Question Details

[answered] A Broader Footprint: Slavery and Slaveholding Households in

Unit 7 assignment its a big one please read the assignment and as I understand it we have to do a "multimedia presentation with both audio and video components; however, the medium used is up to you. Potential examples include, but are not limited to, a videotaped speech, a self-guided PowerPoint presentation, or a video with audio. "

So Per the instruction we can do a self guided power point presentation? Did I read this right? well I am attaching the instructions and reading material.

This is due Monday November 21st. Please see if you can take care of this and since its a big one it will be $50 plus $50 tip. Please confirm..

Attachment Reading assignment -- you can click under the first 2 (Schur and Whitman) and it takes you to the article.. For the other 2 Fountain and Rousey, I attached their articles.


A Broader Footprint:


Slavery and Slaveholding Households


in Antebellum Piedmont North Carolina


D aniel L. F ountain In January 1861, J. D. B. De Bow, a noted proponent of southern agriculture


and slavery, published an article arguing that there was greater support for slavery


in the South than abolitionists asserted. In particular, De Bow, who once headed


the U.S. Census Bureau, criticized those who frequently cited only the number of


legal slave owners to try to prove that an ?insignificant portion? of the southern


population supported slavery. In fact, he believed that there was a conspiracy to


use census data to mislead the public about the South?s peculiar institution. More


specifically, De Bow mused that the ?separation of the schedules of the slave and


the free was calculated to lead to omissions? so that the public would view slave


owners as comprising a tiny ?wealthy aristocracy? with interests that varied greatly


from the vast majority of non-slave-owning southerners.


To counter this idea, which he felt was ?malignantly alleged,? De Bow encour?


aged observers to note that the number of slave owners reported in the census


?embraced slaveholding families and that to arrive at the actual number of slave?


holders, it would be necessary to multiply by the proportion of persons which


the census showed to be a family.? Using this methodology, De Bow asserted that


?the number of actual slaveholders [was] at about two millions and a quarter? or


?one third of the population of the entire South.? For De Bow, this proved that


slave owners ?make up an aggregate greater in relative proportion than the hold?


ers of any other species of property whatever, in any part of the world; and that


of no other property can it be said, with equal truthfulness, that it is an inter?


est of the whole community.?1 Putting aside the question of the overall accu?


racy of his politically motivated calculations and assertions, De Bow?s focus on


families is an effective approach for evaluating the footprint and impact of slavery


within a community. By analyzing the demographic and economic components of


slave-owning households, rather than those of individual slaveholders, historians


1. J. D. B. De Bow, ?The Non-Slaveholders of the South: Their Interest in the Present Sectional Contro?


versy Identical with That of the Slaveholders,? DeBow's Review 30 (January 1861): 67-77, University of


Michigan: Humanities Text Initiative, VOLUME XCI ? NUMBER 4 ? OCTOBER 2014 408 D a n ie l L. F o u n t a in gain a fuller understanding of slavery?s reach and the impact it had on specific




Just as a person does not have to hold the title to a car or house to benefit


from it, individuals living and working within slave-owning households could also


benefit from slavery, whether or not they were the legal owner of the enslaved.


Slave labor provided slaveholding household members with a wide range of ben?


efits, including but not limited to food, clothing, shelter, relief from undesirable


tasks, primary and supplemental income, and increased social status. Slave own?


ers, their families, and household members also formed a cooperative, if not sin?


gle, economic unit with their collective skills, labor, and wealth contributing to


the function and potential success of the household. For this reason, focusing on


slave-owning households allows for a more fully developed picture of how slavery


appeared and functioned within a community. For the purposes of this analysis,


slaveholding families consist of persons who are related by birth or marriage liv?


ing in the same home with at least one slave owner as listed in the United States


Census. Slaveholding households are broader in their makeup, as they include


employees like overseers and farm laborers, as well as nonrelated free persons


living with or slaves owned by a slaveholding family.


