Talk:Slavery in the United States/Archive 4

Slavery and disability
Hello everyone! I am a student and I have written a piece on disabled slaves in the U.S. My piece talks about how disabled slaves were treated and struggles they went through. Please give me your opinion on if it would make sense to add it to this page! Thanks!!Yusrao (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)yusrao


 * Please delete or rewrite it, I mean no disrespect but it's very poorly written and mostly unsourced. I considered deleting it myself but there are a few sources cited so I didn't think I should.  DMorpheus2 (talk) 13:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I moved it here for discussion. The current souceing makes little sense and as you note there are other issues, perhaps length as well. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)  I also posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disability, so Yusaro, you might want to contact some experienced people in that project directly. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks you all for taking up this issue. I would like to see this section reintegrated but, of course, with the suggestions here stated. Caballero /  Historiador ⎌  16:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there enough in the sources to create a separate article out of this (with some editing/rewriting)? It's a good topic, but perhaps too lengthy for inclusion here. ABF99 (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Student is learning and the topic is important. What can we keep that would be useful for future editors to build from? Would it help if this was posted as a standalone article? Pommette1789 (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed "Disability and Slavery"

Disability and race intertwined with one another during the 19th century. African Americans were labeled the others, which created a dual stigma that connected race and disability. Many famous African American abolitionist s had disabilities such as Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, and Denmark Vesey. There were also famous slaves that were disabled as well such as Millie and Christine McKoy and Blind Tom Wiggins.[1]

Causes of Disability While there were slaves who were born disabled, there were also factors within the forced labor system that lead to slaves becoming disabled, especially unborn children due to the labor work their mothers were forced to do. Enslaved children would be born disabled with disabilities such as missing some sort of limb, being deaf, and even blindness because their pregnant enslaved mothers weren't taken care of during their pregnancy. There were also cases of mothers who would suffer psychological problems such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) because they would be sold away from their children.[2] Abuse toward African American slaves also played a role in creating disability in the enslaved community such as the disfiguring of slaves due to being whipped by their masters. [1]

Disabled Slaves Roles Slave family structures that had the presence of a disabled family member in them needed to live up to the expectations created by the slave masters. Slave masters viewed disabled slaves as useless so slave families with a disabled member needed to prove to the slave master that the presence of a disabled slave in the community wouldn't get in the way of labor work. Slaves created a community among themselves to help each other and make things easy on one another. Disabled slaves played roles in helping slave mothers by taking care of their children. Disabled enslaved men played roles in being caregivers for children as well, one example is of a disabled slave names Willie Wallace who was not physically capable of working in the plantations. His role would be carrying the babies of enslaved mother to the fields where they would work so the mothers would be able to nurse their babies without having to walk back and forth to the plantation. [2]

Slave Masters Treatment
Disabled slaves were looked at as unproductive by their masters making them easy to get rid of and tradable. Older disabled slaves would get traded off by their masters. Some roles disabled slaves were forced to do were things like begging for money to bring to their masters.[3] Disabled enslaved children were under threat of being traded away from their families because their masters looked at them to be a financial responsibility as well as valueless. Disabled slave mothers were also vulnerable because their masters saw them as useless giving them less necessities to take care of their children. [2] Slave masters would try to get their disabled slaves "fixed" and would get their own doctors to do on their disabled slaves. Some slave masters would even rent out or sale their disabled slaves to physicians and //racial scientist - you need to explain - this isn't a term// to do medical research on them. At times disabled slaves would get murdered by their slave masters because their masters saw them as unproductive and unable to get the job done. [1]

Science
Disabled slaves were sold to physicians, scientist s, and hospitals so they could be studied. Disabled slaves would also get sent to medical schools to have research be done on them. Doctors during the 19th century accumulated the bodies of disabled slaves when they would pass away to study. They would also collect the fetuses of unborn children and skeletons of disabled slaves. These doctors would then publish their research in medical journals such as The New Orleans Medical and Hospital Gazette. [1]

Justifications
There were racial scientists as well as physicians who would write in medical journals that would claim that African Americans weren't fit enough mentally and physically to be free and by giving them freedom African Americans would become disabled. There were scientists and physicians who argued that whites and African Americans were physically different from each other, such as African Americans breathing in less oxygen making them slower than whites which was what Samuel Cartwright argued. There were former presidents like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington who argued that African Americans are inferior to whites, making them incapable of being on their own. Other scientist who have argued on why slavery was necessary and freedom for African Americans created disability within the African American community were scientist like R. Dunglson, Samuel George Morton, H.A Ramsey, and Josiah Clark Notte[1]. Samuel Cartwright also created mental illnesses that African Americans were prone to. One being Drapetomania which he argued was the disease that made slaves runaway for freedom and the second disease was Dysaesthesia Aethiopica which was the wanting of African Americans to be lazy and create problems. Cartwright made arguments that these two diseases were found to be free African Americans than in slaves.[4] Edward Jarvis made arguments as well claiming that African Americans were not suited for freedom. He claimed that there was a higher percentage of deaf, blind, and insane African Americans that were free in the North than the South, making the argument that African Americans were protected from disability because of their slavery[1]. Senator of South Carolina at the time John C. Calhoun argued that with giving African Americans freedom they will then inherit disabilities, his evidence was how there were higher rates of disabled African Americans in states who have abolished slavery. The intertwining of freedom for African Americans and disability was popular for pro slavery advocates. In scientist medical journals it was argued that African Americans were not smart enough to live side by side with whites. [4]

Abolitionist Argument Abolitionist used disability in slave communities to their advantage as well. Abolitionist like John G. Fee argued that slavery created disability within the African American community. Abolitionist advocated that the institution of this forced labor was making African Americans disabled and by giving them freedom it would help their health.[1]

Emancipation The concept of being able bodied came out during the Civil War to see who would be eligible to fight with the Union Army. This excluded all disabled African Americans as well as disabled people in general. A struggle disabled slaves found themselves in was freeing themselves by escaping the plantation, being disabled made it harder for them to leave the plantation therefor forcing them to live under the control of their slave master even after the Civil War. This also divided up slave families and communities from each other because disabled slaves wouldn't be able to escape with them. Another struggle disabled slaves came across was the Confiscation Act of 1862 which was created so former slaves could pass the union lines but the condition for the act was they had to do labor work, this was harder for disabled slaves due to their disability. Once slavery was abolished able bodied freed men were able to get jobs and wages by working as laborers but disabled African Americans were left behind. Although during reconstruction The Medical Division of the Freedom Bureau had services to help disabled slaves, freed African Americans did not get any help. Being free and becoming free always tied into whether or not the slave had the ability to work.[5]

