Less than 5%, only the elite could afford them.
10%
John Browns intent was to start a revolt by slaves, with the slaves killing their masters. This outraged many Southerners, and widened the division between North and South.
The Southerners did not feel good about the future of slavery
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!
Because the big slave owners usually were the owners of big cotton farms, which was the major - almost the only - export product of the Southern US States. Picking cotton at the time was a very labour-intensive job because it had to be done by hand before the invention of the cotton mill. Slaves were of course cheap labour, which was important to their owners as they had to compete against other low cost cotton-producing countries such as India and Egypt.
I am not sure what you mean by "S" since that is not a number, so my answer will be general. Slaves were bought because the people who owned them wanted them to do the work on their plantations. Slavery has been around for thousands of years. The Greeks, Romans, Chinese all had slaves in the ancient world. Today, about 25 million people are kept in slavery as sex slaves or in some other form. Isis even has a manual on slavery.
the gypsies owned the plantations in the southern US.
false
false
Nevada
Absolutely not. Well under fifty per cent of southerners owned slaves. Even in the Rebel armies, well under fifty per cent of the soldiers were slave owners. Slaves were expensive. A male slave in his prime might be worth $1000. This was enough money to buy a farm of 500 acres. Only a handful of people throughout the south were wealthy enough to have 200 or more slaves. Most slaves belonged to larger operations, which had over 100 slaves. Some small farmers saved enough that they could buy one slave, and he worked alongside his owner. It is a myth that southerners were fighting to preserve slavery, or that northerners were fighting to abolish it. Abolition became a northern goal after a year and a half of war, as a military measure, to further gall the Rebels and threaten the position of wealthy southerners. Then, as now, the rich who owned a lot of slaves had disproportionate political power. Think about it - would you go fight, and fight hard, for years, just so some rich man could keep his slaves? Smearing the southerners as evil slaveholders is a postwar strategem meant to obscure the fact the legally and Constitutionally the south was correct. The Confederacy did not invent to concept of secession. That was a northern invention, first voiced by the northern Whigs in the 1790s. The northeast was bitterly opposed to the War of 1812 (and many northern merchants grew rich carrying on a treasonable trade with the enemy - the British could not have maintained their Army in America without the supplies purchased from these Yankees). The Yankees were so upset over that war that they called a Convention at Hartford, Connecticut in 1815 to discuss plans for secession of New England. By the time the Convention met, the war had ended, so the idea died for a time. But the fact is, it took a voluntary agreement of the states to become a part of the US. The Constitution says nothing on the question of a state leaving, but EVERYBODY knew that of COURSE a state could leave the Union if it wanted to. They knew this right up until Lincoln changed the rules, at gunpoint.
3 per cent
10 percent
10 percent from J LO K.S.B.
During the period of slavery in the United States, it is estimated that around 8% of white families owned slaves at some point. However, the total number of individuals who owned slaves varied over time and by region. Estimates suggest that around 400,000 individuals owned slaves in the US at the peak of slavery in the mid-19th century.
Andrew Jackson fits that description.
According to the US census of 1790, the number of slaves in the US totaled 698,000. Ninety four percent of the slave population were south of the Mason Dixon Line.
In 2002, the richest 20 percent of people in the US owned about 84 percent of the total available wealth. This high level of wealth concentration is indicative of significant income inequality in the country.