Did slave breeding occur in the US?

Does anyone know if there is any evidence of slave breeding plantations as depicted in those novels? I for one believe it was pure fantasy and unlikely to happen in reality. To begin with it would take nearly 20 years for a new generation to develop, unlike breeding horses, cattle, sheep dogs etc. That would be too long plus it would be doubtful there would be enought numbers. Secondly the aim of any plantation slave holder is for passive or docile captives, but that was very difficult, going by the revolts that took place and sabotage or slow work.
So the answer would be to continuing importing new captives who were new to the country did not speak the language than using enslaved blacks who grew up in the plantations.

This myth of 'breeding' always comes up in debates about sports and athletics, especailly when it is trumpetted, how no white athlete has ever completed the 100M in under ten seconds.( I believe this year someone did?? Please enlighten me if i am wrong.) The muscle twitch gene is behind the black runners success in sprints. Since the top sprinters are from America and the caribbean and not west africa, it is said slavery had something to do with it, so this myth of 'breeding' came up. I believe Hitler said something similar folowing Jesse Owens winning 4 golds at the Berlin Olympics, he claimed the black man had an in built advantage over white runners. When it later came out that the Nazis practiced eugenics and strived to create a new 'pure aryan race', which failed anyway, creative writers after the war started writing about slave breeding plantations in the US.

Another point which shoots the 'breeding' myth to bits, is that other sports like cycling has sprinting and long distance aspects to it, which would favour black athletes. However no black cyclists has ever won the tour de france. That sport is dominated by white athletes also skiing, swimming, rowing, weight lifting etc. Yet no one asks questions whether white athletes are better equipped at them like blacks are supposed to be in sprinting.

I don't think so but personally, I am into hot and kinky slave sex. Give me a black girl and I'll be chaining her down and boning her James Monroe style!

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...laveryMap.html

The above map doesn't answer your question, but it illustrates very nicely the relative density of slave populations in the South. The institution was practice in the New World since the 1560's. The first English colony to bring slaves did so in 1619. Some states, as the map indicates, had more slaves than free persons. Some county populations were over 80% slave. Could all of those all even half of the slave population have been brought from Africa? You do the math. So clearly most of the slave population of the U.S. by 1830's was born in the U.S. The extent to which they "bred" themselves (fell in love and had families which were usually later broken up) or where bred by their owners is a question for historical demographers. The oral history of the slaves themselves do verify the existence of some breeding plantations.

So you're longing for the good ol' days, are ya? Merry Christmas

well no mention of it here, actual narratives of former enslaved African Americans commissioned by roosevelt, so it would not be forgotten


http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/wpa/wpahome.html

Of course there was selective breeding going on. Why wouldn't there have been? Slaves were basically livestock.

Selective breeding or eugenics as it used to be known was a wide spread idea after the the publication of On the Origin of Species.Origin of Species was published in 1859 however, actual efforts to promote selective breeding were in effect during the Progressive era with enforced serialization of certain groups of people, especially though out the south with the cover of studies by the government. These studies were condoned by both state and federal governments.

Besides eugenics of the early 1900 to 1940, there was in a sense selective breeding with slave owners since most slave owners were known to let sick or weak infants die if they knew that there weren't going to any profit in it. Also, the masters selected which slaves to own and sell. Those that were owned for a long time were more likely to have children than those who were sick or had any deformities.

What the hell are you talking about? This isn't something that was invented in the last century. Plantation owners were farmers. They've been practicing selective breeding on crops & livestock for millenia.

slave were called chattel and breed

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chattel


THERE IS A BOOK CALLED

CELIA THE SLAVE

IT DESCRIBES LIFE AS A SLAVE BACK THEN


http://www.epinions.com/review/Celia...nt_67579842180

this is why African history should be included in American history and taught in the schools in the USA



http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...SH20_OU01_.jpg


McLaurin tells the story of a slave girl named Celia. We only know her as Celia, she has no other name. Robert Newsom, a plantation owner in Callaway, Missouri, purchased her at age 14. Newsom was recently widowed and it seems he purchased Celia with a sexual motive. As he brought her back to the farm, he raped her. From then on, Newsom "visited" Celia often in a cabin he provided for her which was very close to the main household. Over the years, Celia had two children with Newsom, which he considered "his property".

There were four other slaves on the plantation, but they were all men, so it was hard for Celia to confide in anyone. Soon, however, Celia formed a relationship with the slave George. By this time, the girl is 19 years old and is pregnant again. George is aware of what Newsom is doing and gives Celia an ultimatum - either she tell Newsom to leave her alone, or he would leave her.

