yes. in the early history of America, it was almost necessary for southern plantation owners to have slaves. But most families in the south only had one or two slaves.
White familes in the south during the antebellum time did not own any slaves. At least the majority of whits did not own any
I know this answer, because i am studying for an AP us history exam. The answe is 0. Most families in the antebellum south (88%) owned no slaves at all!
No, not all landowners in the South owned slaves. In fact, the majority of white families in the Southern states did not own any slaves. Slavery was more prevalent among large plantation owners, who made up a smaller percentage of the population.
In 1860, about 32% of Southern families owned slaves, but the total percentage of the population in the South that owned slaves was around 25%. This means that a significant portion of the Southern population did not own slaves.
False
Slaves were not allowed to marry at their own free will. They were often forced to have children for their masters, even against their own will.
It was calculated that in the South in 1860, compared to a global population of about 8 million white and 200,000 free blacks, only 1,6 million where slave holders, of which: 1,4 million owned 1 to 10 slaves, 300,000 owned 11 to 20 slaves, 200,000 owned owned more than 20 slaves.
No
Yeoman farmers didn't own slaves and they made up the largest group of whites in the south.
Yes, it is true.
No, a large majority of the southern population did not own slaves. In fact, only a small percentage of white families in the southern states owned slaves during the antebellum period.
the north and south were having the ''civil war'' a fight between freedom of slaves or keeping them. the south thought it was good to own slaves and the north thought it was wrong to have slaves.