This study analyzes late antebellum slave-owning households in three coun?


ties of the North Carolina Piedmont: Alamance, Orange, and Wake. As John


David Smith aptly pointed out in a recent article, the North Carolina Piedmont


has been understudied despite its ?breadth, diversity, and economic significance.?2


Fiopefully, this article will help correct some of that historiographical shortfall. I


selected these three counties as none of them are on the border of either Virginia


or South Carolina, which means that their development, while not completely


detached from that of their neighbors, was more heavily influenced by the internal


social and economic trends within Piedmont North Carolina. One such native


development that significantly affected all three of these counties was the comple?


tion of the North Carolina Railroad in the 1850s, which connected Alamance,


Orange, and Wake to markets across the state and beyond. Finally, the three coun?


ties also comprise a contiguous section of the region: Wake and Orange coun?


ties shared each other?s western and eastern borders in 1860, while Orange and


Alamance did the same further west. All of these shared factors make the three


counties an interesting and related group for studying Piedmont slavery in the late


antebellum period.


Based on an analysis of census data from 1850 and 1860 for Alamance, Orange,


and Wake counties, it is clear that slavery played a major or even dominant role in


their economies and communities. Unsurprisingly, slavery here was overwhelm?


ingly a rural, agricultural institution. Most slave-owning farmers were yeomen


2. John David Smith, ? ?I Was Raised Poor and Hard as Any Slave?: African American Slavery in Pied?


mont N orth Carolina,? North Carolina Historical Review 90 (January 2013): 3. THE NORTH CAROLINA HISTORICAL REVIEW S lavery and S laveholding in A ntebellum P iedmont N orth C arolina 409 who owned fewer than ten slaves to grow multiple marketable crops.3 None?


theless, slavery remained a flexible source of labor, and numerous slave owners


utilized that labor in a wide range of applications. In addition, slavery in each


county, while not growing rapidly, was a stable regional institution that contin?


ued to attract new and ambitious individuals into the slave-owning ranks who


sought to improve their economic and social position. However, while these


counties share some significant traits, this article also demonstrates that Ala?


mance, Orange, and Wake counties are distinctive. Local institutions, prominent


individuals, crop preferences, and settlement patterns greatly shaped the nature of


slavery in each county.4


It is important to note that the resulting figures at times differ from those


reported in the original published census. There are more slave owners in my


counts for Wake and Orange counties and fewer for Alamance County than


appear in the official census data. The higher counts for Orange and Wake reflect


the fact that while there are numerous entries identifying multiple slave owners


with rights to the same human property, it appears that the census takers only


counted the entry as a single owner. In contrast, for all counties I counted all


of the slave owners included in such entries in the final tally. For example, both


3. For the purposes of this study, I share Stephanie McCurry?s definition of a yeoman as a ?self-working


farmer.? In other words, the difference between a yeoman slave owner and a planter is that the former


worked the land with his or her own hands alongside family members and any slaves he or she owned.


In contrast, planters owned enough slaves to be freed from anything more than a supervisory role in


the cultivation of their lands. Stephanie McCurry, Masters of Small Worlds: Yeoman Households, Gender


Relations, and the Political Culture of the Antebellum South Carolina Low Country (New York: Oxford


University Press, 1995), 47?48.


4. For this analysis of Piedmont slavery, I extracted the data for each slave-owning household from the


slave and then free population schedules of the 1860 United States Census for Alamance, Orange, and


Wake counties. Slave owners appearing on the slave census schedule were matched with their entries in


the free population schedule in order to determine the size and makeup of the slave-owning households


in each county. Slave-owning household totals include not only family members but also individuals liv?


ing or working within those households. Individuals working within slave-owning households, especially


overseers and their families, received compensation from the proceeds generated wholly or in part by the


enslaved laborers with whom they worked or lived. This made free workers employed by slave owners not


only important to the functioning of that household but also dependent on if not beneficiaries of slavery


in regard to occupation or wages. For these reasons free workers and their families were included in overall


figures for slave-owning households in each county. Persons listed as overseers within the census data who


lived outside of identifiable slave-owner households were, along with their family members, counted in


overall county totals but were not linked to specific slave-owner families. The total number of free persons


working in slave-owning and independent overseer households was 864 and comprised 7 percent of all the


people counted toward slave-owning households.


