From: rath@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Subject: Re: Plantation Population
Reply-To: rath@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 15:33:41 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.150606.19222@news.cs.brandeis.edu>, rath@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>In article <181mfcINNg5q@moe.ksu.ksu.edu>, jsanders@phys.ksu.edu (Justin M. Sanders) writes:
>>Rich Rath writes:
>>
>>>jsanders@phys.ksu.edu (Justin M. Sanders) writes:
>>>

>>>Whites, who kept the
>>>records from which Campell's reconstruction were done, were only concerned, 
>>>in most cases, at least as far as record keeping goes, with value
>>>in the case of slaves.
>>
>>Campbell's tables are taken from the census of living individuals, so
>>they don't rely on the slaveholders' records of mortality, but rather
>>rely on the slaveholders' knowledge of the approximate age of the
>>slaves (passing that info to the census taker).
It seems your assumption is that because it is a census record it is accurate.
Black men are under-reported on censuses today--I see no reason
to assume that white census takers getting their data from white slaveowners
in 1850 and 1860 in Texas should be more accurate than plantation records.  
In fact, the published census represents several more layers  removed 
from a primary source than plantation
 records and shipping manifests, with more reasons and opportunities 
to distort data.  Also, your comparisons with current "thirld world"
populations is for populations which are free and reporteed as a whole, 
not by race (at least in your presentation).  My point was that the samples
from which black figures are drawn in your data are _qualitatively_
different _than samples for free populations, and are incomparable withouit 
factoring out these differences.  Taking reports ferom census data concerning
living slaves in no way addresses the issue of slaves not reported or dead.
Your data may be right for Texas in 1850 and 1860, but until you take the 
qualitative differences in sampling methods into account, there is no way to 
discern if you are wrong or right.  
:
:
:
>>Here is the table that started this.  It is from R.B. Campbell, "An 
>>Empire for Slavery", Table 13.
>>[percentage of population in various age groups (Texas)]
>>1850          slaves            whites
>>  0-9           32.8              32.6
>> 10-14          14.1              12.9
>> 15-49          48.3              50.0
>> 50-65           3.6               4.3
>>   65+           1.2               1.3
>>
>>1860
>>  0-9           32.7              33.0
>> 10-14          13.6              12.8
>> 15-49          48.8              48.1
>> 50-65           3.6               4.7
>>   65+           1.2               1.4
>>  
>>One would think that if the mortality rates of the slaves and the free 
>>whites differed greatly, then the age distributions would not be 
>>essentially identical as they are.  For a comparison with infant 
>>mortality rates, I got the following age distributions and infant
>>mortality rates from "Phillips Geographical Digest 1992-93"
>>
>>            0-4   5-14   15-59   60+    infant mort(*)
>>Belgium       6    12      62    21         8
>>U.S.          7    14      62    17         8
>>Bangledesh   17    27      52     5       108
>>Ethopia      19    27      50     5       122
>>Kenya        20    30      45     4        64
>>Texas 1860 (**)
>>      slave  18    28      52     2   
>> free white  18    29      52     2

All of these are free populations except for the slave category.  all 
are aggregate populations except for Texas.  The comparisons are problematic.

>>
>>(*) deaths less than 1 yr. old per 1000 (1990 U.N. est.)
>>(**) my computation from the "Population of the United States in 1860"
>>     (Washington:Govt. Printing Office, 1864)
>>
>>Note the considerable similarity of the age distributions for
>>Bangledesh and Ethopia to those for the 1860 Texas free white and
>>slave populations.  As a caution, however, note also that while
>>Kenya's distribution is also similar, the infant mortality rate is
>>half that of Ethopia (Kenya's is 8 times that of the U.S. or Belgium
>>and the age distributions are quite different).  From this admittedly 
>>limited sample, it would appear that there is *some* correlation
>>between the age distribution and the infant mortality rate.  And this
>>correlation seems to support the contention that similar age
>>distributions have similar infant mortality rates (within a factor of
>>two).
>>
>>I therefore must conclude that the data we've seen thus far indicates 
>>that the slave infant mortality rate (in Texas, at least) was not
>>radically different from that of free whites.
>>
>>Rich concludes:
>>>A slave who survived the most hellish upbringing on earth, in the midst of 
>>>prosperity all around, could expect to live almost as long as a
>>>white child's birthright.  Sound about even to you?
>>
>>My intention in pursuing this point is not to minimize the repugnance
>>of slavery but rather to attempt to understand the institution as
>>accurately as possible from a vantage point more than 100 years
>>removed.
As is mine.
Rich.


>>--
>>Justin M. Sanders    "They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance"
>>Dept. of Physics        --last words of Gen. John Sedgwick
>>Kansas State Univ.
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa