Talk:Plantation economy

message: Oppose merge proposal with sugar plantation. There is much potential expansion of this article, especially if it is widened from the current narrow definition. See related content in Plantation. Imc 21:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: If this article is only going to talk about only a specific state, then the tittle should be changed to Virginian Tobacco Plantations.  Other states produced tobacco in equal, if not higher, numbers than Virginia and they should also be include.  For example, I know that Kentucky has historically been known for thier tobacco crops.  Although the state (commonwealth) didn't have as large of plantations as mentioned they still had them in operation.  The inclusion of states like Kentucky, whose number on cash crop was tobacco, would contribute greatly to the validity of this article. Enigma 09:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why only Virginia? 

message: This articles has the best title in the world! The title is completely misleading. What about plantations in other parts of the U.S., what about the Caribbean, South America, other places in the world? 
What about the different types of plantations? Sugar and tobacco is it? And the different ways they were run, like the blues (music that has fundamentally transformed American music) comes from the South because there plantations tended to be very large. Slaves lived in big groups and so were able to retain much of their African culture in their quarters where they wer left alone for the most part.
Think of the huge impact the culture American slaves developed on plantations has had on our culture today.  KarenAnn 14:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tobacco plantations in Colonial Virginia - that should be the name 

message: Some important data should be better understood. In the article the # 385,000 was given for persons
owning slaves and on using the no.s given , that amounted to only 3.8 % of the Southern population owning slaves (that 3.8 % calculated using the articles no.s and percentages). 
That is my point , I would have estimated that only 1/2 of 1 % of persons in the South owned slaves ever, or at any time in their family history. Also, there is a huge difference in size. Most plantations, if they were in fact even a plantation, had none or few and most all the slaves were owned by larger, not 100 or 500 acres, but 2,000 to 40,000 acres plantations. 
And the no. of slaves depended on the crop, with labor intensive plantations as rice plantations having
15 to 20 times as many slaves as a cotton plantation (20 to 50 for cotton versus 500-800 for rice).
And so what I'm  attempting to pass on is that while some farmers with smaller farms of 200-500 acres
might have had 1,2,3 slaves - almost entirely, the slave population was owned by the larger, largest plantations and those plantations owners were more like 1/4 of 1 % of the Southern population. And 
that very small % of the population were the rich, ultra rich. 
While most all other persons in the South were small farmers - as most all are famliar that the states e.g. of Ala, Miss were mostly divided up into 200 acre farms that were granted via auctions. 
And those small farmers never had any slaves.
And so the venting and railing e.g. v. Southerners e.g. for slavery misses the point that overwhelmingly persons in the South had nothing at all to do with slavery as most all (95 - 99 1/2 %) of the South's population never owned any slave nor did their ancestors.  
76.192.0.248 (talk) 03:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Plantations Size & Slave Ownership

message: Auto bot removed these two links, don't know why ; they are from PhD generated educational film of 1950's but still good.
* Southern plantation economy part 1
** part 2
gullah gee gah 76.192.7.105 (talk) 08:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Southern Plantation Economy

message: WHY!!!!WE'RE MISSING HAWAII!!!!
Where's Hawaii in this article? Hawaiian sugar plantations were pretty important to Hawaii's economy for a long time, and many Japanese, Filipino, Chinese, Indian, etc. immigrants ended up working in the sugar plantations. For references, Strangers From A Different Shore by Ronald Takaki is a good place to start. 169.229.121.94 07:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: We're missing Hawaii...