When Newsom came to her cabin, Celia told him she wouldn't allow him to come anymore. However, Newsom didn't care since HE was HER master. He proceeded to rape her again. However, Celia hit him over the head with a club with intentions to wound him, but it was a fatal blow instead. Thus, the trial of Celia begins.

The rest of the story is history; wonderful history. The author combines a great story with historical facts. This makes the book very interesting. It's not like you're reading a history book, which is just plain facts. This book makes it fun and easy to learn. The information about the trial is factual, but since McLaurin put it in a story-like form, it is very interesting.

This is a great book to read if you are interested in what it was like to be a slave, or even if you need to do some kind of report. The author touches on so many aspects of a slaves' life. Taking place in the 1850's. McLaurin discusses the Dred Scott Case, tensions between bordering states, and regional/national elections. A huge part of this story focuses on the different laws of the time. For example:

-Is a slave 3/5 of a person?
-Does a slave have rights?
-Is a slave considered property?
-Is a slave considered a man or woman?

Celia is assigned lawyers, since a slave isn't allowed to testify in court - Can you believe the ridiculous laws back then? If a slave can't testify, how is he/she supposed to state his/her side of the story?

I don't want to give away all of the details of the trial, but there is one crucial element that I want to discuss a little bit. The issue is discussed of whether Celia is considered a woman. White women had the right to defend themselves against a man who was forcing himself upon her. Celia is a woman, so this law should apply to her as well. After all, she was only defending herself from this man. This discussion was a huge turning point during the trial. The jury and judge had to decide whether or not Celia had this right. It was such a big issue because it would totally change the law around. If she was a woman, she would have this right and it would make slave women more equal with white women. This would, in turn, take away some of the powers of the slave holder. If she did not have this right, things would remain the same and Celia would be hung.

By the end of the book, after much fighting and debating, Celia is pronounced guilty. The story illustrates just how terrible the life of a slave could be. The author put so much into this piece and made it so thorough that you don't just learn about the history while the trial is going on. Instead, he dedicated a couple of chapters to give you some background on the subject and to show the reader what is influencing the judge and jury's decision. (That is the part of the book that gets a little bit boring, because it really isn't in a story format, but just fact after fact on paper). Also, some parts of the book are a little bit hard to understand, this is not an extremely easy reader.

"Celia, A Slave" is a great historical book that is well written and actually fun to read. I really didn't think I would like the book when I first got it, I was actually a little bit hesitant, but it turned out just fine in the end.

regarding slavery, i understand in the US the first slaves used out there were white convicts or other undesirables from England. They did not last very long and were not suited to the work. They found out after some bright fellow came op with the idea of using Africans, i believe from the Spanish. They found out they were hardier and could last out there doing that harsh work. So it was seen to be profitable for the traders and plantation owners and the blacks were easier to spot if they ran away unlike the whites who could blend in better. What a way to view human beings, akin to animals, what a world it was like back then.

Now back to my point about breeding and sports because you always hear that to explain why blacks are better at sprinting than others. Is there evidence of selective breeding among whites who do well as swimming, cycling, weightlifting, rowing skiing etc? Do they have some natural advantage as hitler claimed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natina

slave were called chattel and breed

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chattel


THERE IS A BOOK CALLED

CELIA THE SLAVE

IT DESCRIBES LIFE AS A SLAVE BACK THEN


http://www.epinions.com/review/Celia...nt_67579842180

this is why African history should be included in American history and taught in the schools in the USA



http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...SH20_OU01_.jpg


McLaurin tells the story of a slave girl named Celia. We only know her as Celia, she has no other name. Robert Newsom, a plantation owner in Callaway, Missouri, purchased her at age 14. Newsom was recently widowed and it seems he purchased Celia with a sexual motive. As he brought her back to the farm, he raped her. From then on, Newsom "visited" Celia often in a cabin he provided for her which was very close to the main household. Over the years, Celia had two children with Newsom, which he considered "his property".

There were four other slaves on the plantation, but they were all men, so it was hard for Celia to confide in anyone. Soon, however, Celia formed a relationship with the slave George. By this time, the girl is 19 years old and is pregnant again. George is aware of what Newsom is doing and gives Celia an ultimatum - either she tell Newsom to leave her alone, or he would leave her.

When Newsom came to her cabin, Celia told him she wouldn't allow him to come anymore. However, Newsom didn't care since HE was HER master. He proceeded to rape her again. However, Celia hit him over the head with a club with intentions to wound him, but it was a fatal blow instead. Thus, the trial of Celia begins.

The rest of the story is history; wonderful history. The author combines a great story with historical facts. This makes the book very interesting. It's not like you're reading a history book, which is just plain facts. This book makes it fun and easy to learn. The information about the trial is factual, but since McLaurin put it in a story-like form, it is very interesting.

