 |
| from https://msualumni.wordpress.com/tag/domestic-slave-trade/ |
We are discussing demographic information associated with the Trans-Atlantic Slavery, the establishment of the Chesapeake Region and Carolinas, as well as ideas and policies associated with miscegenation (bi-racial, multi-ethnic identity) and creolization in American culture.
Considering what you read and previously understood about slavery in the Americas, list or describe what new information you have acquired or your new understanding you may have adopted.
How does it complicate or change your previous notions about slavery in the Americas and African American culture?
Yours truly,
Dr. Hill
 |
| from http://americanhistoryrules.com/divisionandreunion/the-origins-of-slavery-in-america/ |
The first telling thing that I noticed was the map showing the spread of the African ethnicity spreading. Like Dr.Hill said before if an ethnicity exist within a country then it will most likely spread across the country. This was from if these people get around each other they're going to procreate. Also something else I found enlightening was the notion that Creole wasn't just a Native American and Caucasian mix but it was really a mix of African, Caucasian, and Native American. I never knew this so I found this fact to be really enlightening.
ReplyDeleteThe second map really brings into perspective the severity of slavery in the South. It grew tremendously from 1790-1860. I also find it shocking that some northern territories no longer had slavery by 1860. The state of Kentucky had heavy populations of slavery, which isn't surprising since Kentucky has always associated with a southern heritage.
ReplyDeleteI also found in interesting that bi-racial and multi-ethnicity was of a frequent occurrence in these centuries, yet NOT accepted? How does this even make sense? Even slave owners had bi-racial children, yet fully supported slavery. I find this very disturbing. I'm curious if there were any bi-racial marriages that took place during the slavery era? Or, was this even allowed?
Callee Nunn
The thing that stands out most to me is the fact that the slaves were seen as property. This is something that is very hard for me to wrap my head around. I cannot understand what state of mind these people must have been in to look at another person and think of them as nothing.
ReplyDeleteI had never noticed how far west slavery had gotten. I was always aware that the southern and the states along the Atlantic coast were heavily populated with slaves due to the fact the slaves were entering on that side of the country. However, It surprised me that there were a handful of slaves in Texas and the Kansas territory by 1860. Westward expansion and manifest destiny did not occur until about 1845. This would mean there would not be that many people in these more central/western states. The fact that there was slavery in these sparsely populated states just shows how vast institution of slavery was in America.
ReplyDeleteWhen I think of slavery, I never really considering it going as far west as Texas. I always viewed Texas as a sort of safe place for runaway slaves to go and start a new life. After looking at this map, I now know that they were just as involved in slavery as any other southern state.
ReplyDeleteIt's just amazing how the numbers increase on the map. The numbers increase substantially for every state. This map kind of complicates my knowledge of slavery in the Americas because I really though before that all states were part of the slave industry, but it turns out mainly southeastern states were the one's that were mainly involved
ReplyDeleteWhen I viewed this math the dramatic change in the amount of slaves over time caught my eye. From prior knowledge I knew it was a great amount of slaves in the 13 colonies, but after seeing the map above gave me a better understanding of the change over time. It is mind blowing how some states even started with no slaves and ended with 1,000 plus slaves. It is also interesting how the Kansas territory claimed to be against slavery, but had a very small population of slaves.
ReplyDeletey you looking at me
ReplyDelete