Africans and African Americans
An editor was going to delete my inclusion of "Africans and African Americans" in the lead sentence, unless I qualified it with "primarily Africans and African Americans". For my own curiosity: What other legal types of slavery existed in the United States from the 18th to 19th centuries? Wolfdog (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Native Americans were enslaved in the Colonial era (pre-United States), which may be outside the scope of this article, but perhaps deserves a mention in it. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/01/native_american_slavery_historians_uncover_a_chilling_chapter_in_u_s_history.html   They were also auctioned off and enslaved in the 1850s in California in a kind of 'indentured servitude'  scheme. https://www.kcet.org/shows/lost-la/los-angeles-1850s-slave-market-is-now-the-site-of-a-federal-courthouse ABF99 (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC) I struck through previous comments now that I've read the Native American section of the article.  --ABF99 (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this is obvious but - many people who we would nowadays perhaps call 'mixed race' (not that we need to label people at all) were held as slaves. And under the rule that the child of an enslaved woman is itself a slave, slaveowners could add these children to their roster of slaves without regard for who the fathers were. Combine this with the absolute, complete and violence-backed control of slave women. Perpetuate this for a couple generations and you get a lot of slaves who were indistinguishable, by appearance, from any apparently 'white' free person. Sally Hemmings, for example, though a slave, had three white grandparents & her father was her white owner. Thus Jefferson's children with her (whom he held as slaves until they reached adulthood) were 7/8ths 'white' and were both his children and his nieces/nephews.
 * I am not trying to "all lives matter" this issue - slavery and racism are bound together, and American slavery is about the treatment of black Americans, not a random bunch of people, some of whom happened to be black. What I am saying is the the white definition of 'black' and 'white' depended an awful lot on whether one was free or not. DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * At the risk of going off-topic: For those not familiar with the details who might be wondering why Thomas Jefferson's enslaved children were also his nieces and nephews, Sally Hemings was the daughter of Jefferson's father-in-law and half-sister to Jefferson's wife. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarifications. Wolfdog (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

did free blacks own white slaves?
no. No RS has documented a case. Rjensen (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably, in part, such undocumented claims arise from the Irish slaves myth. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The better questions are did white people own white slaves, and if so, why should the article only mention the exceptionally rare cases of black people who may have owned white slaves? The latest addition said that black slave-owners "were permitted to own" white slaves; were white slave-owners not permitted to own them? I suspect the law—written, as it was, by white men—permitted any slave-owner to own slaves of any race. If so, and if it was significant, maybe we should say that instead of focusing on black owners of white slaves. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Right. Moreover, there are several things that need to be distinguished: 1) time period - the focus of this article is 1776 (late 18th century), and after 2) chattel slavery is a different arrangement than indentured servitude and while the indentured, and apprentices, and children, and even wives could all been on occasion treated very, very harshly or cruelly in the 17th century and made to work, they were still not chattel slaves. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * By all means let's focus on a tiny number of "white" victims rather than the millions of known black victims of slavery. Racist sarcasm mode = off now. As we mentioned above, the then-current definition of 'white' and 'black' was entangled in free or slave status. Thus the children of T Jefferson and Sally Hemmings, for example, who had 7 white grandparents and 1 black grandparent, could be considered 'black' when they were slaves living in Virginia, but could choose to live as 'white' once they were free of slavery and Virginia.  DMorpheus2 (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Typo?
In a sentence or two following the 26th footnote, it appears to say "port dcities."

The Economics section.
The Economics section is rooted in socio-economic statements. It needs macroeconomic analysis.Bo Basil (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

British America
The table of "Destination of enslaved Africans (1519–1867)": has entries for "British America (minus North America)" and then for "British North America". What exactly is the meaning of "North America" here? Is it just the area that's now Canada and roughly the eastern half of the US? Does it include colonies in Central America? Islands in the Caribbean? All these places are often counted with North America, but if they are, then all that's left to be "British America (minus North America)" is British Guiana and the Falklands. I wouldn't think those places would absorb that many slaves, or that that wording would be used if that was the intent.

I assume that the wording comes from the cited book, but it's not available in Google Books to check. Perhaps someone would like to check it and either word the table or add a footnote to clarify the intent. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 06:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't have access to the source right now -- it's at home and I'm not -- and I seem to remember that the numbers appeared in a table, without much more explanation than what is here. I'll check next time I have access to the book.
 * If I'm not mistaken, the British colonized Jamaica and other Caribbean islands. That is likely where most of those enslaved Africans ended up. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 03:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * As I was afraid, the source I used, the first edition of Africana, showed not much more than the information in our article. However, the newer edition of Africana revised the table to be more helpful, separating the British colonies on (a) the North American mainland, (b) the Leeward Islands, (c) the Windward Islands and Trinidad, (d) Jamaica, (e) Barbados, and (f) the Guianas (which was British from 1814 until its independence as Guyana in 1966). I'll update the table in the article accordingly. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that new version is much clearer. It's interesting that some of the numbers are quite different (for example, Spanish dependencies went from 17.5% in the old table down to 12.6%), but I assume this simply means that the source now has better data than its old edition did. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 04:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism? Hardly
Regarding the recent reversal of an edit I made two days ago. A query at http://www.slavevoyages.org/assessment/estimates - by "Flag" includes information, apparently, from current territories of the United States that are not "states," such as Puerto Rico. Although the current wikipedia article includes these territories, not to be confused with areas in the continental United States that became states, this is at odds with a brief on line search for dictionary definitions of the "United States of America." I also note that there is no mention of Puerto Rico in the article. A query of the same database by area shows information pertinent to the current "States," which seems to be what the article is about. THAT number is the number I placed in the table headed "Enslaved people imported to those regions that are part of the present-day United States." BTW, I'm hoping for comments more civil than "Why lie?" Steve Pastor (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Your edit summary claimed you "updated numbers for USA period 1620-1650 based on current query of database at listed site". The numbers in the table in our article are exactly the same as those shown in the column titled USA in the table at the source, no original research or "updating" necessary. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Objectivity
The article is very neutral and objective. While reading this, I came across no bias at all. Chynichart (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)Chyna Hartwell

I think it has a subtle anti-slavery bias.

This sentence needs revision
"The change institutionalized the skewed power relationships between slaveowners and slave women, freed the white men from the legal responsibility to acknowledge or financially support their mixed-race children, and somewhat confined the open scandal of mixed-race children and miscegenation to within the slave quarters."

