What percentage of white people owned slaves in the US during 1800's?

[The Lonious Monk]

thank you for the reply, fortyacres. if i'm reading this right, that quote shows that slaves constituted 12.6% of the total US population, but I was trying to find out what percentage of the white population in the USA owned slaves. i hope i'm reading that right anyway

does it really matter? , if most of the black population were slaves regardless of the number of white households that "owned" them.

Even those families/households that didnt or couldnt own slaves benefitted from the instituation immensely and were complicit in the practice directly or indirectly.

While what you're saying is true, it does make a difference if you're a person that is actively participating in something vs a person that is just living your life while something happens to be happening. The white racist institution is responsible for pretty much every bad thing that has happened to blacks in this country, but that doesn't mean every white person bears all the responsibility for those things.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Yes, and there were plenty of white abolitionists. I mean you don't think slaveowners gave up because they suddenly got consciences do you? Slavery was abolished because white people (after being prodded by people like Frederick Douglas) began to stand up against the institution.

But you can expect every person to stand up and be an activist. Everybody should stand for some kind of cause, but not everybody is going to be a major force for every cause.

Slavery ended to preserve the Union and the Economy of the North...

Most vocal abolishinists where northeners in free states and they werent many...

lol @ Slavery ending to preserve the Union when ending slavery was literally the thing that destroyed the Union.

Last time i checked the conferderacy did not win the war or am i missing something.

Yes, which means the Union was restored after the war was won. However, prior to that, the south had seceded from the Union. Maybe your definition of "preserve" is different than mine, but I don't think it applies to a case where something is split up.

thank you for the reply, fortyacres. if i'm reading this right, that quote shows that slaves constituted 12.6% of the total US population, but I was trying to find out what percentage of the white population in the USA owned slaves. i hope i'm reading that right anyway

does it really matter? , if most of the black population were slaves regardless of the number of white households that "owned" them.

Even those families/households that didnt or couldnt own slaves benefitted from the instituation immensely and were complicit in the practice directly or indirectly.

While what you're saying is true, it does make a difference if you're a person that is actively participating in something vs a person that is just living your life while something happens to be happening. The white racist institution is responsible for pretty much every bad thing that has happened to blacks in this country, but that doesn't mean every white person bears all the responsibility for those things.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Yes, and there were plenty of white abolitionists. I mean you don't think slaveowners gave up because they suddenly got consciences do you? Slavery was abolished because white people (after being prodded by people like Frederick Douglas) began to stand up against the institution.

But you can expect every person to stand up and be an activist. Everybody should stand for some kind of cause, but not everybody is going to be a major force for every cause.

Slavery ended to preserve the Union and the Economy of the North...

Most vocal abolishinists where northeners in free states and they werent many...

lol @ Slavery ending to preserve the Union when ending slavery was literally the thing that destroyed the Union.

no it wasn't. the southern states seceded from the union before there were any substantive talks of abolition. they left because of the THREAT of eventual abolition from a newly elected northern president who they didn't like (lincoln)

You're not actually arguing against what I said. Slavery ending or the potential for that to happen is what led to the secession and eventual war, so it makes no sense to say that slavery was abolished to preserve the Union. And its incorrect to say that the states seceded before there were any substantive talks about abolition. It's not like South Carolina fired on the Union Army over some unfounded rumors that someday someone might think about abolishing slavery.

 

[onthafly]

thank you for the reply, fortyacres. if i'm reading this right, that quote shows that slaves constituted 12.6% of the total US population, but I was trying to find out what percentage of the white population in the USA owned slaves. i hope i'm reading that right anyway

does it really matter? , if most of the black population were slaves regardless of the number of white households that "owned" them.

Even those families/households that didnt or couldnt own slaves benefitted from the instituation immensely and were complicit in the practice directly or indirectly.

