Hudson's river derives its name from Henry Hudson, an Englishman by birth, but, who, at the time of this discovery, was in the service of the Dutch East India Company. Hudson left the Texel on the '20th of March, 1609, with the design of penetrating to the East Indies, by sailing a north-westward course. Failing in this, he proceeded along the shores of Newfoundland, and thence southward as far as Chesapeake and Delaware bays. Thence returning north-ward, he discovered and sailed up the river, which now bears his name. [pg 72/600]
From Bladensburg, Gen. Ross urged his march to Washington, where he arrived at about 8 o'clock in the evening. Having stationed his main body at the distance of a mile and a half from the capitol, he entered the city, at the head of about seven hundred men, soon after which, he issued his orders for the conflagration of the public buildings. With the capitol were consumed its valuable libraries, and all the furniture, and articles of taste and value, in that and in the other buildings. The great bridge across the Poto-mack was burnt, together with an elegant hotel, and other private buildings. [1814 burning of DC, around Aug 23rd]
The population of the United States, according to the census of 1830, was twelve millions eight hundred and fifty-six thousand one hundred and sixty-five. Of this number, two millions ten thousand four hundred and thirty six were slaves. [pg 584/600]
12,856,165 total population
2,010,436 were slaves (15.6%)
Here's how to look at it a little more correctly. Maybe only 1% or less of the U.S. population owned slaves. And this was confined to the wealthy landowners primarily in the South. The term 'slave' may include those who worked as domestics, drivers, cooks, farm workers, mechanics, blacksmiths, ditch diggers and plantation workers.
"By 1830 slavery was primarily located in the South... Fully 3/4 of Southern whites DID NOT own slaves. Of those who did, 88% owned 20 or less."
"In the lower South the majority of slaves lived and worked on cotton plantations. Most of these plantations had fifty or fewer slaves, although the largest plantations had several hundred."
Thanks for posting this. The winners get to write the history and the CW was not fought over slavery until Lincoln realized it would help his war against the civilians who were allowing Lee's starving, barefoot army to keep fighting. The figures for some states in the south were far lower. I've read that only 11% in Virginia owned slaves and most of those were wealthy owners of large plantations. The 89% who didn't weren't fighting so the rich guy down the road could keep his slaves. The fact that the industrial north was waging an economic war against the agrarian south was a more likely reason.
Fact 2) Much of the south made it very clear in their declarations of secession why they left. Slavery. Spelled out very clearly and directly. Others gave very little reason at all, except maybe "states rights". But given the context of the above, and speeches made by their governors before seceding, I think the reason is less allusive than we sometimes pretend. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states
Were there other reasons? Sure. But to say "it was not about slavery" is really just repeating the fake narrative of the left that tries to hide from their past.
The statistical amount of slaveowners among the southern population is not the point. The larger geopolitcal context gets ignored in these debates about whether there was just cause of the South.
The Southern economic core, centered mainly in the cotton planting oligarchs loyal to profit, was in an economic alliance with the British Empire via Free Trade and cheap labor. It was coordinated among a City of London-Wall Street-New Orleans nexus, with NOLA representing like 12% of all U.S. banking capital.
The southern slave states grew to represent the world’s fourth biggest economy through the support of the British Empire both financially and also in the logistical support needed to import mass slavery into the Americas.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 was to ensure the spread of slavery west of Mississippi.
This was all another example of post-Revolutionary War strategies by the British Empire encouraging financing and supporting any means to undermine the Republic. In that mid 19th century era their specific target became the Union Nationalists including the new Republicans, still maligned today as tyrannical federalists.
So it should be a shocker to absolutely no one who looks into these things that during the entirety of the Civil War the British Empire cheerfully supplied the South with battle ships, weapons and finances to providing logistic and diplomatic support internationally. British Canada housed the Confederacy’s intelligence headquarters which deployed spying, money laundering, and terrorist operations against the Union during the entire war.
In my mother's generation, born in 1934, it was common to have servants, even for the middle class. Growing up my mom's family had a cook and a man who acted as butler, took care of the horses, drove the kids to school, etc. and a housekeeper as well. My cousins had a woman who was a nanny and housekeeper all through their growing up years. She was dear to them. My Aunt was a full time mom. (And lovely in every way. Mrs. Beaver in real life!) These weren't wealthy people in a big fancy house.
Yes. This is why I get irritated whenever I hear the term middle class. It's double speak. When politicians talk about cutting taxes for the middle class, they mean the kind of people who could have afforded slaves, or, later on, the kind of people who had butlers and nannies, but not a full staff. (IE Mr Scheffield from the Nanny).