After determining the composition of slave-owning households, the population data was then paired


with that of the agricultural census for the same year, thereby providing a measure of the activities and


productivity of the identified families. This was a challenging process that took several years to complete,


given that there were 2,156 slave-owning households between the three counties. In addition, the spelling


of names and order of appearance often varied between the free, slave, and agricultural schedules. None?


theless, the vast majority of the slave-owning households for 1860 were identified, and all were accounted


for in some way during this multiyear process. For slave owners who appeared in the slave schedule but


were not located in the free schedule, I created a household entry that counted the total number of slaves


reported plus one for the owner. Finally, the overall slave-owning household totals were then compared to


the same data from 1850 to document changes that occurred during the previous decade. VOLUME XCI ? NUMBER 4 ? OCTOBER 2014 410 Daniel L. Fountain Nancy Morris and Esther Upchurch of Wake County appear in entries bearing


their name followed by the phrase ?and 7 others.?5 This means that I recorded


these two entries as yielding sixteen slave owners, while the census taker only


counted two. I found Alamance to have fewer slave owners than recorded in the


final census totals because it appears that the census taker did not eliminate mul?


tiple entries for the same owner, as I did for each county. For example, on the


second page of the Alamance County slave schedule, D. A. Montgomery appears


twice, with both entries included in the final page tally.6 There are seventeen


slave owners with multiple entries in Alamance County, which led to a decreased


total in my count. Finally, my figures show more slaves living in Orange County


than appear in the official census data. The difference results from the fact that


the census taker undercounted the slaves of the Cameron family. The Cameron


family reported the number of slaves they owned by age groups. For example, on


page thirty-five of the Orange County slave schedule, Paul Cameron reported


owning six nine-year-old girls. However, the census taker ignored the appear?


ance of multiple individuals covered in these age ranges and recorded each line


as a single slave, thereby significantly underreporting the actual figure.7 For these


reasons I am confident that the results presented here will give a more accurate


tally of the number of slaves and slave owners in each county.


A surface view of the statistics for slave owning in Alamance, Orange, and


Wake counties in 1860 might suggest that slavery played a small role within these


areas, given the small percentage of slave owners in relation to the overall free


population. According to the U.S. Census, in 1860, the percentage of the free


population that owned slaves in each county was 6.19 percent in Alamance, 5.62


percent in Orange, and 6.68 percent in Wake (see Table l) .8 W ith slave owner?


ship percentages under 7 percent in each county, slave-owning households appear


to have a rather small presence in these Piedmont counties, since most historians


agree that by 1860, approximately 25 percent of free southern and 27.7 percent of


North Carolina families owned slaves. However, when one uses De Bow?s focus on


households, a very different numerical picture emerges. There were 481, 610, and


1,065 slave-owning households in Alamance, Orange, and Wake counties. This


means that approximately 30.85 percent, 26.67 percent, and 30.52 percent of all


families owned slaves in each county. W hen one adds together the total number of


people living in those households the figures rise even higher. There were 2,751,


5. See entries for Nancy Morris and Esther Upchurch, Eighth Census of the United States, 1860: Wake


County, North Carolina, Slave Schedule, National Archives, Washington, D.C. (microfilm roll 927, N.C.


State Archives), Wake Southern Division, p. 27.


6. See entry for D. A. Montgomery, 1860 Census, Alamance County, Slave Schedule (microfilm roll 920),


p. 2. 7. See entries for Paul, Mildred, and Thomas Cameron, 1860 Census, Orange County, Slave Schedule


(microfilm roll 925), pp. 33-35.


