 
| Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
| Sender: |
|
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| Date: |
Mon, 5 Dec 2005 16:30:44 -0500 |
| Content-Type: |
text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=response |
| MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
| Reply-To: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Things that make me go Hm-m-m-m-m ...
"99%"? 10 out of every 1,000 southern "whites" did not have "black"
relatives; 990 out of every 1,000 southern "whites" did have "black"
relatives. I wonder what percentage of "blacks" had southern "white"
relatives?
It's a wonder slaveowners accomplished anything at all with all that "sex"
going on.
Tom
Royalty to Rogues
http://www.l-dunaway.net/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Finkelman" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 3:34 PM
Subject: Re: TJ and Sally's kids
> The issue for me is whether TJ had kids with his slaves; in the end,
> lots of southern masters had kids with their slaves. I would bet that
> 99% of all southern "whites" with roots that date before 1840 (or even
> 1860) have lots of "black" relatives. That's what slaveowners did, here
> and elsewhere. They had sex with their slaves.
>
<snip>
> --
> Paul Finkelman
> Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law
> University of Tulsa College of Law
> 3120 East 4th Place
> Tulsa, OK 74104-3189
>
> 918-631-3706 (office)
> 918-631-2194 (fax)
>
> [log in to unmask]
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
|
|