The first phrase is confusing because it doesn't indicate in what manner the "power relationship" between masters and slave women was "skewed." You would expect all the power to belong to the master. He is the master, after all. The second phrase "freed white men from the legal responsibility to acknowledge or financially support their mixed race chidren," is poor also. During the colonial era, men had no responsibility to support bastards, only legitimate children, regardless of race. If I am mistaken, show me the law, but as far as I know bastards didn't inherit until the 20th century.50.251.84.98 (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You are correct that a bastard could not inherit real property but a father of a bastard could be ordered by courts to care for the minor child - not that they would do it themselves (although they could) but they had to make arrangements, arrange apprenticeships, etc. See, generally Colonial American bastardy laws. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Slavery in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070714073725/http://www.itd.nps.gov/cwss/manassas/social/introsoc.htm to http://www.itd.nps.gov/cwss/manassas/social/introsoc.htm
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120715041234/http://savannahnow.com/node/448938 to http://savannahnow.com/node/448938
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120801130237/www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/105.5/ah001534.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/105.5/ah001534.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110108042234/http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=731&issue_id=75 to http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=731&issue_id=75
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071015130620/http://www.potomacbooksinc.com/Books/BookDetail.aspx?productID=63330 to http://www.potomacbooksinc.com/Books/BookDetail.aspx?productID=63330
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111220190203/http://eh.net/node/2749 to http://eh.net/node/2749
 * Added tag to http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampagecollId%3Dllsc%26fileName%3D001//llsc001.db%26recNum%3D2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030401083841/http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/census/ to http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/census/.
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061214031402/http://www.ceres.ca.gov/nahc/califindian.html to http://www.ceres.ca.gov/nahc/califindian.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070720231457/http://www.southernhistory.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=9406&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0 to http://www.southernhistory.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=9406&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070715143811/http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/black_voices/voices_display.cfm?id=2 to http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/black_voices/voices_display.cfm?id=2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140123083145/http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2013/03/black_slave_owners_did_they_exist.1.html to http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2013/03/black_slave_owners_did_they_exist.1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070822165604/http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/histcensus/php/newlong.php to http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/histcensus/php/newlong.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061214031402/http://www.ceres.ca.gov/nahc/califindian.html to http://www.ceres.ca.gov/nahc/califindian.html
 * Added tag to http://digital.library.umsystem.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?sid=16fd2dfe685dfcb2d10f6503e7f77693;g=;c=civilwar;idno=civc000059
 * Added tag to http://www.freeaudio.org/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111005050044/http://gvsu.cdmhost.com/cdm4/results.php?CISOOP1=any&CISOBOX1=slaves%20slavery%20slaveholders&CISOFIELD1=subjec&CISOOP2=exact&CISOBOX2=&CISOFIELD2=subjec&CISOOP3=any&CISOBOX3=&CISOFIELD3=title&CISOOP4=none&CISOBOX4=&CISOFIELD4=title&CISOROOT=%2Fp4103coll3&t=s to http://gvsu.cdmhost.com/cdm4/results.php?CISOOP1=any&CISOBOX1=slaves%20slavery%20slaveholders&CISOFIELD1=subjec&CISOOP2=exact&CISOBOX2=&CISOFIELD2=subjec&CISOOP3=any&CISOBOX3=&CISOFIELD3=title&CISOOP4=none&CISOBOX4=&CISOFIELD4=title&CISOROOT=%2Fp4103coll3&t=s

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Changes to distribution of slaveholders
I have now twice reverted changes to this page made by User:98.220.157.243 related to percentages of families holding slaves, etc. (|Diff). These changes seem to be altering page content which is supported by references, without providing new references. I am far from expert on this subject but the edits did not seem to be accurate based on the existing sources. Please discuss these changes on the talk page here before re-inserting them. EronTalk 23:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Per Eron I am putting the changes here for discussion.

1) Domestic slave trade and forced migration 3rd Paragraph

Current- By 1815, the domestic slave trade had become a major economic activity in the United States; it lasted until the 1860s.[69] Between 1830 and 1840 nearly 250,000 slaves were taken across state lines.[69] In the 1850s more than 193,000 were transported, and historians estimate nearly one million in total took part in the forced migration of this new Middle Passage. By 1860 the slave population in the United States had reached 4 million.[69] Of all 1,515,605 free families in the fifteen slave states in 1860, nearly 400,000 held slaves (roughly one in four, or 25%),[70] amounting to 8% of all American families.[71]

Proposal- My suggestion to change southern to 15 slave states has been adopted but the actual amount is 26% (.2599). The fact that only 8% of american families owned slaves may be factual but it is not relevant as the population of the free states should not be counted in any calculations as slavery was not legal in them. So either the fact needs to be removed or a clarification that adds that "the 8% is not relevant as in the 19 free states, families could not legally own slaves". One would not include Males in a calculations of birthrates as men cannot conceive.

2) Distribution of slaveholders

Current- Excluding slaves, the 1860 U.S. population was 27,167,529, yielding about 1 in 70 free persons (1.5%) being slaveholders. By counting only named slaveowners, this approach does not acknowledge people who benefited from slavery by being in a slaveowning household, e.g. the wife and children of an owner. Only 8% of all US families owned slaves,[230] while in the South, 33% of families owned slaves.

Proposal- My above comment on the 8% in 1) is the identical here. The definition of south is not clear. One should define 15 slave states at 26% and 11 Confederate states at 31%. This can be calculated easily at

Current- The distribution of slaves among holders was very unequal: holders of 200 or more slaves, constituting less than 1% of all US slaveholders (fewer than 4,000 persons, 1 in 7,000 free persons, or 0.015% of the population) held an estimated 20–30% of all slaves (800,000 to 1,200,000 slaves).

Proposal- This statement is false in saying that "The distribution of slaves among holders was very unequal" and "slaveholders owning ≥ 200 slaves owned an estimated 20–30% of all slaves (800,000 to 1,200,000 slaves)". The 1860 census data does not support this. I have the 1860 census national/state slaveholder/slaves per/slaves recapitulation schedule from the US Census Bureau. I have entered the data into a spreadsheet and tabulated it. The facts from the data is that in 1860 in the 15 slave states, 319 slaveholders owned ≥ 200 slaves totaling approx 95,000 slaves, almost 2.5% of the almost 4,000,000 slaves.

In fact in the 15 slave states, 2.79% of all slaveholders totaling 10,993 owning ≥ 50 slaves, owned approx 1,000,000 slaves about 25% of the almost 4,000,000 slaves in 1860. I can prove this from the 1860 census data.

I am willing to submit copies of my source and computations for verification. If someone can tell me how to upload as a PDF, JPEG, etc I will do so.

Additionally I want to enumerate the following from the 1860 census that shows that slavery was much more widespread and not very unequal.

The correct distribution of slaveholder/slaves by the amount of slaves owned, based off of the 1860 census is as follows:

Slave States = 15 total

Confederate States = 11 total

Again I am willing to submit copies of my source and computations for verification. If someone can tell me how to upload as a PDF, JPEG, etc I will do so.

I think it is important to document the data for the 15 Slave States and the 11 Confederate states as the 4 border states did not secede and were different enough from the 11 Confederate states in slavery to be looked at separately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.157.243 (talk) 03:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Additionally order of this article should be revised. First should be the history of slavery till 1860, right before the civil war. sections 1-3 cover colonial to 1850, this should be revised to add the 1850 to 1860 parts. Then the distribution of slavery followed by the economics then the agitation against it. Then the Civil war and reconstruction etc.

Currently Distribution is buried next to last after 12 Barbary pirates?98.220.157.243 (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Eron, you had stated "You seem to have been doing original research in analyzing this data.". I am not doing original research as I am not doing a census or interpreting data that may or may require the use of an opinion. The 1860 census data is the reliable source. The Slaveholder and Slave schedules and the totals by county, state and number of slaves owned are the historical/factual data from the US Govt census bureau. All I am doing is adding them up and sorting them. The only "choices" I am making is:

1) to group the 15 slave states together, excluding the Utah, Nebraska and DC data as it is immaterial as the number of slaves in these 3 territories is less than .1% of the total and the common accepted practice is to look at the 15 slave states.

2) to group the 11 slave states that formed the Confederacy together.

Additionally one could group the 4 border states that did not secede together, the 1st 7 confederate states (deep south) together and the 2nd 4 confederate states (upper south) together. All of these 5 groupings are used by historians and are commonly accepted.

3) to group the slaveholders into 3 groups. Generally historians group the large planter class as owning 50 or more slaves into one group. Some historians group the lower group at 1-15 or at 1-20. The historians Robert Fogel and Stanley Engerman define large planters as those owning over 50 slaves, and medium planters as those owning between 16 and 50 slaves. So using their groupings I created 3 Groups of Slaveholders: Small 1-14, Medium 20-49 and Large ≥ 50. These are used by historians and commonly accepted. Additionally the 1860 Census tabulated Slaveholders in groups that are easy to group wholly into these three groups.