8. In Table 1, my different counts from those of the census yielded slave-owner percentages of 5.95


percent, 5.79 percent, and 6.72 percent for Alamance, Orange, and Wake counties. THE NORTH CAROLINA HISTORICAL REVIEW S lavery and Slaveholding in A ntebellum P iedmont N orth C arolina 411 3,321, and 6,194 persons living, working, or dependent on those working in slaveowning households, totaling 32.7 percent, 28 percent, and 34.6 percent of the


free population in the three counties. Overall, this means that almost one out of


every three free persons, 32.14 percent, in Alamance, Orange, and Wake counties


was a part of or economically dependent on a slave-owning household. Adding


the enslaved to those totals expands the slave-owning households? footprints even


further. The 1860 Slave Schedule of the United States Census identified 3,445,


5,495, and 10,733 enslaved persons living within Alamance, Orange and Wake


County slave-owner households. This means that a total of 6,196, 8,816, and


16,927 free and enslaved persons were living or working in these slave-owning


households, yielding county percentages of 52.28 percent, 50.86 percent, and 59.1


percent, with an overall percentage of 55.2 percent. The fact that every other


person in Alamance and Orange counties and nearly six out of every ten in Wake


County were part of or closely associated with slave-owning households demon?


strates not only that De Bow?s methodology was accurate, but also clearly shows


that slavery was very significant in this section of the Piedmont.


The members of these Piedmont slave-owning households were not only


numerically significant, but also financially far better off than average citizens.


They held some of the most prestigious and powerful positions in Alamance,


Orange, and Wake counties. The 1860 census data for estate values show that


slave-owning households controlled the vast majority of the wealth in their


respective counties (see Table 2). Overall, slave-owning households controlled


79.4 percent of the real estate value and 92 percent of the personal estate value


listed in the U.S. Census for the three counties.9 This meant that on average,


slave-owning households owned real estate worth $3,339 and personal prop?


erty valued at $9,934.26. In contrast, the average non-slave-owning households


owned real estate valued at only $361.44 and personal property worth $361.88.


In other words, on average, slave-owning households in these three counties held


nine times the value of real estate and twenty-seven times the value of personal


property of non-slave-owning households. The largest wealth gap between house?


holds existed in Wake County, with slave-owning households owning $3,781.61


and $11,634-56 more in real estate and personal property than those of non-slave


owners. The smallest gaps between slave owner and non-slave owner wealth


existed in Orange County for real estate and Alamance County for personal


property, with differences of $1,867.73 and $7,291.86 separating the two groups.


Contributing to this wealth advantage was the fact that 15.7 percent of all slave


owners lived with at least one other slave owner. Multiple slave-owner households 9. Gary T. Edwards found a similar level of accumulated wealth in the hands of slave owners in another


Upper South state. See Edwards, ?Men of Subsistence and Men of Substance: Agricultural Lifestyles in


Antebellum Madison County, Tennessee,? Agricultural History 73 (Summer 1999): 304-305. VOLUME XCI ? NUMBER 4 ? OCTOBER 2014 412 D a n ie l L. F o u n t a i n T ab le 1 Total Population Total Families Free Population Slave Population Slave-owning


Households Slave Owners Slave Owner % of


Free Population Slave Ownership in 1860 Wake 28,627 3,489 17,894 10,733 1,065 1,203 6.72 Orange 17,334 2,287 11,839 5,495 610 685 5.79 Alamance 11,852 1,559 8,407 3,445 481 500 5.95 Total 57,813 7,335 38,140 19,673 2,156 2,388 County S ource: Slave and free population schedules of the 1860 United States Census for Alamance, Orange, and Wake comprised 6.58 percent of all such families in the region.10 Combining the wealth


of multiple slave owners under one roof made what were typically well-to-do


households that much more robust. In certain cases, such as with the households


of Paul Cameron of Orange and George W. Mordecai of Wake, the combination


of slave-owner assets in one home created an accumulation of wealth that dwarfed


all others. The three slave owners in the Cameron household had a combined


$102,000 in real estate and $245,000 in personal property, while the two slave


owners in the Mordecai home owned $150,000 and $550,000 of the same. The


combined wealth of these two households alone equaled almost 28 percent of that


owned by all non-slave owners in Alamance, Orange, and Wake counties. Clearly,


slave-owning households controlled the lion?s share of wealth and resources in


these three Piedmont counties.11


10. Multiple slave-owner households are those in which two or more slave owners who appear in the slave


census schedule live together.


