3 ms·
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 n
by 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 agoIt 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 agoFair enough. Your comment adds important context.