While what you're saying is true, it does make a difference if you're a person that is actively participating in something vs a person that is just living your life while something happens to be happening. The white racist institution is responsible for pretty much every bad thing that has happened to blacks in this country, but that doesn't mean every white person bears all the responsibility for those things.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Yes, and there were plenty of white abolitionists. I mean you don't think slaveowners gave up because they suddenly got consciences do you? Slavery was abolished because white people (after being prodded by people like Frederick Douglas) began to stand up against the institution.

But you can expect every person to stand up and be an activist. Everybody should stand for some kind of cause, but not everybody is going to be a major force for every cause.

Stop giving these white people so much credit. The didn't like the political advantage that three fifths of a vote gave the southern states.

 

[Stiff]

thank you for the reply, fortyacres. if i'm reading this right, that quote shows that slaves constituted 12.6% of the total US population, but I was trying to find out what percentage of the white population in the USA owned slaves. i hope i'm reading that right anyway

does it really matter? , if most of the black population were slaves regardless of the number of white households that "owned" them.

Even those families/households that didnt or couldnt own slaves benefitted from the instituation immensely and were complicit in the practice directly or indirectly.

While what you're saying is true, it does make a difference if you're a person that is actively participating in something vs a person that is just living your life while something happens to be happening. The white racist institution is responsible for pretty much every bad thing that has happened to blacks in this country, but that doesn't mean every white person bears all the responsibility for those things.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Yes, and there were plenty of white abolitionists. I mean you don't think slaveowners gave up because they suddenly got consciences do you? Slavery was abolished because white people (after being prodded by people like Frederick Douglas) began to stand up against the institution.

But you can expect every person to stand up and be an activist. Everybody should stand for some kind of cause, but not everybody is going to be a major force for every cause.

Slavery ended to preserve the Union and the Economy of the North...

Most vocal abolishinists where northeners in free states and they werent many...

lol @ Slavery ending to preserve the Union when ending slavery was literally the thing that destroyed the Union.

Last time i checked the conferderacy did not win the war or am i missing something.

Yes, which means the Union was restored after the war was won. However, prior to that, the south had seceded from the Union. Maybe your definition of "preserve" is different than mine, but I don't think it applies to a case where something is split up.

thank you for the reply, fortyacres. if i'm reading this right, that quote shows that slaves constituted 12.6% of the total US population, but I was trying to find out what percentage of the white population in the USA owned slaves. i hope i'm reading that right anyway

does it really matter? , if most of the black population were slaves regardless of the number of white households that "owned" them.

Even those families/households that didnt or couldnt own slaves benefitted from the instituation immensely and were complicit in the practice directly or indirectly.

While what you're saying is true, it does make a difference if you're a person that is actively participating in something vs a person that is just living your life while something happens to be happening. The white racist institution is responsible for pretty much every bad thing that has happened to blacks in this country, but that doesn't mean every white person bears all the responsibility for those things.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Yes, and there were plenty of white abolitionists. I mean you don't think slaveowners gave up because they suddenly got consciences do you? Slavery was abolished because white people (after being prodded by people like Frederick Douglas) began to stand up against the institution.

But you can expect every person to stand up and be an activist. Everybody should stand for some kind of cause, but not everybody is going to be a major force for every cause.

Slavery ended to preserve the Union and the Economy of the North...

Most vocal abolishinists where northeners in free states and they werent many...

lol @ Slavery ending to preserve the Union when ending slavery was literally the thing that destroyed the Union.

no it wasn't. the southern states seceded from the union before there were any substantive talks of abolition. they left because of the THREAT of eventual abolition from a newly elected northern president who they didn't like (lincoln)

You're not actually arguing against what I said. Slavery ending or the potential for that to happen is what led to the secession and eventual war, so it makes no sense to say that slavery was abolished to preserve the Union. And its incorrect to say that the states seceded before there were any substantive talks about abolition. It's not like South Carolina fired on the Union Army over some unfounded rumors that someday someone might think about abolishing slavery.