So you see I am not doing original research. I am taking historical census data and simply tabulating it into groups that are commonly used by historians when discussing slavery in the US right before the American Civil War.

I would like to point out that the citation of "THE SIXTEEN LARGEST AMERICAN SLAVEHOLDERS FROM 1860 SLAVE CENSUS SCHEDULES Transcribed by Tom Blake*, April to July 2001" is flimsy at best. Who is Tom Blake? Is he an authoritative figure on the subject? I am not one, but I am willing to show the original 1860 census schedules and my tabulations of them that support the data in the groupings. The citation does not show any schedules to support it's claim. Just because it is hosted by rootsweb which is part of the ancestry.com community does not make it legitimate. This is not from a historian, was not published in a book or a journal or newspaper of repute. So why is this flimsy citation allowed to support a claim, that anyone with a few hours to tabulate the 1860 census data would see is false?

How can I upload the support to someone at wikipedia with the authority to proof and verify the historical data that supports the groups data?98.220.157.243 (talk) 06:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)98.220.157.243 (talk) 06:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:No original research. As the opening of that policy explains:
 * The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are to the topic of the article, and  the material being presented.


 * Your addition is considered "original research" because you are performing your own analysis and drawing your own conclusions. You should cite a reliable source or two that include analysis by professional historians. (I believe historians have written about slavery in the United States; you should be able to find books online or, better yet, at your local library.) Instead of drawing your own conclusions ("slavery was much more widespread and not very unequal"—more widespread than what? not unequal compared to what?), cite the conclusions of a professional historian. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Malik Shabazz,

1) The false claim (I know it is false from trying to replicate it using the 1860 census data and coming up with materially different results) that "The distribution of slaves among holders was very unequal: holders of 200 or more slaves, constituting less than 1% of all US slaveholders (fewer than 4,000 persons, 1 in 7,000 free persons, or 0.015% of the population) held an estimated 20–30% of all slaves (800,000 to 1,200,000 slaves)." is referenced by Tom Blake who does not appear to be a professional historian yet this false claim and the citation is kept up in wikipedia. I am involved in civil war history and do not recognize him with any of the discussions of slavery in regards to the civil war. Rootsweb is not a professional historical site.

2) You say to look at other books online or, better yet, at your local library, I own several good books on the subject of slavery and the civil war, the most recent is "The Myth of the Lost Cause" by Edward Bonekemper III. But these books do not tabulate the 1860 census slaveholder and slave data in aggregate and percentage by the three commonly accepted groupings for slaveholders of Small ≤ 14, Medium 15-49, and Large ≥ 50. What if I am the first to organize the data in this way? I am in the process of trying to get the data posted in an article I am working on for a Civil War online magazine.

3) You say I am drawing my own conclusions that("slavery was much more widespread and not very unequal"—more widespread than what? not unequal compared to what?), This is a rebuttal to the false claim by Tom Blake(who is not a historian) that "The distribution of slaves among holders was very unequal" If the false claim was removed I would not need to have the rebuttal, just the historical tabulation. Anyone with a basic understanding of percentages can see that the 1860 data organized into the groupings shows that slaveholders was not unequal and mainly among the rich large planter class, but was spread around more evenly to Small and Medium planters.98.220.157.243 (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I think a version of the table you are looking for is in Gray, Lewis Cecil, and Esther Katherine Thompson. "History of agriculture in the southern United States to 1860." (1933)., p 530. I think a limited version of such a table would be interesting. I don't see any of the rest of what you've added in reliable sources, and I've reverted it. I agree the Blake is transcribing a primary source and is not a reliable source, and I think it should be removed, but I don't really know about the broader point of whether slaves were evenly or unevenly distributed as I'm not sure what distribution is expected (Zipfian, right? Is there research on this issue?). Smmurphy(Talk) 20:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I reverted (again). Why did an entire section of the article appear in two places verbatim (under "1850s" and under "Distribution")? Why are you arguing with a source in the middle of an encyclopedia article?
 * You wrote (in the article) "The distribution of slaves among slaveholders was more equal than claimed by some." Who are the "some"? What does "more equal" mean? More equal than what? We're writing an encyclopedia article here, not engaging in a debate with the authors of other sources. And as I explained above, Wikipedia values only what is published in reliable sources, not original research.
 * When you finish your research into what reliable sources say, if you believe that the article is in error, post a message explaining that. Then delete the incorrect information from the article and replace it with well-sourced corrected information. Don't argue with it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Malik Shabazz I accidentally only reverted the one edit and not both of them. IP, I agree with Malik Shabazz and others who are trying to help you. If you want to edit wikipedia, great! But this is an encyclopedia, not an academic journal or a blog, and we have a number of important policies and guidelines that help us work together and maintain some quality, and you need to be mindful of them. Smmurphy(Talk) 04:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Malik Shabazz and Smmurphy

The "History of agriculture in the southern United States to 1860]." (1933)., p 530." table is compiled from the the 1850 and 1860 census data of course but this does not list the actual numbers of slaves and slaveholders and very importantly only has 9 buckets of "slaves per" where the 1860 census has 21 buckets of "slaves per" providing much deeper/accurate detail. One can see the actual data here on pg 64 of the PDF in the recapitulation. The supporting state and county schedules are here as well. Wikipedia should be able to cite a schedule that the US Census Bureau did for the 1860 census back in the 1860's. The data is there, if anyone questions my calculations all they have to do is input the data into a spreadsheet and sort it into the commonly accepted groupings used by historians.

I am not trying to "publish" an article in wikipedia, I am trying to refute a several false claims in it by posting historically accurate data. Showing the summarized percentage data from the 1860 census data slaveholder, slaves per and slaves schedules is legitimate to an encyclopedia. Does someone have to "publish the percentages", when one can easily compute them from the data on hand, in order for the percentages to be posted in wikipedia? If my article is published in the online Civil War magazine citing the 1860 census schedules and my spreadsheet calculations of the percentages, that is reviewed for accuracy before publication, then will would wikipedia accept my article in lieu of the 1860 census schedules for a citation?

It is non"encyclopedic"/criminal to bury the distribution of slaveholders in an article on Slavery in the United States near the end after discussing native americans, black slaveholders, barbary pirates and justifications for/against. The article should timeline slavery from colonial america thru the civil war and should have the "distribution of slavery in 1860 on the eve of the civil war" right before the civil war section.

Why does wikipedia allow a citation from a non-historian like Tom Blake and a non-historical website like Rootsweb? If the statement was factually wrong but came from PBS or the NY Times I could see you disputing with me initially as they are respected, but this guy and the website is not legitimate to cite for a historical fact like this. By this rationale I could start my own website called historical facts and make any claim true or false and wikipedia would be able to cite it as published.

You question my claim that "The distribution of slaves among slaveholders was more equal than claimed by some." My "some" is Tom Blake. "Equal" means that when when within the 3 groups on slaveholders: Small own 38% of slaves, Medium own 37% of slaves and Large own 25% of slaves that is to anyone with common sense pretty equal. When looking at the historically factual numbers, one should not have to be a professional historian in order the state that the distribution of slaves among slaveholders was equal. It is like saying the sky is blue on a normal sunny day. Do we need a scientific expert to validate that the sky is normally blue. No we can just look at it. We can just look at the factual data and percentages and conclude that slavery in the 15 slave states was spread equally throughout society. If we were to look at a subgroup of states or individual states, then of course there would be some where slavery is more concentrated in one area vs another.

