Slavery Myths: Slaves Spent Most of Their Time Picking Cotton

Antebellum South

Slavery in the United States was nothing compared to the intensity of Cuban slavery where slaves commonly spent as much as 20 hours a day harvesting and processing sugarcane.

Here’s another excerpt from Time on the Cross:

“Cotton was, of course, the single most important crop on large cotton plantations, requiring about 34 percent of the labor time of the slaves. However, the rearing of livestock (including the raising of feed) took nearly as much labor time of slaves – about 25 percent. Corn bound for human consumption took another 6 percent. The remaining 34 percent of the working time of slave hands was divided among land improvement, the construction of fences and buildings, the raising of other crops (oats, rye, wheat, potatoes, etc.), domestic duties, and home manufacturing (especially the production of clothes).”

2/3rds of the time of slaves on Southern cotton plantations was spent on activities which had nothing to do with the cotton crop. The slaves on Virginia tobacco farms had even easier lives.

In terms of the intensity of slavery, sugar > rice > coffee > cotton > tobacco. There was a night and day difference between being a slave on a sugar plantation and a cotton plantation.

This entry was posted in American South, Dixie, History, Negroes, Race Realism, Race Relations, Racism, Slavery. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to Slavery Myths: Slaves Spent Most of Their Time Picking Cotton

  1. Brutus says:

    I think it safe to say we understand about how most have been misled about slavery.

  2. Dixiegirl says:

    It helps to mention it.

    Even if one “understands” (cognitively), propaganda is not intellectual, it’s emotional. One can “know” the facts a hundred times over, (and many even today don’t know that) when just ten movies seen as a child may brand a person an an unconscious slaver in your heart (which is the whole point of television).

    —Talked to a distance relative who is about five. He already knows the “south is slavery” and “germans are bad.” At the same time, he must have intaken that there is “southern” and “german” in his own background. Cognitive dissonance.

    This “splitting off” of thought and feeling has been a main topic in psychology for the past 50 years, since some factions see this as a desirable state to put some children in.

    When I first found out there were worse slavers than in the American South, it did “undo” the psychological damage a little, but then, I don’t want to vilify other groups as “the worst” either, but then you can wind up talking about the good aspects of slavery, and then that’s a hard sell, lol. By LYING SO MUCH about real history, the guilty parties, the liars, have created a real mess.

    (And for what? A couple bucks. Some false morality, which is the reality they give THEIR children?— I’m talking about those “Good White People” The Biden-Ryans union soldier types, the 48-ers, oppressed whites, and such.

  3. Dixiegirl says:

    Nobody seems to have a case of the “Good White People” more than the Nets, the Northeast Transpants—- they seem missionaries all, (as long as they are giving away money collected from the american’s taxes, lol). Backed by their little Half-Truth sagas of oppressions, famines, serfdoms, flagellating religions, slaverydoms, and general moralistic, put-upon Do-Gooderness (with other peoples money), and usually dishing out crap nobody wants with it.

  4. Slavery in the United States was little more than farming.

  5. crowley says:

    HW: “2/3rds of the time of slaves on Southern cotton plantations was spent on activities which had nothing to do with the cotton crop. The slaves on Virginia tobacco farms had even easier lives.”

    The only work that qualifies as hard work is cotton crop work?

  6. John says:

    What else would the blacks do? They grew their own fckn food. That’s what the estates Haitians tried to do as subsistence farmers. But they were too dumb to do even that without white supervisors.

    40 acres and a mule was the sales pitch to these asinine creatures.

  7. How was it any different from the “free” labor done by the yeomanry before and after the war?

  8. John says:

    I’m pretty sure that slaves were able to accrue money from work they did in other contexts too. All labour wasn’t owned by the Plantation owner.

  9. John Bonaccorsi says:

    How was it any different from the “free” labor done by the yeomanry before and after the war?

    So you’re now a leftist, Mr. W., attempting to deflect concepts by putting them in quotation marks? The main way that it was different from “free” labor is that it wasn’t done freely. The more you discuss this issue, the deeper the hole you dig for yourself and your fellow Southern diehards.

  10. Dixiegirl says:

    One glance at the 1860 census and old upper south slave schedules does lend a sense that there were mostly small farms. And how much work is the grandad slave still living there going to be doing… since given ages, names, it’s clear multi-generations are actually still together, despite being told in every movie that all the little children were ‘sold down the river.’ Oh… right, grandpa was probably beaten bloody daily by those evil blue-blonde germanic looking protestant bible believers!