Well, I wouldn't say slavery was abolished to preserve the union...i'd say the Civil War was fought to preserve the union. When I say "substantive talks" about abolition .. I mean there weren't any plans or even talks of steps to begin an abolition process. Tension was just running high after it had been building for the past 20-30 years.

Alot of people in the North didn't like slavery...but they had no legal means to end it because people in the South wanted to maintain it.

I guess it was the way you worded it...it wasn't like slavery ended and the union was destroyed. It was more like, they didn't want slavery to end (and they wanted to be free from federal influence on other issues) so they broke away from the union.

 

[yahwehprofet]

"Slave trade was the Capital for capitalism"

Immortal technique

 

[Ubuntu1]

does it really matter? , if most of the black population were slaves regardless of the number of white households that "owned" them.

Even those families/households that didnt or couldnt own slaves benefitted from the instituation immensely and were complicit in the practice directly or indirectly.

I don't agree with this (bold) but I think it's a myth that the civil war was fought to end slavery. I could be dead wrong but if I'm not mistaken Lincoln originally wanted to prevent the spread of slavery throughout states that were free at the time the civil war began while initially ensuring slave states that he wouldn't try to end the institution where it was currently practiced. He was relatively non-racist and 'liberal' by the standard of his time but not the egalitarian that modern mainstream history depicts him as (I'm too lazy to look for quotes but he made it clear that he had a bias in favor of white Americans and was initially very accommodating to slave owners even if he 'disagreed' with the practice). You can still admire him for being relatively egalitarian considering the culture he was raised in. He also had a really hard life.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Some blacks did not only not do whatever was in their power to help end slavery, they owned slaves themselves. Some Native Americans also owned slaves.

 

[onthafly]

thank you for the reply, fortyacres. if i'm reading this right, that quote shows that slaves constituted 12.6% of the total US population, but I was trying to find out what percentage of the white population in the USA owned slaves. i hope i'm reading that right anyway

does it really matter? , if most of the black population were slaves regardless of the number of white households that "owned" them.

Even those families/households that didnt or couldnt own slaves benefitted from the instituation immensely and were complicit in the practice directly or indirectly.

While what you're saying is true, it does make a difference if you're a person that is actively participating in something vs a person that is just living your life while something happens to be happening. The white racist institution is responsible for pretty much every bad thing that has happened to blacks in this country, but that doesn't mean every white person bears all the responsibility for those things.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Yes, and there were plenty of white abolitionists. I mean you don't think slaveowners gave up because they suddenly got consciences do you? Slavery was abolished because white people (after being prodded by people like Frederick Douglas) began to stand up against the institution.

But you can expect every person to stand up and be an activist. Everybody should stand for some kind of cause, but not everybody is going to be a major force for every cause.

Slavery ended to preserve the Union and the Economy of the North...

Most vocal abolishinists where northeners in free states and they werent many...

What southern state you from? This some shit that comes straight from Neo-con history classes

Name me vocal active abolishtionists who lived openly in the south during the antebellum ?

He was probably referring to

Slavery ended to preserve the Union and the Economy of the North...

If I remember correctly, the civil war only became about slavery to prevent European intervention in favor of the south.

 

[Ajackson17]

thank you for the reply, fortyacres. if i'm reading this right, that quote shows that slaves constituted 12.6% of the total US population, but I was trying to find out what percentage of the white population in the USA owned slaves. i hope i'm reading that right anyway

does it really matter? , if most of the black population were slaves regardless of the number of white households that "owned" them.

Even those families/households that didnt or couldnt own slaves benefitted from the instituation immensely and were complicit in the practice directly or indirectly.

While what you're saying is true, it does make a difference if you're a person that is actively participating in something vs a person that is just living your life while something happens to be happening. The white racist institution is responsible for pretty much every bad thing that has happened to blacks in this country, but that doesn't mean every white person bears all the responsibility for those things.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Yes, and there were plenty of white abolitionists. I mean you don't think slaveowners gave up because they suddenly got consciences do you? Slavery was abolished because white people (after being prodded by people like Frederick Douglas) began to stand up against the institution.

