Talk:Thomas Patterson Brockman

I read a few other biographies regarding southern plantation owners at the time (eg. Robert E. Lee). They don't seem to emphasize the slave-owning bit. I think it goes without saying that Thomas was a slaveowner as that was how the economy worked, et cetera. But with such a brief biography at this point it seems negative to emphasize it in a 3 line stub. If we had copies of some of his senate remarks, his military record et cetera then it might fit in a bit better, particularly if he supported seccession against abolitionists or something like that.

There is a lot more on the page now than when the slave-owning comment was there, and it seems like it is an interesting fact given that Brockman was a Unionist. Would it make sense to put a reference to this back at this point? Abulsme 06:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. It is interesting, and one assumes that it would have been politically difficult to have been both an abolitionist and a unionist in the plotical climate of that time, though such a supposition is clearly not suitable for the article without a good reference regarding the political climate at the time, which I do not have. I believe I have a reference that he owned about 32 slaves. He inherited about half of his father's 500 acres and added about 700 or so acres to it. The original reference was something like 'he was a major landholder and slave owner.' I do not know, but suspect, that 32 slaves and 1000+ acres was not necessarily major league plantation-owner relative to the low-country/piedmont plantations. Sandwich Eater 12:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Added a couple notes on the topic. There is not enough information in the sources I have access to regarding his views on abolition.   Sandwich Eater 00:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Good addition. Thanks!  Abulsme 07:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)