Please archive offline. I have not read the whole thing, but some very interesting stuff in here.
600 pages, published in 1833. Lincoln appears to have written his name and 1862 Springfield on page 3.
https://ia600902.us.archive.org/34/items/historyofunitedst00agood/historyofunitedst00agood.pdf
12,856,165 total population 2,010,436 were slaves (15.6%)
Thanks for this Pede
Yes, the PDF for download makes for great reading when away from WIFI.
15.6% of the population. That's a LOT more than I ever thought we had.
It reminds me of how I read that if a family had two or fewer servants in 1900, it was classified as "lower-middle class."
For having two, one, or zero servants.
Here's how to look at it a little more correctly. Maybe only 1% or less of the U.S. population owned slaves. And this was confined to the wealthy landowners primarily in the South. The term 'slave' may include those who worked as domestics, drivers, cooks, farm workers, mechanics, blacksmiths, ditch diggers and plantation workers.
"By 1830 slavery was primarily located in the South... Fully 3/4 of Southern whites DID NOT own slaves. Of those who did, 88% owned 20 or less."
"In the lower South the majority of slaves lived and worked on cotton plantations. Most of these plantations had fifty or fewer slaves, although the largest plantations had several hundred."
Source: PBS.org - Antebellum slavery 1830-1860
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2956.html#:~:text=In%20the%20lower%20South%20the,largest%20plantations%20have%20several%20hundred.
Thanks for posting this. The winners get to write the history and the CW was not fought over slavery until Lincoln realized it would help his war against the civilians who were allowing Lee's starving, barefoot army to keep fighting. The figures for some states in the south were far lower. I've read that only 11% in Virginia owned slaves and most of those were wealthy owners of large plantations. The 89% who didn't weren't fighting so the rich guy down the road could keep his slaves. The fact that the industrial north was waging an economic war against the agrarian south was a more likely reason.
Fact 1) The Republican Party was founded, and detailed in many publications as well as its founding platform, to end slavery and polygomy. https://www.ushistory.org/gop/convention_1856republicanplatform.htm
Fact 2) Much of the south made it very clear in their declarations of secession why they left. Slavery. Spelled out very clearly and directly. Others gave very little reason at all, except maybe "states rights". But given the context of the above, and speeches made by their governors before seceding, I think the reason is less allusive than we sometimes pretend. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states
Were there other reasons? Sure. But to say "it was not about slavery" is really just repeating the fake narrative of the left that tries to hide from their past.
There's the little thing about states rights also
The statistical amount of slaveowners among the southern population is not the point. The larger geopolitcal context gets ignored in these debates about whether there was just cause of the South.
The Southern economic core, centered mainly in the cotton planting oligarchs loyal to profit, was in an economic alliance with the British Empire via Free Trade and cheap labor. It was coordinated among a City of London-Wall Street-New Orleans nexus, with NOLA representing like 12% of all U.S. banking capital.
The southern slave states grew to represent the world’s fourth biggest economy through the support of the British Empire both financially and also in the logistical support needed to import mass slavery into the Americas.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 was to ensure the spread of slavery west of Mississippi.
This was all another example of post-Revolutionary War strategies by the British Empire encouraging financing and supporting any means to undermine the Republic. In that mid 19th century era their specific target became the Union Nationalists including the new Republicans, still maligned today as tyrannical federalists.
So it should be a shocker to absolutely no one who looks into these things that during the entirety of the Civil War the British Empire cheerfully supplied the South with battle ships, weapons and finances to providing logistic and diplomatic support internationally. British Canada housed the Confederacy’s intelligence headquarters which deployed spying, money laundering, and terrorist operations against the Union during the entire war.
In my mother's generation, born in 1934, it was common to have servants, even for the middle class. Growing up my mom's family had a cook and a man who acted as butler, took care of the horses, drove the kids to school, etc. and a housekeeper as well. My cousins had a woman who was a nanny and housekeeper all through their growing up years. She was dear to them. My Aunt was a full time mom. (And lovely in every way. Mrs. Beaver in real life!) These weren't wealthy people in a big fancy house.
People who are really working class have been told they are middle class.
"That's a LOT more than I ever thought we had."
"We?"
We=Americans
Don't be That Guy.
Yes. This is why I get irritated whenever I hear the term middle class. It's double speak. When politicians talk about cutting taxes for the middle class, they mean the kind of people who could have afforded slaves, or, later on, the kind of people who had butlers and nannies, but not a full staff. (IE Mr Scheffield from the Nanny).