Zucas said:
TheRealMafoo said:
Zucas said:
Wooh you need to check your cultural history on New Orleans, or mainly french cajun Louisiana. There is quite a difference between them and well every other southerner then and now.
|
"Some slaveholders were black or had some black ancestry. In 1830 there were 3,775 such slaveholders in the South, with 80% of them located in Louisiana, South Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland. There were economic differences between free blacks of the Upper South and Deep South, with the latter fewer in number, but wealthier and typically of mixed race. Half of the black slaveholders lived in cities rather than the countryside, with most in New Orleans and Charleston."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#Free_black_people_and_slavery
That was 1830. The war was 30 years later, so more free black men had slaves at the time of the war.
|
Well you are only proving what I said in the quote. Seriously look up the history on New Orleans, or mainly french cajun Louisiana. It isn't like the rest of the south during that time. Still really isn't. Main difference being its southern European roots and roots in Catholicism which is unlike the rest of the south.
And none of this really has any relevance to the inital points. Whehter or not there were a few select cases of blacks having freedom, you can't turn that mound of dirt into a mountain.
|
What I can't do, is convince you that it wasn't all about slavery.
And I never said the south was all like New Orleans, I just stated there were many free black men in New Orleans that owned slaves.
