View single post by ole
 Posted: Sun Dec 16th, 2007 07:57 pm
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 

Joined: Sun Oct 22nd, 2006
Posts: 2031

  back to top

At least for these 21 there must have been something other than slavery at stake.

Perhaps. Maybe the families of a few were planters. Maybe the close friends of a few were slaveowners. Maybe, like many of the non-slaveowners, they simply wanted to keep the slave in his place. Maybe some of them feared slave rebellions. Maybe they were from border states and had long since sold their slaves down river.

Hank's point is pertinent: Include the 24 whose ownership is unknown and there are 45, of 214 in Congress. That's a skosh over 21 percent nonowners and almost 79 percent owners. On the surface, it would appear that the non-slaveowners were seriously underrepresented.

Obviously, those with time to represent their constituencies would tend to be the wealthier class; i.e., slaveowners. Maybe we can assume that the secession conventions might have a similar ratio?

Just a thought.


 Close Window