Tom Blake makes a claim that "The distribution of slaves among holders was very unequal" how does wikipedia proof that? He cites no numbers of slaveholders in the commonly accepted groups of Small, Medium and Large to back up this False claim. How does wikipedia verify that "holders of 200 or more slaves, constituting less than 1% of all US slaveholders (fewer than 4,000 persons, 1 in 7,000 free persons, or 0.015% of the population) held an estimated 20–30% of all slaves (800,000 to 1,200,000 slaves)"? Wikipedia does not as Tom Blake provides no schedules and data from the 1860 census. I show where the data for the 1860 census is that can easily be computed by anyone to support my historical data.

I understand the need to verify sources in any encyclopedia/wikipedia, but if no other author tabulated the 1860 census data and percentages in the commonly accepted groups like I did, but the source data is accurate, published, and online and allows someone to replicate my tabulation (the scientific method) then the data can be cited as accurate to support the tabulation. Remember I am simply adding the data into the groups that are used by historians.98.220.157.243 (talk) 06:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * While I generally do not prefer rootsweb-based sources, Blake's work in this area and that web page specifically are well cited (based on searches of "Tom Blake" census on google books and google scholar). Since historians seem to regard that page as reliable, I have struck my comment above that I thought Blake shouldn't be used as a source. Your definition of equal seems OR. Searching google scholar and google books for terms like "equal distribution of people" or "equal distribution of slaves" or even "equal distribution", I don't see a definition like yours. I see one definition that is based in a Gini coefficient, closer to 0.5 is more equal (in other words, if everyone eligible to hold slaves held the same number of slaves, that would be most equal).(Luna, Francisco Vidal, and Herbert S. Klein. Slavery and the Economy of Sao Paulo, 1750-1850. Stanford University Press, 2003. p 125) I also do not see any publications that group counts of slaves owned by an individual into "1-14", "15-49", and "50+". Finally, regarding the question about adding accurate calculations that are not in the literature, that is considered original research and is avoided with very few exceptions. Regarding citing something that you have written, that should be done with care to avoid a conflict of interest. Smmurphy(Talk) 07:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Smmurphy

Looking at the Google books listings, it appears that Tom Blake may know about geneology in particular how to track down slave ancestors using the slave schedules. I am not doubting his abilities in this area. I even trust that his listing of the top 19 slaveholders owning ≥ 500 slaves is accurate as that is easy to find in the census by looking at the state schedules by county and then the slave schedules. The US Census recap lists 15 slaveholders, but since the census lists by county someone could have owned a large amount of slaveholders in 2 counties so that separately they own less than 500 but combined they own over 500. this is probably how Tom Blake has 19 slaveholders and the US census has 16 slaveholders.

I am looking at the sum of the state/county schedules that role up into the recapitulation totals.

Can you do me a favor take 5 min and do this to proof of Tom Blake's claim of "holders of 200 or more slaves, constituting less than 1% of all US slaveholders (fewer than 4,000 persons, 1 in 7,000 free persons, or 0.015% of the population) held an estimated 20–30% of all slaves (800,000 to 1,200,000 slaves)." Go to the (PDF pg 64/US Census pg 247) Look at the 2nd lower chart on the page starting at the Slaveholder 200 and under 300 and look at the state totals for that bucket and the three higher buckets and follow me in calculating the Min, Mid and Max for the 4 "buckets" of 200 or more slaves:

Min

200 to 299    200   slaves x 224 slaveholders = 44,800 slaves 300 to 499    300   slaves x 74  slaveholders = 22,200 slaves 500 to 999    500   slaves x 13  slaveholders =  6,500 slaves 1,000 and up  1,130 slaves x  1  slaveholders =  1,130 slaves   Source Tom Blake Estate of JOSHUA J. WARD,1,130 slaves.

Min Totals = 74,630 slaves

Mid

200 to 299    249   slaves x 224 slaveholders = 55,776 slaves 300 to 499    399   slaves x 74  slaveholders = 29,526 slaves 500 to 999    749   slaves x 13  slaveholders =  9,737 slaves 1,000 and up  1,130 slaves x  1  slaveholders =  1,130 slaves   Source Tom Blake Estate of JOSHUA J. WARD,1,130 slaves.

Mid Totals = 96,169 slaves

Max

200 to 299    299   slaves x 224 slaveholders = 66,976 slaves 300 to 499    499   slaves x 74  slaveholders = 36,926 slaves 500 to 999    999   slaves x 13  slaveholders = 12,987 slaves 1,000 and up  1,130 slaves x  1  slaveholders = 1,130  slaves   Source Tom Blake Estate of JOSHUA J. WARD,1,130 slaves.

Min Totals = 118,019 slaves

Whether we tabulate 74,630, 96,169, or 118,019 we are nowhere close to Tom Blake's estimate of 800,000 to 1,200,00 slaves owned by slaveholders owning ≥ 200 slaves. Does this validate my argument that his claim is false and validate that I am trying to present factual data?

The correct number is probably close to the Mid, I calculate about 95,000 slaves owned by slaveholders owning ≥ 200 slaves. Using Tom Blakes list of top slaveholders the avg of the 18 slaveholders owning 500 to 999 slaves is 600 slaves.

You are questioning me on the groupings of slaveholders. Per wikipedia "Plantations in the American South" The historians Robert Fogel and Stanley Engerman define large planters as those owning over 50 slaves, and medium planters as those owning between 16 and 50 slaves. Historian David Williams, in A People's History of the Civil War: Struggles for the Meaning of Freedom, suggests that the minimum requirement for planter status was twenty negroes, especially since a southern planter could exempt Confederate duty for one white male per twenty slaves owned. Using Fogel and Engerman I grouped slaveholders into Small at 1-14 (14 because the 1860 census bucket is 10-14), Medium (Planters) at 15-49 and Large Planters at 50 or more. I have thought of doing 1-19, 20-49 and 50 and up as I have seen in discussions that ≤ 20 slaves used as a breakpoint for small slaveholders. I have always seen 50 or more slaves used as a breakpoint for large planters/slaveholders. I can and will recompute at Medium at 20-49 slaves breakpoint if the historical consenus says this is the best way. I have reached out to a few civil war historians on the topic to get their guidance.

If the three groups of slaveholders each have at least 25% of the slaves and two of the three groups are within 1% of each other at 38% and 37% then I can say that they are relatively equal in quantity. Are they identical in that they are all 33% no, but since at least 25% (a material amount) of slaves is owned by each of the three groups and no one group has 50% (not to mention 40%) then one can say that slavery was spread relatively evenly across the society. No group has a 2 to 1 amount over the other. I can change the wording to they are relatively close.

Adding factual data and computing a % is not original research. I am not changing, excluding or adding data. The only choice is grouping the states into 15 slave states and 11 confederate states and grouping slaveholders into whether they owned 1-14, 15-49, and ≥ 50 slaves.

