th the population percentage of slavery as the pre-Civil War American South. It took a very bloody conflict to end slavery in the South.

[O Really]

The point remains: Pre-Civil War Connecticut at most had about 1/10th the population percentage of slavery as the pre-Civil War American South. It took a very bloody conflict to end slavery in the South.

Without regard for the accuracy of your statement, exactly is the point that remains? Is it relevant to anything anybody cares about? Or just another part of a game of "something I'm vaguely associated with is better than something you're vaguely associated with?"

[GoCubsGo]

The point remains: Pre-Civil War Connecticut at most had about 1/10th the population percentage of slavery as the pre-Civil War American South. It took a very bloody conflict to end slavery in the South.

Without regard for the accuracy of your statement, exactly is the point that remains? Is it relevant to anything anybody cares about? Or just another part of a game of "something I'm vaguely associated with is better than something you're vaguely associated with?"

Kind of wondering that also. Is Connecticut superior to New York, Pennsylvania or Massachusetts for example?

Why would differences of a couple of percentage points matter, and at this point to whom?

[billy.pilgrim]

The point remains: Pre-Civil War Connecticut at most had about 1/10th the population percentage of slavery as the pre-Civil War American South. It took a very bloody conflict to end slavery in the South.

Without regard for the accuracy of your statement, exactly is the point that remains? Is it relevant to anything anybody cares about? Or just another part of a game of "something I'm vaguely associated with is better than something you're vaguely associated with?"

Kind of wondering that also. Is Connecticut superior to New York, Pennsylvania or Massachusetts for example?

Why would differences of a couple of percentage points matter, and at this point to whom?

Oh no, I get to see more useless from useless.

Imagine feeling so useless that you have to go back 150+ years to find a time when you think your ancestors did something a few years before someone else's ancestors.

What a moron.

[Vrede too]

Without regard for the accuracy of your statement, exactly is the point that remains? Is it relevant to anything anybody cares about? Or just another part of a game of "something I'm vaguely associated with is better than something you're vaguely associated with?"

Well put.

Oh no, I get to see more useless from useless.

Imagine feeling so useless that you have to go back 150+ years to find a time when you think your ancestors did something a few years before someone else's ancestors.

What a moron.

He's yet to explain what historic Connecticut has to do with his current racism, unless his people were among:

Percent of families that owned slaves in Connecticut: Probably well under 1%....

Hmmm.

[billy.pilgrim]

Yeah, the 1% is either a lie or some very poor research.

[Ulysses]

The point remains: Pre-Civil War Connecticut at most had about 1/10th the population percentage of slavery as the pre-Civil War American South. It took a very bloody conflict to end slavery in the South.

Without regard for the accuracy of your statement, exactly is the point that remains? Is it relevant to anything anybody cares about? Or just another part of a game of "something I'm vaguely associated with is better than something you're vaguely associated with?"

I did not bring up the issue of Connecticut and slave holding; someone else here did, in obvious retribution. Someone here has been trying to paint Connecticut, where I was born, as some sort of leader in slaveholding during its existence. This was in obvious reaction to both this thread and other comments I may have made about slavery elsewhere in the USA. I am only pointing out that while CT *might* have had more slaves than the rest of New England in its early existence as a state, evidently its slave holdings both in percent of total population and total numbers are dwarfed by most states in the pre-Civil War South, at 10% of the average Southern slaveholding state.

I still think the main topic in this thread, that of defacto slavery in the post-Civil War history of America, is a valid subject for discussion. Do you disagree?

[Ulysses]

Meanwhile, down south in Alabama...

Alabama’s capitol is a crime scene. The cover-up has lasted 120 years.

This is where Jefferson Davis took the oath as the first and only Confederate president, and there’s a little brass star to mark the spot. To the left of the steps is the statue of Davis, a cloak over his shoulders, his hands resting on a slab of pink granite, donated by the Daughters of the Confederacy in 1940.

The statue is not some misplaced relic that’s outlived its welcome. Alabama still observes Davis’ birthday as a state holiday, in addition to Confederate Memorial Day and Robert E. Lee Day. The latter it observes simultaneously with the MLK federal holiday.

...

The mementos here tell a story, but it’s counterfeit history. If you want history, you have to find it across the street, at the state Archives.