message: Virginia,Maryland,Hawai...all are USA,if you want to add them i suggest to resume them all in a United States section,and if you want to deepene the subject create a plantation economy in the USa.
The article currently deals only with USA,it would be usefull to ad sections for central and south america and africa,since this where also colonies,and the base for colonies tends to be an monoexport economy of intensive plantations.Even after independence some countries still maintain a plantation economy,examples include:Cuba (sugar cane),most central america (banana),historical:Venezuela (used to be the worlds mayor cacao producer in colonial times, 1500-1810),etc.--Andres rojas22 22:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GB/USA 

message: This section makes no sense whatsoever - Haiti, European embargo, Gandhi .... Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indigo plantations 

message: Why is the 1840 census data being used? 1) While slaves were tabulated in all the census, only in the 1850 & 1860 census were slaveholder and slave schedules compiled and the data tabulated into groups by slaves per slaveholder by county and state. 2) In a discussion of the plantation economy using slaves, the most relevant census is the 1860 census that is the last census that slavery was legal.
According to the 1860 census:
In Virginia 26% of families owned slaves
    Number of slaves in the 7 Lower South States: 2,312,352 (47% of total population).
    Number of slaves in the 4 Upper South States: 1,208,758 (29% of total population).
    Number of slaves in the 4 Border States: 429,401 (14% of total population).
So it appears the data was correct but some errors were made in entering the data.
Regarding the statement "The total number of slave owners was 385,000 (including, in Louisiana, some free African Americans), amounting to approximately 3.8% of the Southern and Border states population." The correct number of slave owners in 1860 is about 395,000 and that is 4.75% of the 15 slave states population. What needs to be added is that just comparing slaveholders to total slave state population is not a proper representation as generally people 19 years old and younger would not own slaves and most women would not own slaves unless the inherited them from a dead relative. Looking at the 1860 census for the 15 slave states excluding people 19 years old and younger, the 395,000 slaveholders represent almost 16% of the adult population.https://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html Since one man owning slaves affected his wife and children, the proper to account for the percent of the population way is to look at the amount of Families (Dwellings in the census) that owned slaves. In 1860, in the 15 slave states 26% of families owned slaves and in the 11 slave states that formed the Confederacy 31% of families owned slaves.http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html98.220.157.243 (talk) 04:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 1840 data is used because that is used in the source in the article. The source is a fairly reliable web page hosted by PBS. Smmurphy(Talk) 03:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Slavery Statistics

message: Smurphy you undid my edit sayiing "Regnery Publishing is not a reliable source". You say that Regnery Publishing is not a reliable source when you should be looking at the Author Mr Bonekemper who was a respected Civil War historian in the civil war historical community, writer of 7 civil war books. He was a regular on the Civil War roundtable circuit as a speaker (one of which I was fortunate to be present for). He has 4 videos of his presentations on C-Span. Mr Bonekemper is a reliable source. 
Smmurphy you you say that Regnery Publishing is not a reliable source when you say that Tom Blake is a reliable source for his not credible claim (in the Slavery in the US article), when Tom Blake is a genealogist (not a historian) who only posted to his personal blog (that does not exist anymore) an estimate of slaveholders from his small sample size, from his limited research. You trust him but not Mr Bonekemper? Either you are not thinking straight or you have an agenda like those people who want to minimize the historical facts about slavery so that the wool can be pulled over other peoples eyes. There is nothing misleading about this post and it contributes to the article by showing the peak of Slavery and the Plantation Economy in the US in 1860. 98.220.157.243 (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that Bonekemper's book is reliable. I do not think Blake's website is particularly reliable either, but there are reliably published sources which use Blake. While some individuals may be unreliable regardless of where they publish, I don't think that it is the case that some individuals are so wonderful that anything they say should be considered reliable regardless of where published. When a subject is heavily covered in peer reviewed sources (such as the pre-war US slave economy), it doesn't make much sense to use something published in an unreliable publishing house or a blog as a source. Smmurphy(Talk) 23:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: More to the point, why do you want to add this material? It doesn't seem to me to contribute anything to the page. Smmurphy(Talk) 00:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This conversation is duplicating one at Talk:Slavery in the United States, and will be continued there for now. I do want to acknowledge that the Bonekemper book isn't published by the main Regnery imprint, but by Regnery History, which seems to be an ok publisher of popular history. I wouldn't say it is a preferred source, but it isn't as problematic as the main imprint. Smmurphy(Talk) 01:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mr Bonekemper is a reliable source