 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
$user_title
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
Savez wrote:
Also if you want to count numbers. The number of slaveholding families in Kentucky is larger than the number of slave holding families in Louisiana. 38,645 slave owners in Kentucky compared to 22,033 in Louisiana.
You are confounding the number of slaveholding families with the number of individual slave owners. Nevertheless, even looking at families, 23% owned slaves in Kentucky compared with 29% in Louisiana. More significant still is that slaves constituted only 20% of Kentucky’s population but 47% of Louisiana’s.
Hank C. wrote...
That fairly sums up the entire secession experience. A small number lead the party, state, region and country to destruction.
If 6% makes such a differnce then why couldn't that small minority get Kentucky to leave the Union? Or Missouri for that matter. Maryland provided many good naval officers for the Confederacy several of which were not slave owners.
Also most slave owners have families. My point is you can't take the total population and divide it against the number of slave owners. For example if you did that with Alabama someone could say that only 6% of Alabamians owned slaves. You have to do it by families and even then it isn't very accuarate.
And again the average slave owner did not own 8-15 slaves.
Last edited on Fri May 25th, 2012 01:38 pm by