This is a great book to read if you are interested in what it was like to be a slave, or even if you need to do some kind of report. The author touches on so many aspects of a slaves' life. Taking place in the 1850's. McLaurin discusses the Dred Scott Case, tensions between bordering states, and regional/national elections. A huge part of this story focuses on the different laws of the time. For example:

-Is a slave 3/5 of a person?
-Does a slave have rights?
-Is a slave considered property?
-Is a slave considered a man or woman?

Celia is assigned lawyers, since a slave isn't allowed to testify in court - Can you believe the ridiculous laws back then? If a slave can't testify, how is he/she supposed to state his/her side of the story?

I don't want to give away all of the details of the trial, but there is one crucial element that I want to discuss a little bit. The issue is discussed of whether Celia is considered a woman. White women had the right to defend themselves against a man who was forcing himself upon her. Celia is a woman, so this law should apply to her as well. After all, she was only defending herself from this man. This discussion was a huge turning point during the trial. The jury and judge had to decide whether or not Celia had this right. It was such a big issue because it would totally change the law around. If she was a woman, she would have this right and it would make slave women more equal with white women. This would, in turn, take away some of the powers of the slave holder. If she did not have this right, things would remain the same and Celia would be hung.

By the end of the book, after much fighting and debating, Celia is pronounced guilty. The story illustrates just how terrible the life of a slave could be. The author put so much into this piece and made it so thorough that you don't just learn about the history while the trial is going on. Instead, he dedicated a couple of chapters to give you some background on the subject and to show the reader what is influencing the judge and jury's decision. (That is the part of the book that gets a little bit boring, because it really isn't in a story format, but just fact after fact on paper). Also, some parts of the book are a little bit hard to understand, this is not an extremely easy reader.

"Celia, A Slave" is a great historical book that is well written and actually fun to read. I really didn't think I would like the book when I first got it, I was actually a little bit hesitant, but it turned out just fine in the end.

---

The said book and what you quoted is very deep and moving. I thought they had 'black history month' in all schools in the US or is it only certain states? do the schools that feed the ivy league teaches it? So they gloss over what happened and only focus on roots which is pure fiction? what about Native American history, isnt it taught in schools because they went throught genocide and denial of basic human rights

One other question. Isnt there is a popular saying: 'I wont be your whipping boy' or 'i wont be your N word' in other words you treat the blacks like that not us? Ist

Did I forget to call the waaaambulance for shit that happened before any of us were born?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PomonaCA

Did I forget to call the waaaambulance for shit that happened before any of us were born?

---

That is of course a good and a fair point. but why pay homage to the founding fathers and and ignore the other side of the coin?

http://www.epinions.com/review/Celia...nt_67579842180
http://www.epinions.com/review/Celia...nt_67579842180
http://www.epinions.com/review/Celia...nt_67579842180
http://www.epinions.com/review/Celia...nt_67579842180


IF YOU TAKE AFRICAN AMERICAN HISTORY

you will find out that

1.)blacks where invisible
no records kept of family or family tree,family separated.

2.)blacks where nameless with a few exceptions of those who escaped and fought against slavery like FREDERICK DOUGLAS


3.)BLACKS WERE NOT CONSIDERED A PERSON


4.)slave women often father children by slave masters
and so many african americans are concidered to be MULATTOS
THEY WERE RAPED AND THE WHITE WIFE WAS POWERLESS ALTHOUGHT THEY HAD ISSUES WITH IT
YOU CAN NOT RAPE A SLAVE GIRL IF YOU ARE A MASTER.

5.)slaves were considered to be CHATTEL
like live stock

and so much more disturbing facts

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...SH20_OU01_.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NRT

The said book and what you quoted is very deep and moving. I thought they had 'black history month' in all schools in the US or is it only certain states? do the schools that feed the ivy league teaches it? So they gloss over what happened and only focus on roots which is pure fiction? what about Native American history, isnt it taught in schools because they went throught genocide and denial of basic human rights

One other question. Isnt there is a popular saying: 'I wont be your whipping boy' or 'i wont be your N word' in other words you treat the blacks like that not us? Ist

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natina

slave were called chattel and breed

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chattel


THERE IS A BOOK CALLED

CELIA THE SLAVE

IT DESCRIBES LIFE AS A SLAVE BACK THEN


http://www.epinions.com/review/Celia...nt_67579842180

this is why African history should be included in American history and taught in the schools in the USA



http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...SH20_OU01_.jpg


McLaurin tells the story of a slave girl named Celia. We only know her as Celia, she has no other name. Robert Newsom, a plantation owner in Callaway, Missouri, purchased her at age 14. Newsom was recently widowed and it seems he purchased Celia with a sexual motive. As he brought her back to the farm, he raped her. From then on, Newsom "visited" Celia often in a cabin he provided for her which was very close to the main household. Over the years, Celia had two children with Newsom, which he considered "his property".