But you can expect every person to stand up and be an activist. Everybody should stand for some kind of cause, but not everybody is going to be a major force for every cause.

Slavery ended to preserve the Union and the Economy of the North...

Most vocal abolishinists where northeners in free states and they werent many...

lol @ Slavery ending to preserve the Union when ending slavery was literally the thing that destroyed the Union.

Ending slavery wasn't on moral grounds, but economical grounds that were hurting the north and the south pretty much told the north that they can just sell the left over goods to other nations.

 

[Huey_C]

1.4% of white people actually owned slaves at the height of slavery. Lemme put you on game though
http://www.google.com

When you first get there it looks simple, but trust me it ain't no hoe.

Always wondered why people would rather come here for answers instead of using a search engine.

 

[babelipsss]

Some black people owned slaves, this is true. But it wasn't for labor. A slave who was freed through manumission almost always bought as many family members as possible. Know your own history don't dodge it.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

thank you for the reply, fortyacres. if i'm reading this right, that quote shows that slaves constituted 12.6% of the total US population, but I was trying to find out what percentage of the white population in the USA owned slaves. i hope i'm reading that right anyway

does it really matter? , if most of the black population were slaves regardless of the number of white households that "owned" them.

Even those families/households that didnt or couldnt own slaves benefitted from the instituation immensely and were complicit in the practice directly or indirectly.

While what you're saying is true, it does make a difference if you're a person that is actively participating in something vs a person that is just living your life while something happens to be happening. The white racist institution is responsible for pretty much every bad thing that has happened to blacks in this country, but that doesn't mean every white person bears all the responsibility for those things.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Yes, and there were plenty of white abolitionists. I mean you don't think slaveowners gave up because they suddenly got consciences do you? Slavery was abolished because white people (after being prodded by people like Frederick Douglas) began to stand up against the institution.

But you can expect every person to stand up and be an activist. Everybody should stand for some kind of cause, but not everybody is going to be a major force for every cause.

Stop giving these white people so much credit. The didn't like the political advantage that three fifths of a vote gave the southern states.

Actually, there were plenty of prominent white abolitionists fighting to end slavery, but I concede that ya'll are right. Slavery's end had more to do with politics and economics than morality,

 

[deadeye]

I was just wondering if anyone had any idea on how many white people owned slaves during the 1800's? just for the usa please not the islands. I'd just like to know. If anyone has any links that show official figures I'd be grateful, whether its figures for the early 1800's or right until 1865, basically during the height of savery. I was discussing this with someone and we both thought it'd be interesting to find out. i'd just like a idea of how many it was

Doesn't matter.

It was a systematic institution of oppression condoned and endorsed by the U.S. government.

 

[Jabu_Rule]

does it really matter? , if most of the black population were slaves regardless of the number of white households that "owned" them.

Even those families/households that didnt or couldnt own slaves benefitted from the instituation immensely and were complicit in the practice directly or indirectly.

I don't agree with this (bold) but I think it's a myth that the civil war was fought to end slavery. I could be dead wrong but if I'm not mistaken Lincoln originally wanted to prevent the spread of slavery throughout states that were free at the time the civil war began while initially ensuring slave states that he wouldn't try to end the institution where it was currently practiced. He was relatively non-racist and 'liberal' by the standard of his time but not the egalitarian that modern mainstream history depicts him as (I'm too lazy to look for quotes but he made it clear that he had a bias in favor of white Americans and was initially very accommodating to slave owners even if he 'disagreed' with the practice). You can still admire him for being relatively egalitarian considering the culture he was raised in. He also had a really hard life.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Some blacks did not only not do whatever was in their power to help end slavery, they owned slaves themselves. Some Native Americans also owned slaves.