11. These findings square with those of Rosser Howard Taylor, who found that by 1860, N orth Carolina


was ?tending toward improved methods of farming and, except in areas of staple production, to a more


equal distribution of wealth in land and slaves? (emphasis added). Rosser Howard Taylor, Slaveholding in


North Carolina: An Economic View (Chapel Hill: University of N orth Carolina Press, 1926), 47. Bill CecilFronsman argues that similar levels of wealth concentration were typical of slave-owning regions. See Bill


Cecil-Fronsman, Common Whites: Class and Culture in Antebellum North Carolina (Lexington: University


Press of Kentucky, 1992), 24-25. THE NORTH CAROLINA HISTORICAL REVIEW S lavery and S la v eh o l d in g in A n tebe llu m P ie d m o n t N o r t h C a r o l in a 413 % of Free & Enslaved


Living or Working in


Slave-owner Households Slaves as a % of


Slave-owner Households 16,927 59.13 63.41 Orange 26.67 68 3,321 28.05 8,816 50.86 62.33 Alamance 30.85 16 2,751 32.72 6,196 52.28 55.60 451 12,266 Total Living or Working in


Slave-owner Households 34.61 # of Free & Enslaved % of Free Population Liv?


ing or Working in Slave?


owner Households 6,194 # of Free Persons 367 Separate Overseer &


Farm Manager Families 30.52 # of Persons Living in Wake C ounty % Slave-owning


Households Living or Working in


Slave-owner Households T a b l e 1 ( continued)


Slave Ownership in 1860 31,939 counties. T able 2 Estate Values in Slave-owning Households in 1860




Estate Values Slave Owner


Estate Values % Real Estate Personal


Property Real Estate Personal


Property Real


Estate Personal


Property Wake $5,376,951 $13,885,370 $4,439,355 $12,847,013 82.6 92.5 Orange $1,785,921 $5,550,375 $1,311,783 $4,956,098 73.5 89.3 Alamance $1,907,923 $3,856,683 $1,447,737 $3,615,154 75.9 93.7 Total $9,070,795 $23,292,428 $7,198,875 $21,418,265 Slave and free population schedules of the 1860 United States Census for Alamance, Orange, and


Wake counties. SOURCE: VOLUME XCI ? NUMBER 4 ? OCTOBER 2014 414 Daniel L. Fountain By the mid-1800s, Henry Mordecai was managing a plantation in Raleigh now known as Mordecai House,


growing mainly com. Slaves on the plantation not only worked in the fields, but also took care of the Mor?


decai children and prepared food for the family. ?A unt Missouri and a baby in a carriage? are depicted in this


ca. 1900-1920 photograph of Mordecai House, built in 1795, from the State Archives of N orth Carolina,


Raleigh. The disproportionate wealth of slaveholding households in Alamance, Orange,


and Wake counties is equaled by the prominent positions and occupations household members held throughout the region. Bolstered by Raleigh?s status as state


capital, the slave owners residing in these three counties in 1860 included the


governor of North Carolina, the secretary of state, the state treasurer of North


Carolina, two state supreme court justices, the president of the University of


North Carolina, the superintendent of the Raleigh and Gaston Railroad, the trea?


surer of the North Carolina Railroad, the mayor of Raleigh, twelve University


of N orth Carolina professors, two bank officers, two county officers, a sheriff and


deputy sheriff, as well as the constable of Raleigh. There were also a total of 205


slave owners who identified themselves as either merchants, doctors, ministers,


lawyers, dentists, engineers, editors, or publishers, which would place them among


the region?s most important and influential professionals and cultural leaders.