There were four other slaves on the plantation, but they were all men, so it was hard for Celia to confide in anyone. Soon, however, Celia formed a relationship with the slave George. By this time, the girl is 19 years old and is pregnant again. George is aware of what Newsom is doing and gives Celia an ultimatum - either she tell Newsom to leave her alone, or he would leave her.

When Newsom came to her cabin, Celia told him she wouldn't allow him to come anymore. However, Newsom didn't care since HE was HER master. He proceeded to rape her again. However, Celia hit him over the head with a club with intentions to wound him, but it was a fatal blow instead. Thus, the trial of Celia begins.

The rest of the story is history; wonderful history. The author combines a great story with historical facts. This makes the book very interesting. It's not like you're reading a history book, which is just plain facts. This book makes it fun and easy to learn. The information about the trial is factual, but since McLaurin put it in a story-like form, it is very interesting.

This is a great book to read if you are interested in what it was like to be a slave, or even if you need to do some kind of report. The author touches on so many aspects of a slaves' life. Taking place in the 1850's. McLaurin discusses the Dred Scott Case, tensions between bordering states, and regional/national elections. A huge part of this story focuses on the different laws of the time. For example:

-Is a slave 3/5 of a person?
-Does a slave have rights?
-Is a slave considered property?
-Is a slave considered a man or woman?

Celia is assigned lawyers, since a slave isn't allowed to testify in court - Can you believe the ridiculous laws back then? If a slave can't testify, how is he/she supposed to state his/her side of the story?

I don't want to give away all of the details of the trial, but there is one crucial element that I want to discuss a little bit. The issue is discussed of whether Celia is considered a woman. White women had the right to defend themselves against a man who was forcing himself upon her. Celia is a woman, so this law should apply to her as well. After all, she was only defending herself from this man. This discussion was a huge turning point during the trial. The jury and judge had to decide whether or not Celia had this right. It was such a big issue because it would totally change the law around. If she was a woman, she would have this right and it would make slave women more equal with white women. This would, in turn, take away some of the powers of the slave holder. If she did not have this right, things would remain the same and Celia would be hung.

By the end of the book, after much fighting and debating, Celia is pronounced guilty. The story illustrates just how terrible the life of a slave could be. The author put so much into this piece and made it so thorough that you don't just learn about the history while the trial is going on. Instead, he dedicated a couple of chapters to give you some background on the subject and to show the reader what is influencing the judge and jury's decision. (That is the part of the book that gets a little bit boring, because it really isn't in a story format, but just fact after fact on paper). Also, some parts of the book are a little bit hard to understand, this is not an extremely easy reader.

"Celia, A Slave" is a great historical book that is well written and actually fun to read. I really didn't think I would like the book when I first got it, I was actually a little bit hesitant, but it turned out just fine in the end.

---

Wasnt there a religious angle used to justify slavery? I heard the first slave ship was called 'The Good Ship Jesus'. The church taught that the black race was condemned to slavery and to be servants, by god, when Noah cursed Ham. Churches actually owned slave plantations, which is one great shame of the church. Now does anyone know if the church actually taught this before the slave trade began? Also when slavery began, or at least for the first century, the slaves were not allowed to practice any religion. The church and slave owners believed they had no souls, in view of the said ham myth. Also they feared the slaves would use the gatherings to plan insurrections. So what made them change their minds?

Since slaves were considered chattel, or property like cattle, did they have to be treated with minimum agreed living conditions? Or could any slave owner do as he pleased? So there was no licensing or quality control, to see if anyone was fit to own slaves?

Another thing, if a slave was too old or sick to work, was the plantation owner legally required to look after them? That would be a drain on resources. They would not keep old or sick animals alive, they would be put to sleep. Do we know if the same happened with slaves? Were there 'hospitals', 'care homes' for slaves? Could any slave owner be prosecuted for mal treating slaves or working them to death or in unsafe working conditions?

I personally feel that selective breeding in regards to slavery is the reason for the genetics/athletic performance commonly present today.

What race overwhelmingly excels in sports that require size and strength? :pumped:

Whenever certain people are considered officially subhuman, They have no protection & always end up being victimized. The victimization continues long after the lifting of the official sanction because the mindset still exists.

Change the mindset, & you change the world.

wow saint hippie

You bet. Just drop your coins in the donation slot.

Well wasn't Abraham Lincoln who issued the 'emancipation proclamation', was just as prejudiced against blacks as the slave owners he opposed? He did not see them as equals and told free blacks most whites wont respect their former slaves and it would be best to leave the country