Slavery was a huge driving force that created the festering animosity because slave states and none slave states was fighting for control of America's future by introducing new states and drawing up the Mason Dixon line. There was also issue with encroachment when slave states invaded free states to capture slaves. Basically, no new state could be a slave state and that made the slave states jelly since they would loose influence and the ability to act in their own interest to protect and recapture their slaves if the laws changed.

Some black people owned slaves, this is true. But it wasn't for labor. A slave who was freed through manumission almost always bought as many family members as possible. Know your own history don't dodge it.

I actually never heard of this. Love learning new things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manumission#United_States

After invention of the cotton gin in 1793, which enabled the development of extensive new areas for new types of cotton cultivation, manumissions decreased due to increased demand for slave labor. In the nineteenth century, slave revolts such as the Haitian Revolution and especially the 1831 rebellion led by Nat Turner increased slaveholder fears, and most southern states passed laws making manumission nearly impossible until the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery

 

[a.mann]

Worth a listen....

 

[Ubuntu1]

Some black people owned slaves, this is true. But it wasn't for labor. A slave who was freed through manumission almost always bought as many family members as possible. Know your own history don't dodge it.

I thought of that but apparently :

It is reasonable to assume that the 42 percent of the free black slave owners who owned just one slave probably owned a family member to protect that person, as did many of the other black slave owners who owned only slightly larger numbers of slaves. {snip}

{sni}

{snip} Halliburton concludes, after examining the evidence, that “it would be a serious mistake to automatically assume that free blacks owned their spouse or children only for benevolent purposes.” {snip} In other words, most black slave owners probably owned family members to protect them, but far too many turned to slavery to exploit the labor of other black people for profit.

http://www.amren.com/news/2013/03/did-black-people-own-slaves/

Of the three examples listed in the article only two of the black slave owners were said to be mixed. I don't know about the other one (I thought some people would assume that black slave owners were generally mixed. I remember someone claiming that in another thread, I think it was @Zombie).

If you owned a family member or someone you cared about why not set them free (this isn't an argument, it's a question)? I know that in some states freed slaves who remained would be re-enslaved again within a set period of time if they didn't leave the state but if you're black yourself wouldn't that apply to you, too?

 

[The Lonious Monk]

You'd be foolish to assume that no black people owned slaves for their own personal benefits. Just like there have been Uncle Toms, Coons, and Sellouts throughout the whole time since slavery, there were undoubtedly black people of that low character during slavery.

 

[Ajackson17]

Also, discuss the gullah wars

 

[babelipsss]

To enslave another human being is primarily a mental process. It would be extremely difficult, almost impossible, for a black man to have such power over another black man during slavery. There are no recorded cases of any black slave owner who own slaves purely for labor. Doesn't mean that everything was all peachy. Familial ties are an important need. If you were freed, you wanted someone. A freed slave couldn't socialize with whites or anyone still enslaved. A free black man did not have the luxury of freeing other blacks but they could buy other blacks and it makes sense that they would choose a loved one.

A freed black woman was extremely rare and couldn't buy any "property".

 

[Stiff]

To enslave another human being is primarily a mental process. It would be extremely difficult, almost impossible, for a black man to have such power over another black man during slavery. There are no recorded cases of any black slave owner who own slaves purely for labor. Doesn't mean that everything was all peachy. Familial ties are an important need. If you were freed, you wanted someone. A freed slave couldn't socialize with whites or anyone still enslaved. A free black man did not have the luxury of freeing other blacks but they could buy other blacks and it makes sense that they would choose a loved one.

A freed black woman was extremely rare and couldn't buy any "property".

Not true. There were recorded instances of Black people owning other Black people for labor...especially in the early days of the american colonies.

Like the case of Anthony Johnson vs John Casor.

 

[Thehighmaster]

It was way more than 1% it was more like 26% in the slave states...in the whole country maybe 1% but the whole country did not have slavery...

 

[babelipsss]

Give me a break. That was certainly the exception, not the rule. Black slave owners versus white slave owners can't compare.