3 ms·

> most of the people working on farms were slaves Does that compute? Less than 10% of the US population were slaves and 90% were employed in farming. It seems

by screye 5y ago

> most of the people working on farms were slaves Does that compute? Less than 10% of the US population were slaves and 90% were employed in farming. It seems unbelievable to me that farms were manned exclusively or even in majority by slaves. Now most slaves were employed in farms, but I'm not sure if that relationship is bi directional

watwut 5y ago
Where do you have less then 10% of US population being slaves from? I found 18 percent of the total population in 1790, or roughly one in every six people. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1010169/black-and-slave-population-us-1790-1880/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1010169/black-and-slave-... And based on what I know, it then went up due to cotton boom.
- screye 5y ago
  You're correct that it seems to have peaked around 18%, but mostly hovered between 10-18%. It sat around 15% during the civil war. Note that these numbers do not include native Americans, who constituted between 1-3 million themselves, since the census didn't count them. Considering them as part of the total should indeed bring the numbers under 10%. Whether that is fair or not is up to the reader :) I still maintain that the majority of the people working on farms were most likely white. This is especially true since many states did not have slaves at all. I will admit that it is likely, that the most gruelling work on the field was given to the slaves.
  - watwut 5y ago
    It does not seem to me that Native Americans should count here. Whole discussion completely ignores them in all aspects. The debates are about Americans, it would be like counting Mexico into stats. > I still maintain that the majority of the people working on farms were most likely white. This is especially true since many states did not have slaves at all. I will admit that it is likely, that the most gruelling work on the field was given to the slaves. You have to split it to free states and slave states. Free states have no slaves no matter how grueling work. Slave states have split between slave work, feeman work and white people work, where white people would not do slave work due to it being considered shameful. You have also industrial development going on in exactly this time - and decline of subsistence farming along with it.
    - screye 5y ago
      Fair enough. Your comment adds important context.
mc32 5y ago
I may be wrong, here, so correct me if I'm off. My understanding is slaveholding was mostly by plantations (large farms engaged in commercial crops tobacco/cotton). Most farms were not plantations (or haciendas/fazendas south of the border coffee, sugarcane, mining). So most farms in the south had no slaves, but large plantations had many slaves.
nonameiguess 5y ago
I didn't even remotely try to look up the real number (I did look up the child mortality, but didn't exactly vet the source). Consider it hyperbole if it helps, but whatever the exact number, a whole lot of people living on farms were either dying as children or living in bondage, neither of which is a situation I would consider doing perfectly fine without mental breakdowns or help from Harvard Business Review. Even for the rest of the people, I somewhat doubt having most of your children die or being a slave driver was particularly great for mental health, either. Someone downstream also mentioned Native Americans driving down the proportion of slaves. Sure, but I also don't think having all your land gradually taken and your civilization hunted to extinction was great for mental health. Whatever the exact numbers were in an era where we barely even tried to measure stuff like this, I believe this writer's rosy view of antebellum American life is badly out of touch.

by screye 5y ago

watwut 5y ago

Where do you have less then 10% of US population being slaves from? I found 18 percent of the total population in 1790, or roughly one in every six people. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1010169/black-and-slave-population-us-1790-1880/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1010169/black-and-slave-... And based on what I know, it then went up due to cotton boom.

screye 5y ago
You're correct that it seems to have peaked around 18%, but mostly hovered between 10-18%. It sat around 15% during the civil war. Note that these numbers do not include native Americans, who constituted between 1-3 million themselves, since the census didn't count them. Considering them as part of the total should indeed bring the numbers under 10%. Whether that is fair or not is up to the reader :) I still maintain that the majority of the people working on farms were most likely white. This is especially true since many states did not have slaves at all. I will admit that it is likely, that the most gruelling work on the field was given to the slaves.
- watwut 5y ago
  It does not seem to me that Native Americans should count here. Whole discussion completely ignores them in all aspects. The debates are about Americans, it would be like counting Mexico into stats. > I still maintain that the majority of the people working on farms were most likely white. This is especially true since many states did not have slaves at all. I will admit that it is likely, that the most gruelling work on the field was given to the slaves. You have to split it to free states and slave states. Free states have no slaves no matter how grueling work. Slave states have split between slave work, feeman work and white people work, where white people would not do slave work due to it being considered shameful. You have also industrial development going on in exactly this time - and decline of subsistence farming along with it.
  - screye 5y ago
    Fair enough. Your comment adds important context.

mc32 5y ago

I may be wrong, here, so correct me if I'm off. My understanding is slaveholding was mostly by plantations (large farms engaged in commercial crops tobacco/cotton). Most farms were not plantations (or haciendas/fazendas south of the border coffee, sugarcane, mining). So most farms in the south had no slaves, but large plantations had many slaves.

nonameiguess 5y ago

I didn't even remotely try to look up the real number (I did look up the child mortality, but didn't exactly vet the source). Consider it hyperbole if it helps, but whatever the exact number, a whole lot of people living on farms were either dying as children or living in bondage, neither of which is a situation I would consider doing perfectly fine without mental breakdowns or help from Harvard Business Review. Even for the rest of the people, I somewhat doubt having most of your children die or being a slave driver was particularly great for mental health, either. Someone downstream also mentioned Native Americans driving down the proportion of slaves. Sure, but I also don't think having all your land gradually taken and your civilization hunted to extinction was great for mental health. Whatever the exact numbers were in an era where we barely even tried to measure stuff like this, I believe this writer's rosy view of antebellum American life is badly out of touch.