    And behind their own houses, they had a plot for their personal garden, seemingly. Tell that to the NYC type, who hasn’t even begun to guess how ripped off they are at the average super market, in terms of feeding their rude, rootless children freaking mutant ingredients and “preservatives” and eating only varieties gene-mutated for long shelf life and being indestructible and shipping-friendly.

    And if you try to mention it, they act like you’re “Uppity” and “want to be an aristocrat.” What exact alternative do they want to be? Rootless ghetto children from nowhere eating mutant food?… oh, yummy, that’s great.

    PS— God bless you, HW

  11. Mosin Nagant says:

    “(A)ttempting to deflect concepts by putting them in quotation marks? The main way that it was different from ‘free’ labor is that it wasn’t done freely. The more you discuss this issue, the deeper the hole you dig”: Facts are important, and the historical accuracy is appreciated, but the appearance of “benevolence justification” that clashes completely with the spirit of the Robert B. Rhett motto is distracting!

  12. Mosin Nagant says:

    They are fully human, spiritual beings who were always entitled to continue in their free (of “feral state”) in their African homeland,

    OR they are permanently child-like or mentally or emotionally “challenged” human beings who are benefitted most by mutually-beneficial, affordable, efficient care in the institution of slavery,

    OR they are non-humans worthy of humane treatment when used as livestock.

  13. Mosin Nagant says:

    Sorry for the typo:

    free (of “feral state”) in their African homeland,

    should have been:

    freedom (or “feral state”) in their African homeland,

  14. Mosin Nagant says:

    Any other possibility?

  15. No, I am saying that the tasks done by the slaves on American cotton plantations, things like clearing property, raising chickens, making clothes, planting corn, fixing fences, raising barns wasn’t really different from the tasks done by “free” laborers on farms in the South and the North.

    It is absurd to think that blacks were crippled for all time by “the legacy of slavery” in light of what they were actually doing. The truth is that in terms of their calorie intake, their disease environment, and their birthrates there was little material difference between “free” laborers and slaves.

    If anything is true, blacks had better healthcare and retirement prospects on a Mississippi cotton plantation than they did as “free” laborers in the North. That’s why slaves had a longer life expectancy.

  16. Mosin,

    Compared to the sugar plantations in the Caribbean, which we have discussed extensively here, there was a huge difference between “plantations” in the South and “plantations” in somewhere like Cuba or Jamaica.

    In the Caribbean, the idea that a “planter” was someone who owned only 20 slaves would have been considered ridiculous. The typical sugar plantation had anywhere from 200 to 400 slaves.

    Most of the “plantations” in the South were little more than farms. In Britain, the relative benevolence of American slavery was acknowledged by both the slave interest and the abolitionists. Labor activists in Britain also pointed out that the slaves on Southern plantations had it better than the “free” British working class.

  17. John says:

    You should see if there’s a slave biography where you compare his life expectancy with a current Trayvon.

  18. John says:

    Such and such a slave: diet, life span, clothing, savings…
    Dental health, overall health.
    There must be good records of such things.

    Compare him to a typical black today. The comparison would be illuminating.

  19. crowley says:

    John, Why compare the benefit of black slavery to black freedom in white lands from the point of view of black benefit? Black slavery in white lands is bad for whites. Whether it might be plausibly argued in some context to be beneficial to blacks makes no difference. We aren’t blacks and our first priority is what is beneficial to us. Please explain how black slavery in white lands is beneficial to whites? Better to endorse black slavery in the lands of your enemy, like for instance in Muslim lands, for the benefit of blacks of course.

  20. crowley,

    (1) Why should we compare the welfare of slaves in America to free negroes in Africa?

    In order to destroy the liberal blood libel that “the legacy of slavery” has crippled blacks for all time and that present and future generations of Whites should feel eternally guilty for slavery.

    (2) What’s the most successful independent black country in the world? The anti-racists will happily tell you that it is Barbados in complete ignorance of the fact that Barbados was the first and the oldest slave society in the New World.

    If “the legacy of slavery” has crippled blacks for all time, then Barbados should be the single worst spot in the entire world for blacks living today. Barbados was a slave society from the 1640s to the 1830s. The black population in Barbados didn’t become self-sustaining until around 1805. The blacks in Barbados also worked on sugar plantations which were the most intense form of New World slavery.

    Isn’t it strange though that the blacks in Barbados who were the most affected by “the legacy of slavery” are the most successful blacks in the world?

    (3) I don’t think anyone here is arguing that the welfare of blacks should be our primary concern. It’s not our primary concern.

  21. BTW, I use “free” laborers in quotation marks because most people ignorantly assume that the living conditions of “free” laborers must be superior to that of slaves when that was not always the case.