Furthermore, slave owners, especially those living in Wake County, were well


represented among the region?s business class. Slave owners served as grocers,


clerks, railroad and mill agents, hotelkeepers, brokers, traders, confectioners, bank


clerks and cashiers, booksellers, builders, restaurateurs, landlords, and druggists. THE NORTH CAROLINA HISTORICAL REVIEW S lavery and S laveholding in A ntebellum Piedmont N orth C arolina 41 5 While perhaps lacking the social clout of those who largely were unassociated


with manual labor, slave owners who were skilled artisans provided the region


with many essential or desired services. A t least ninety-two different slave owners


worked as mechanics, stone masons, midwives, carpenters, millers, cabinetmakers,


tin workers, saddle and harness makers, jewelers, daguerreotype artists, milliners,


machinists, brick makers, foundry workers, coach makers, telegraph operators,


butchers, piano makers, tanners, blacksmiths, wagonmakers, artists, limners, gun?


smiths, boot makers, tobacconists, manufacturers, surveyors, and wheelwrights.


The greatest occupational diversity existed in Wake County, with slave owners


working in eighty-five different occupations, while those in Orange and Ala?


mance made livings in forty-seven and twenty-three. From the political to the


practical, slave owners in Alamance, Orange, and Wake counties served in highly


influential or economically essential positions throughout their communities.


However, not all slaveholders in these Piedmont counties were wealthy, pow?


erful, or influential. Some slave owners faced difficult circumstances because of


their age or race. Older slave-owning whites of modest means likely gained very


little from their legal status. For example, sixty-eight-year-old Jane Mabry of Wake


County possessed a modest estate worth less than $1,000, had no identifiable occu?


pation, and her household did not appear in the agricultural census. The sevenyear-old slave she owned was the only other occupant of her home and doubtless


provided Jane with little more than assistance with basic chores. Martha Wheeley


of Orange County lived in similar circumstances. Wheeley was a fifty-seven-yearold farmer who owned $200 of personal property and, like Mabry, did not appear


in the agricultural census. It is very likely that Wheeley received more help from


the white thirty-year-old woman and six-year-old child with whom she lived than


from the eighty-year-old enslaved man she owned. Nancy Lynch of Raleigh very


likely faced the same modest returns from her ownership of slave property. Lynch


was a seventy-one-year-old seamstress who owned $25 of personal property in


1860. The ninety-six-year-old woman Lynch owned is unlikely to have given her


much assistance with her livelihood or household responsibilities. It is extremely


doubtful that...


Solution details:

This question was answered on: Sep 18, 2020

PRICE: $15 (25.37 KB)

Buy this answer for only: $15

This attachment is locked

We have a ready expert answer for this paper which you can use for in-depth understanding, research editing or paraphrasing. You can buy it or order for a fresh, original and plagiarism-free copy from our tutoring website (Deadline assured. Flexible pricing. TurnItIn Report provided)

Pay using PayPal (No PayPal account Required) or your credit card . All your purchases are securely protected by .

About this Question






Sep 18, 2020





We have top-notch tutors who can do your essay/homework for you at a reasonable cost and then you can simply use that essay as a template to build your own arguments.

You can also use these solutions:

  • As a reference for in-depth understanding of the subject.
  • As a source of ideas / reasoning for your own research (if properly referenced)
  • For editing and paraphrasing (check your institution's definition of plagiarism and recommended paraphrase).
This we believe is a better way of understanding a problem and makes use of the efficiency of time of the student.


Order New Solution. Quick Turnaround

Click on the button below in order to Order for a New, Original and High-Quality Essay Solutions. New orders are original solutions and precise to your writing instruction requirements. Place a New Order using the button below.


Order Now