Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

GulfCoast66

(11,949 posts)
7. 'Only' 32%? A third. You reinforce my point.
Sun May 23, 2021, 03:55 PM
May 2021

32% of southerns were not living in huge plantations. Like now they were the 1%. Most slave owners owned a couple and wanted more.

And a good bit of the south geographically made owning slaves less profitable. The hilly areas of East Tennessee, Kentucky and West Virginia did not lend itself to slave based agriculture. Remember before the civil war West Virginia was part of Virginia. But slavery was not viable in valleys due to the lack of productivity and the fact cotton did poorly there.

Owning a slave was within reach of most southerners and desired by most.

The argument that poor whites were victims is re-writing history to excuse most whites of the evil of slavery. I’m the descendant of slave owners. They were not rich plantation owners.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Confederacy was a con...»Reply #7