If adding up data and calculating percentages is original research then the the folks at civil-war.net are guilty of doing the same thing I am. They added and computed percentages from the Results from the 1860 Census. We do not know who did it, was it a professional historian? I doubt it otherwise we would see a name on it. It does not cite a book or journal just that Results from the 1860 Census. Yet this site is used in a lot of wikipedia citations. Now I am trying to do the same thing taking results from the 1860 census and am being rejected.

Lets look at the other tables that are used in the distribution of slaveholders in the article. The first is Distribution of Slaves in United States History from a thomas legion cheokee a private website and the table says that the source is the University of Virginia Library. Where is the link to the UVA? This is clearly not done by a historian as it is not referenced. Second is the Total Slave Population in US 1790–1860, by State and Territory and the link is dead so we cannot verify if it is accurate.

So wikipedia seems to have a lack of consistency in applying the rules of adding and calculating percentages of US census data. Others get a pass but when I want to cite the US 1860 census schedules for slaveholders and slaves and upload schedules showing the historical data along with adding them and percentages I am denied as I am doing original research. 98.220.157.243 (talk) 10:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Is Blake the only source that has 'played with the numbers'? Assuming there are others scholars of stats and the like, have you looked to find them? And what do they say?Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi AlanScottwalker,

If one looks across the internet at blogs and private websites there are many false claims where the numbers are either false or the variance is materially off. I am only looking at wikipedia as I am trying to post the factual 1860 census data. Within this article the Tom Blake numbers is not even close, being off by a factor of x 7 to x 10.

In this article the line "Excluding slaves, the 1860 U.S. population was 27,167,529, yielding about 1 in 70 free persons (1.5%) being slaveholders." This may be factual correct but the data is not relevant as it includes the population of the free states, thus it is garbage data. You cannot count the Pop of the Free states as it was illegal to own slaves. If you use the Civil-war.net data to calculate the 15 slave states then 4.75% of free persons are slaveholders. Calculating the 11 slave states that formed the Confederacy then 5.67% of free persons are slaveholders. These numbers are much more accurate then the 1.45% as they are relevant as they are the 15 slave states and the 11 slave states that formed the Confederacy. The total free Pop still counts people 19 and younger who except for rare cases did not own slaves. Using the actual 1860 census data excluding this group from the free pop means that almost 11% of free pop age 20 and up in the 15 slave states owned slaves, and 16% of free pop age 20 and up in the 11 slave states that formed the Confederacy owned slaves.

Since this is a little more involved it is easier to look at the number of families that owned slaves. using Civil-war.net one should calculate the 15 slave states and 11 confederate states. The wikipedia article says 25% of southern, it should say 26% of the 15 slave states and 31% of the 11 Confederate states. These percentages are backed up by the calculations on pg 39 in the book "The Myth of the Lost Cause".

In the wikipedia article Origins of the American Civil War in the section "Antebellum South and the Union" there is this passage:

"Based on a system of plantation slavery, the social structure of the South was far more stratified and patriarchal than that of the North. In 1850 there were around 350,000 slaveholders in a total free Southern population of about six million. Among slaveholders, the concentration of slave ownership was unevenly distributed. Perhaps around 7 percent of slaveholders owned roughly three-quarters of the slave population. The largest slaveholders, generally owners of large plantations, represented the top stratum of Southern society. They benefited from economies of scale and needed large numbers of slaves on big plantations to produce cotton, a highly profitable labor-intensive crop.[citation needed]"

Here are the problems with this 1) no citation. who is making this claim? 2) it is using 1850 census data when the 1860 census is available and more relevant as it was the last census with slavery in it. 3) The phrase "Perhaps around 7 percent of slaveholders owned roughly three-quarters of the slave population." testing it with the 1850 census data (which is less detailed then 1860), I came up with 11% of slaveholders owning 50% of all slaves. Testing this with the 1860 data is false, I came up with almost 7% owning 40% of all slaves. This is a material difference.

In the wikipedia article "Plantation economy" Why is the 1840 census data being used? 1) While slaves were tabulated in all the census, only in the 1850 & 1860 census were slaveholder and slave schedules compiled and the data tabulated into groups by slaves per slaveholder by county and state. 2) In a discussion of the plantation economy using slaves, the most relevant census is the 1860 census that is the last census that slavery was legal.98.220.157.243 (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Regarding your previous comment, it is strange that you use Fogel and Engerman to argue your points. Like Blake, Fogel and Engerman are not academic historians (they both have their PhDs in economics and work in econ departments). They use different bins for number of slaves per farm (having "1-15" and "16-50" in their case vs "1-14" and "15-50" in yours, and they look at efficiency in these different groups, but I don't see that they report the distribution in the way you do). Also, the inequality in the size of plantations is an important part of their whole book, and seems to contradict your thesis. Regarding this comment, it is good that you are critical of missing citations; you mention Fogel and Engleman, I would guess they would make for a good citation for the paragraph you quote and if you have a page number, you should add it (note that the lack of citation is likely because the article was written before inline citations were the norm on wikipedia, and wikipedia policy suggests tagging rather than removing if something isn't wrong. I agree that some of these figures may be wrong, but I don't think this section of this talk page will deal with them, given the tenor of the discussion (about which I will open a discussion with you on your talk page). Smmurphy(Talk) 20:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Smmurphy,

Growing up I had always heard in in discussions of slavery both in school and in civil war history, that a planter owned 20 or more slaves and that made him a member of the landed gentry.

In fact the PBS website for the Africans in America show has in Part 4 Conditions of antebellum slavery 1830 - 1860 mentions distinctions of slaveholders owning 20 slaves and 50 slaves.

In paragraph 4 it says "The standard image of Southern slavery is that of a large plantation with hundreds of slaves. In fact, such situations were rare. Fully 3/4 of Southern whites did not even own slaves; of those who did, 88% owned twenty or fewer." So this article makes a point that owning 20 or less slaves is significant. Thus is says that there are two groups Slaveholders owning 1-20 slaves and slaveholders owning ≥ 21 slaves.

In paragraph 5 it says "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 have several hundred." So this article is making a distinction that most plantations had ≤ 50 slaves. Thus it is dividing the ≥ 21 slaves group into slaveholders owning 21-49 slaves and slaveholders owning ≥ 50 slaves. This makes since you would not lump in Warren Buffet or Bill Gates in the same economic class with a guy making 100,000 a year

In conclusion PBS says there is 3 significant group of slaveholders: 1) Slaveholders owning 1-20 Slaves 2) Slaveholders owning 21-49 Slaves 3) Slaveholders owning ≥ 50 Slaves

These were my original 3 groupings of slaveholders until I looked at Fogel and Engerman.

In proofing the PBS claim "The standard image of Southern slavery is that of a large plantation with hundreds of slaves. In fact, such situations were rare. Fully 3/4 of Southern whites did not even own slaves; of those who did, 88% owned twenty or fewer." by testing this with the 1860 census, I find that 88% of Slaveholders owning 19 or less slaves owned 47% of all slaves. So this PBS statement is True in that the percentages match. I cannot calculate using 20 or less as the 1860 US census reports have the largest bucket at 15-19 slaves. I am curious as to why PBS used 20 as that is not used on the 1860 census, but confirms what I heard in school. Maybe historians rounded 19 up to 20?