In the minutes of that convention, you’ll see that it was right up there, on that old House dais, that John B. Knox, a lawyer from Anniston, accepted the chairmanship of the 1901 Alabama Constitutional Convention, where he opened his remarks with a racist joke about “a well authenticated story from Kentucky, of an old darkey” and then explained how they would end what he called “the menace of negro domination.”

[O Really]

Percent of families that owned slaves in Connecticut: Probably well under 1%. As compared to about 30% in the pre-civil war South. Southern states had to be forced at the point of a cannon to abolish slavery.

Legal history of abolition in Connecticut

Connecticut blocked the importation of slaves in 1774, via the passage in the state legislature of the "Act for Prohibiting the Importation of Indian, Negro or Molatto Slaves"[2] and began a gradual emancipation of slaves in 1784, through the passage by the state legislature of the "Gradual Abolition Act" of that year. Through this "freeing the womb" act, all slaves born after March 1, 1784, would become free upon attaining the age of 25 for men and 21 for women,[3] though it did not free the parents, or any other adult slaves. In 1844, Governor Roger Sherman Baldwin proposed legislation to end slavery, but the General Assembly did not pass it until it was reintroduced in 1848 as "An Act to Prevent Slavery".[4][5] Connecticut's last slave, Nancy Toney of Windsor, died in December of 1857.[6]

Prevalence of slavery

According to Anne Farrow, Joel Lang, and Jenifer Frank, "In 1790 most prosperous merchants in Connecticut owned at least one slave, as did 50 percent of the ministers. ...Our economic links to slavery were deeply entwined with our religious, political, and educational institutions. Slavery was part of the social contract in Connecticut."[7]

According to U.S. census data there were 2,764 slaves in Connecticut as of 1790, a little over 1% of the population at the time.[8] This declined during the early part of the 19th century, with the census indicating numbers (percentages) reported as slaves in the State of 951 (.34%) in 1800,[9] 97 (.04%) in 1820[10] and 25 (.008%) by 1830.[11]

You'll also note that Connecticut abolished slavery well before the Civil War.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... onnecticut

Nobody mentioned Connecticut until Ulysses' first reference, above.

Nobody else mentioned Connecticut at all except for billy.p questioning Ulysses' "1%" figure and noting that Connecticut had more slaves than any other New England state.

Nobody but Ulysses had any interest in discussing Connecticut or its slavers, if any.

[Ulysses]

Percent of families that owned slaves in Connecticut: Probably well under 1%. As compared to about 30% in the pre-civil war South. Southern states had to be forced at the point of a cannon to abolish slavery.

Legal history of abolition in Connecticut

Connecticut blocked the importation of slaves in 1774, via the passage in the state legislature of the "Act for Prohibiting the Importation of Indian, Negro or Molatto Slaves"[2] and began a gradual emancipation of slaves in 1784, through the passage by the state legislature of the "Gradual Abolition Act" of that year. Through this "freeing the womb" act, all slaves born after March 1, 1784, would become free upon attaining the age of 25 for men and 21 for women,[3] though it did not free the parents, or any other adult slaves. In 1844, Governor Roger Sherman Baldwin proposed legislation to end slavery, but the General Assembly did not pass it until it was reintroduced in 1848 as "An Act to Prevent Slavery".[4][5] Connecticut's last slave, Nancy Toney of Windsor, died in December of 1857.[6]

Prevalence of slavery

According to Anne Farrow, Joel Lang, and Jenifer Frank, "In 1790 most prosperous merchants in Connecticut owned at least one slave, as did 50 percent of the ministers. ...Our economic links to slavery were deeply entwined with our religious, political, and educational institutions. Slavery was part of the social contract in Connecticut."[7]

According to U.S. census data there were 2,764 slaves in Connecticut as of 1790, a little over 1% of the population at the time.[8] This declined during the early part of the 19th century, with the census indicating numbers (percentages) reported as slaves in the State of 951 (.34%) in 1800,[9] 97 (.04%) in 1820[10] and 25 (.008%) by 1830.[11]

You'll also note that Connecticut abolished slavery well before the Civil War.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... onnecticut

Nobody mentioned Connecticut until Ulysses' first reference, above.

Nobody else mentioned Connecticut at all except for billy.p questioning Ulysses' "1%" figure and noting that Connecticut had more slaves than any other New England state.

Nobody but Ulysses had any interest in discussing Connecticut or its slavers, if any.

And your point, if any, is what?

Suppress the truth about the history slavery in America?

[GoCubsGo]

I think the point is that you're full of shit.