    For example, an Indian or Chinese “free laborer” working on a sugar plantation in Mauritius or Cuba, or a “free laborer” working in many parts of contemporary Europe and the Northeast had a lower life expectancy than the average slave on a Virginia tobacco farm.

  22. John Bonaccorsi, Philadelphia says:

    No, I am saying that the tasks done by the slaves on American cotton plantations, things like clearing property, raising chickens, making clothes, planting corn, fixing fences, raising barns wasn’t really different from the tasks done by “free” laborers on farms in the South and the North.

    Sorry. I hadn’t been following your point; still, the quotation marks on “free” are better avoided, I think.

    For the record: I’m not sure that the persons who say that blacks’ present incapacities are a legacy of slavery are arguing that blacks are enduringly broken because their ancestors’ lives in slave labor were arduous. To be honest, I don’t really know what such persons are arguing, but I imagine they’d be saying that, for example, widespread black failure at family formation is a consequence of, say, intra-South slave trading that broke up families and thus disrupted the intergenerational transmission of family roles. (Such a statement might not be accurate, but it’s not absurd on its face.) Similarly, they might be saying that the enslavement of blacks and their being transported from Africa broke the line of cultural transmission within their own African populations. I’m not saying views such as those are valid, Mr. W.; I’m simply saying that your own statements might not be meeting the argument you think they are.

    These are things I think about when, for example, I note the apparent Jewish prominence, nowadays, in math and science. I really don’t know how prominent the Jews are in those fields; and I suspect, furthermore, that a great many of the “Jews” who are prominent in those fields look a lot more Northern European than I do. Even so, I can’t help thinking that the Jews make a point of “breaking the line of cultural transmission” within the sciences (and other areas of culture). From my own limited knowledge of these matters, I have gained the impression that scientific vigor — or any intellectual vigor — is very much tied to proper organization of institutions of higher learning. The breeding of a scientific caste, so to speak, takes place across generations — from professors to students, who become, in turn, professors. The Jews seem to have made a point of ensuring that that line of transmission is broken for whites.

    If an alert Jew were to ask me to support that statement, i.e., to provide facts about professorships etc., I certainly could not do so, but that does not mean I’m wrong.

  23. John says:

    The hard sciences and engineering are not dominated by Jewish profs. The law is.
    Mathematics? Is there data?

  24. John Bonaccorsi, Philadelphia says:

    The hard sciences and engineering are not dominated by Jewish profs. The law is.
    Mathematics? Is there data?

    I don’t know. It’s quite possible I’ve simply libeled the Jews by suggesting that they’ve tried to crowd whites out of math and science. Is it incorrect that they are disproportionately represented among scientific Nobel prize winners and so on? I don’t really know. My sense is that they are; but again, I might simply be repeating nonsense. Maybe their prominence among such award winners and the like has nothing to do with any sort of manipulation, so to speak, of academic environments; if that’s true, I guess they are simply smarter than everybody else.

  25. Rudel says:

    “I guess they are simply smarter than everybody else.”

    “Is there data?”

    Yes. Nevertheless they are still over represented in academia even after controlling for this. You both need to pay closer attention to the links I provide instead of simply speculating in your so-called “discussions” as they spread very little light.

  26. John Bonaccorsi, Philadelphia says:

    You both need to pay closer attention to the links I provide instead of simply speculating in your so-called “discussions” as they spread very little light.

    Maybe I’ve missed it, but the one link you’ve provided, Rudel, doesn’t address my main subject, which was the Jewish position in math and science in academia.

  27. John Bonaccorsi, Philadelphia says:

    And actually, my main point was that white nationalists are quick to disparage blacks as inherently inferior to whites–IQ, IQ, IQ, FBI crime statistics, stupid first names; but when it comes to black prominence in certain sports or Jewish prominence in certain intellectual fields, the argument is suddenly that whites are being discriminated against.

  28. Rudel says:

    “the argument is suddenly that whites are being discriminated against.”

    That’s because they are:

    http://www.whitenationalism.com/div/Diversity.html

  29. John says:

    News in academia? Look at Hobsbawm. He’s a refugee from Berlin, became Britain’s “most respected historian”. Most of it is Jewish boosterism. It’s not actually that hard to
    Take over the academy if you are nepotistic and create new fields like Marxist Social history. This is what Ford meant by saying that history is bunk.

    It’s there in Sciences too. James Watson drummed out cause he’s a racist. Walt and Mearsheimer because they challenged Israel. The applied work of
    Von Braun makes others of his generation look like dwarves. Lemaitre
    Basically figured out how the universe was created. They were prominent in the nuclear field but as managers or as innovative engIneers?

    I don’t think the domination exists in the really tough subjects.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>