Then I looked at Fogel and Engerman (F&E). The economic aspect of slavery should be looked at as the planter class owned above a certain number of slaves and the elite large planters owned above a certain amount. To F&E the Planters (Medium slaveholders) owned 16-50 slaves and the Large Planters (Large Slaveholders) owned ≥ 51 slaves. By default the Small slaveholders own 1-15 slaves.

The reason the F&E as economic historians are relevant is that in general in the south your economic status was tied to the number of slaves you owned because that was tied to the amount of land you had to grow crops on (cotton, rice, corn, sugarcane, tobacco, etc). Yes slaves were trained as tradesmen like blacksmiths, used in mines and in factories, but since the majority of the 15 slave states economies were agricultural and big agriculture benefited more from slavery due to the efficiencies of scale, looking at the economics of slaveholder distribution tells you about slavery in the society and the economic classes of the 15 slave states.

In conclusion F&E says there is 3 significant group of slaveholders: 1) Slaveholders owning 1-15 Slaves 2) Slaveholders owning 16-50 Slaves 3) Slaveholders owning ≥ 51 Slaves

When I looked at the PBS breakpoint of 20 or less slaves personally I thought that lumping in the bucket of slaveholders who owned 15-19 slaves in with the other 10 buckets of slaveholders that owned 1-14 slaves, would overstate the amount of slaves owned by small slaveholders. I researching if one owned a 1-2 families of slaves you were usually under 15 slaves in total and not running anything close to a plantation. So when I saw F&E and had chosen to group the small slaveholders owning 1-15 slaves in the same group for their study on the economics of slavery, it confirmed legitimacy of using this 1-15 as a group.

I am not wedded to an ideology, I am for the facts. If the consensus among historians is to use the breakpoint at 20 slaves owned, I can easily change the grouping.

Now the reason that I had to move 1 digit from 50 to 49 and 20 to 19, is that the 1860 census slaveholder schedules are organized that way. The 1860 census has 9 Buckets each for owning 1-9 slaves, then 12 buckets for owning 10-14, 15-19, 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-69, 70-99, 100-199, 200-299, 300-499, 500-999 and ≥ 1,000 for a total of 21 buckets. The 1860 census buckets are the factual ones to use.

By changing 50 to 49 affects about 10% (1/10) of 5,300 slaveholders x 10% = 530 slaveholders and 530 slaves which is .1% of slaveholders and .01% of slaves. Both variances are statistically immaterial.

By changing 15 to 14 affects about 20% (1/5) of 22,000 slaveholders x 20% = 4,400 slaveholders and 4,400 slaves which is 1% of slaveholders and .1% of slaves. Both variances are statistically immaterial.

If Historians use 15 and 50 but their work is based off of the US census which uses 14 and 49, then when referencing the US census data at 14 and 49 is proper and accurate.

If Tom Blake's numbers are wrong based upon a review of the 1860 census data that I have provided and independently verified by wikipedia administrators by using the 1860 census data to do the calculations themselves, then it should be removed.98.220.157.243 (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Your argument doesn't follow wikipedia's core content policies and I don't think you should make any edits along the lines you describe. It seems to me the consensus here is in agreement that you should not. Smmurphy(Talk) 01:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Smmurphy,

If I am being accused of original research in showing how anyone can go the 1860 US census data to show that Tom Blake's claim is false and should be removed. Then how does something that is clearly wrong on wikipedia get removed? Doesn't wikipedia have factcheckers? In 5 min using the 1860 census Tom Blake's claim can proven as false. Tom Blake is a geneaologist not a Historian. He does not provide any support for his claim. He apparently did "original research" that was not reviewed by a publisher or peer reviewed journal or apparently by anyone! Yet because he posts it on Rootsweb it is historically accurate and okay to post and cite on wikipedia?

If I am being accused of original research then why are the other two websites that are cited by the schedules in the article allowed to remain? I showed earlier that they are based off of the 1860 census and they clearly did original research to add totals and calculate percentages that are not in the actual 1860 census records. This is the same thing I am doing so apparently the only way that they are okay is that they "published" it on a private website. So I need to find a friend with a website that has been around for a while and "publish" my adding and percentages so that it can be official just like the other citations.

I have documented the validity for the 3 slaveholder groupings used by PBS and Fogel& Engerman.

I have documented the validity of US Census slaveholder buckets being different by 1 from other Historians and the fact that the 1860 census buckets are the valid ones to use. To use 1860 census data with a bucket off by 1 would have allegations of fraud.98.220.157.243(talk) 02:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand why this would be frustrating, but 1) you cannot complain that sources are doing original research, that is what sources are for -- we are to report what they found. 2) Although perhaps not entirely, I think the critique that you are doing original research centered around the sentence high-lighted by Malik, above.
 * Moving on, is this the basis for some of your concerns? There may be ways of working some of what you write in (see also, and )  but at the moment it may just be to report alongside Blake.  At this time, I would suggest you write out conservatively what sentences you want to add/change in this article and where with sources attached, and you put it in a new section below, where multiple editors can comment on it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Alanscottwalker,

My concern is not the viral post that you posted, it is that Tom Blake is making a materially false claim and Wikipedia is allowing that false claim to be posted as a source for the distribution of slavery (slaveholders and slaves) on the eve of the civil war. I was not doing "original research", having recently read the Myth of the Lost Cause by Edward Bonekemper III whom I saw speak at my local Civil War Roundtable. I decided to look at what some websites (including Wikipedia) had to state regarding statistics. I know that many private websites have agendas to either deny or demonize slavery. I am concerned with the facts, so I expected Wikipedia to state info that was pretty accurate.

I saw Tom Blake's claim of "holders of 200 or more slaves, constituting less than 1% of all US slaveholders (fewer than 4,000 persons, 1 in 7,000 free persons, or 0.015% of the population) held an estimated 20–30% of all slaves (800,000 to 1,200,000 slaves)." This did not seem correct so I searched and came across the 1850 and 1860 US Census data. I then proofed his claim against the data using both the 1850 and 1860 census data. Both ways his claim is materially false. If he were within 100,000 slaves I would not have batted an eye, but he is off by at least 700,000 a factor of at least x 7.

So my concern is that Tom Blake has made a false statement that is used as a source by wikipedia. I know that wikipedia is not an encyclopedia and many times is wrong as some people with agendas or believing in myths or not knowing the the real history, will post things that are inaccurate and wrong to say the least. I know I have corrected at least 5 in the past year without really trying. My concern is that many casual people will only look at wikipedia and on an important issue like the history of slavery in the US can then be misinformed. Tom Blake's false claim is helping to perpetuate the false claim that the majority of slaves were held by a handful of large planters. That is why I after proofing Blake's claim, I tabulated the 1860 census data according to the Fogel&Engerman "buckets' of slaveholders and posted it as a rebuttal to Blake. I admit I am not a professional historian, but I seriously doubt that Tom Blake is as well. Where is the documentation that Tom Blake is a professional historian on US History in particular the period right before the civil war? I think that Tom Blake is not source that can be relied upon as if I google his name I find no history books. Like I said earlier he may be a good genealogist but that does not make him a historian.  For wikipedia to allow a source with a false claim from someone who is not one and to continue to do so after someone has pointed it out as false and showed a way for wikipedia to verify that it is false. This is like a holocaust denier saying well it happened but it was nowhere near as bad as they say it was. Reporting a source with a claim that can be easily verified as false is criminal.

