Anne:

Morgan's book is another excellent source on slaves and slavery in the 18th century, all the more valuable because he presents his findings in a comparative context. And, yes, the Chesapeake slave population grew by means of natural increase (as well as imports) from the early decades of that century on. This natural increase and the fact that most Chesapeake slaves were American-born by 1800 were among the most important differences between slavery in North America and that in the Caribbean.

Doug Deal

----- Original Message -----
From: Anne Pemberton <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Saturday, February 28, 2009 8:23 am
Subject: Re: 18th century fertility rate in Virginia
To: [log in to unmask]

> Doug,
> 
> I have a copy of Slave Counterpoint by Philip D, Morgan. He 
> includes some 
> statistics on slave fertility combining Virginia and Maryland, 
> and then the 
> Carolinas and Georgia. Virginia and Maryland did develop 
> fertility rates in 
> slaves earlier than they developed in the "low country". If I 
> get chance 
> later today, I'll look up what he reports for fertility rates 
> for the 
> slaves.
> 
> Anne
> 
> Anne Pemberton
> [log in to unmask]
> http://www.erols.com/apembert
> http://www.educationalsynthesis.org 
> 
> ______________________________________
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the 
> instructions at
> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html

______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html