How can it be called original research to take US census data, put it into buckets like Fogel&Engerman (economic historians)and calculate percentages off of it? If I was excluding data or not allowing it to be proofed then I would understand excluding it.

As a result of this I am working on publishing a review of the 1860 census that I will have professionals proof to verify that by data and conclusions are accurate to ensure the accuracy of it.

As a result of wikipedia refusing to remove a easily verified false claim, I refuse to donate any money this year. Most years I donate $5-$10 via paypal. When wikipedia first came out I knew it was not 100% accurate but that it should be mostly correct on the big issues, but that the posting of a lot of knowledge on a free website, it would mainly benefit society as a whole, by enriching many more people with knowledge. I am also sharing this documentation of a lie to friends to circulate as a reason not to trust wikipedia and not to donate as well. I will be also reaching out to professional historians to assist in documenting the facts from the 1860 census that rebut Blakes lie so that wikipedia will either post the correct 1860 census data and take down blakes lie. 98.220.157.243 (talk) 08:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Slavery in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110202205901/http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070121/29african.htm to https://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070121/29african.htm
 * Added tag to http://pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2141t.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170810012508/http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/state/florida-apologizes-for-role-in-slavery/432823 to http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/state/florida-apologizes-for-role-in-slavery/432823

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Tom Blake’s estimate is not credible after fact checking
The following supports my reporting this as an "Unreliable source" and to "verify credibility" by checking the 1860 US Census

In the “Distribution of slaveholders” section there is a false claim that is not credible

”The distribution of slaves among holders was very unequal: holders of 200 or more slaves, constituting less than 1% of all US slaveholders (fewer than 4,000 persons, 1 in 7,000 free persons, or 0.015% of the population) held an estimated 20–30% of all slaves (800,000 to 1,200,000 slaves).”

The Citation used is- The Sixteen Largest American Slaveholders from 1860 Slave Census Schedules, Transcribed by Tom Blake, April to July 2001, (updated October 2001 and December 2004 – now includes 19 holders)

There are two parts of this claim that are not credible:


 * 1) The distribution of slaves among holders was very unequal
 * 2) holders of 200 or more slaves held an estimated 20–30% of all slaves (800,000 to 1,200,000 slaves).

1) is not credible as Tom Blake never said this. This is the paragraph where the claim comes from.

“The last U.S. census slave schedules were enumerated by County in 1860 and included 393,975 named persons holding 3,950,546 unnamed slaves, or an average of about ten slaves per holder. The actual number of slaveholders may be slightly lower because some large holders held slaves in more than one County and they would have been counted as a separate slaveholder in each County. Excluding slaves, the 1860 U.S. population was 27,167,529, with about 1 in 70 being a slaveholder. It is estimated by this transcriber that in 1860, slaveholders of 200 or more slaves, while constituting less than 1% of the total number of U.S. slaveholders, or 1 out of 7,000 free persons, held 20-30% of the total number of slaves in the U.S. The process of publication of slaveholder names beginning with larger slaveholders will enable naming of the holders of the most slaves with the least amount of transcription work.”

Here is where this paragraph can be found: http://files.usgwarchives.net/ga/jasper/census/1860/slavejas.txt

Nowhere in this paragraph does Tom Blake say that “The distribution of slaves among holders was very unequal” This must have been added by someone editing Wikipedia and should be deleted.

2) is not credible for two reasons.

First, it is an Estimate. In the paragraph above Tom Blake says so himself “It is estimated by this transcriber that in 1860, slaveholders of 200 or more slaves, while constituting less than 1 % of the total number of U.S. slaveholders, or 1 out of 7,000 free persons, held 20-30% of the total number of slaves in the U.S.”

Second, Tom Blake is a Genealogist who is doing research on the “LARGEST SLAVEHOLDERS FROM 1860 SLAVE CENSUS SCHEDULES And SURNAME MATCHES FOR AFRICAN AMERICANS ON 1870 CENSUS Transcribed by Tom Blake, Oct 2001”. He is Transcribing some of the 1860 US Census Slave Schedules. He only did a small amount of the slave schedules in the counties he listed and in looking for Slaveholders owning ≥ 500 Slaves. He has no information for ALL the slave schedules in the 1860 Census. I guess he created his "estimate" from his small sample size of slave schedules he transcribed. Tom Blake only has posted this to his website (which is no longer up) and he has not had it validated by anyone using the 1860 Census like I have.

To prove that Tom Blakes claim that “holders of 200 or more slaves held an estimated 20–30% of all slaves (800,000 to 1,200,000 slaves)” is not credible we must go to Census.gov and READ the actual data in the 1860 census, in the Agricultural schedules, “Recapitulation-1860 Slaveholders and Slaves”, on PDF pg 64/US Census pg 247.

This can be found here: https://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1860b-08.pdf

Reading the table to get the number of slaveholders ≥ 200 slaves, we look at the table and find 4 “buckets” of Slaveholders owning ≥ 200 slaves and looking at the “Total, States line” we have the number of Slaveholders.


 * 200 and under 300 (200 to 299)    	= 224 Slaveholders
 * 300 and under 500 (300 to 499)    	=  74 Slaveholders
 * 500 and under 1,000 (500 to 999)   	=  13 Slaveholders
 * 1,000 and over 	                =   1 Slaveholder

The Total Slaveholders in the 4 buckets of Slaveholders owning ≥ 200 slaves = 312 Slaveholders

Reading the table we look at the maximum number of slaves these 312 slaveholders could have owned


 * 200 to 299    	299   slaves x 224 slaveholders = 66,976 slaves
 * 300 to 499    	499   slaves x  74 slaveholders = 36,926 slaves
 * 500 to 999    	999   slaves x  13 slaveholders = 12,987 slaves
 * 1,000 and up  	1,250 slaves x   1 slaveholders = 1,250 slaves
 * Max Totals = 118,139 slaves


 * Reading the data in the table, 118,139 slaves is nowhere near the 800,000 to 1,200,000 slaves of Tom Blake’s Estimate.
 * 800,000 is 6.77 times 118,139. 1,200,000 is 10.15 times 118,139.
 * This proves that Tom Blake’s Estimate is not credible, it is in fact false and should be deleted.

Reading the table we look at the minimum number of slaves these 312 slaveholders could have owned
 * 200 to 299    	200   slaves x 224 slaveholders = 44,800 slaves
 * 300 to 499    	300   slaves x  74 slaveholders = 22,200 slaves
 * 500 to 999    	500   slaves x  13 slaveholders =  6,500 slaves
 * 1,000 and up  	1,000 slaves x   1 slaveholders =  1,000 slaves
 * Min Totals = 74,500 slaves

Adding the Max and Min totals of the table and dividing by 2, we get the avg/approx. amount of slaves held (118,139+74500 = 192,639)/2 = 96,320 from reading the data in the table.

The fact is, “Per the US 1860 census, 312 slaveholders owned ≥ 200 slaves totaling approx 96,000 slaves, almost 2.5% of the 3,950,513 slaves.”

I am not disputing his claim of "Nineteen holders of 500 or more slaves have been identified. The largest slaveholder was Joshua John Ward, of Georgetown, South Carolina, who in 1850 held 1,092 slaves, and whose heirs in 1860 held 1,130 or 1,131 slaves." 98.220.157.243 (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.157.243 (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)