Slaveowners bred slaves like animals

Factual Questions
1

I have read that the owners of slaves in the antebellum South would breed slaves to maximize the value of the offspring just as any other breeder of animals would. Sources include memiors of former slaves as documented by WPA investigators in the '30s. As far as I know, there has never existed such an “experiment” anywhere else in human history.

Only men with “desirable” characterists would be allowed to breed. Neither the men nor the wormen had any choice in the matter. Families be damned. Makes you wonder about the white conservative “family values” crowd which admires the Confederacy. But I digress.

This selective breeding naturally would have influenced the characteristics of the children born to such matches. Since physical labor was what the slavemasters required, it seems reasonable that, all things being equal, the children would be larger, stronger, and have more endurance than they otherwise would.

What affect, if any, would this process have had on the African-American population of today?

2

Just a WAG here, but I would say “virtually none”. It’s been 140 years, or about 7 generations, since the last “experiments” in selective breeding would have occurred, and in any animal population, 7 generations of unrestricted breeding is more than enough to change AKC champions into Heinz 57 mutts.

Not that I believe slaveowners really did that–at least, not to the extent where you could figure that they were going to substantially affect the “negro” gene pool. A few slaveowners may have tried to control their slaves’ breeding, but I doubt whether it was widespread. Collecting reminiscences from old folks in the 1930s about things that went on before they were born is hardly scientific.

I detect a strong whiff of the Mandingo School of Sociology here. :smiley:

3

Since you felt the need to include it, what does “white conservative ‘family values’ crowd which admires the Confederacy” have to do with your question? Did you post this in GQ instead of GD by mistake?

Yes, selective breeding would have occurred. The slaves were property, not people, by the laws and morals of that time.

In case this is for GQ, the population in question is not a closed self sustaining population. The “selective breeding” was only for a few generations. The population was infused with new members during this time, and infused with many many more new members since then. You would not eliminate genes or traits with the limited selective breeding.

4

No idea of such selective breeding occurred. Nonetheless, I believe the analogy that you’ve used here is not appropriate.

In the case of dogs, all the genetic lines are being preserved in the breeding - the breeding is to separate them into identifiable sub-species (or whatever - don’t call me on the word “species”). Since all the genetic combinations are stil present, unrestricted breeding will tend to mix them back together. In the case of slaves, the suggestion (such as it is) is that only the bigger stronger genetic lines were being preserved (or at least being emphasized) - it’s not as if the goal was to create two races of giants and shrimps, it was to create only giants. Unrestricted breeding will not undo this.

5

Can you say Joseph Mengele?

Mengele was known for the many experiments het performed on twins in Auschwitz. Although I can’t find a cite right now, it was also believed that he performed experiments to breed ‘super soldiers’ by having strong men mate with inteligent women.

that depends on the duration of the practice. Generally, you need several generations to create a breed of livestock that has dependable traits. I suppose the same holds for human breeding.

6

I don’t know if ‘actively controlled breeding’ has caused an ‘affect’, but the more interesting question is, did the whole process? The survival of the fittest - individuals who were able to live through the horrid boat ride, and who then survived the poor living conditions, etc.

7

No, they were not bred like animals. Perhaps there were isolated individuals who attempted it, but it was neither widespread nor common, nor (apparently) ever recorded by someone who actually did it. That alone is compelling evidence: those who are serious about breeding domesticated animals (cattle, cats, horses, et al) are usually not only serious, they are damn serious. They document bloodlines and genealogy, thoroughly examine and document offspring, plan future matings, etc. There are purebred horse lineages well documented back a few hundred years or more, including through antebellum South. If someone thought what they were doing with their horses could have been applied to their slaves, they would have kept records. So, if what the OP described really was common practice, we would have records.

Let’s look at some math…

A horse is ready to breed in what, 3-4 years? Not just that it’s sexually mature, you need time to know if you actually want to breed that particular one.

“Average” human generations are roughly 20 years. While a 15-year-old boy might be sexually mature, he probably hasn’t finished growing yet. How would a slave owner know who was going to be the biggest of the boys (and thus desirable to breed)? Wait until they were full grown, easily 18-20 years.

So after 20 years of breeding you could achieve maybe 5-6 generations of horses, and exactly 1 generation of human. Let’s assume someone actually did this, for their entire adult life of 60 years (abnormally long for that time period). They would be able to breed 15+ generations of horses, but only 3 generations of humans. Three generations is hardly enough to identify desirable and “reproducible” traits.

After saying all that, I must share my palatable distaste for comparing human reproduction to the breeding of livestock. I only did so because it was raised in the OP: “…would breed slaves … just as any other breeder of animals would.” Whatever other atrocities were going on (yes, there were plenty, and no, I’m not defending any of them), no, they didn’t “breed” slaves like animals.

8

Nazi Germany. Yes you do digress. While there are some in the South still living in the Civil War era, it would help if we gave them a chance to get out of that mindset. :rolleyes:

9

Sorry, can’t resist…

  • maybe the mandingo got your baby. * :slight_smile:
10

CheapBastid raises an interesting point.

Presumably, on the Africa side, the slave traders would be buying what to them appeared to be the best possible people. The weakest of them would die enroute, and more would die before having children over here. Those that were the strongest, the most healthy would live longer, and thus (presumably) have more children.

Could this have impacted the populace as a whole?

I dunno, but it’s an interesting (and more than a bit creepy) ponder.

11

There are no Southerners that I have ever met that want to go back to the “Confederacy” or who are living in the “Civil War era”.
It usually happens just like this: getting accused of breeding slaves and then linking that to “family values”. Then someone like me comes along calls you a “damn Yankee”. When I say that I don’t care who won what war. It has to do with today and the attitude shown toward the South. It is very surprising that you didn’t throw in something about “incest”.

New Englanders like their part of the country, but if someone says something about it and they reply with their renowned frankness, no one says **give them a chance to get out of their “Pilgrim mindset”.

12

Let’s try to keep this on track. Is there any documentation that proves selective breeding occured to any appreciable extent? I think we need to see that evidence before we can continue. IIRC, most slave owners did not own enough slaves to conduct these kinds of “experiments”.

I don’t think that the African slave traders much cared about the health or strength of the slaves, otherwise all would have been captured adult male warriors. Although healthy ones were more valuable, any breathing body was worth money. In the New World, the stronger, healthier slaves commanded the highest bids, but not even the most sickly slaves were sent back.

13

There are still a few folks here who would like the South to be a separate country. Some of them are in what’s left of the KKK, people like David Duke. I can say this because I live in NC. It might be 1 in 10,000 people who still think this way and most of them don’t run around telling you.

BTW, there are people in Alaska that would prefer to be a separate country too because they want to be left alone. They are very independent up there - I visited in 1990. They make a big deal about being native born as opposed to someone who moved there. Businesses even will advertise they are “Alaskan owned” which is rare elsewhere. I remember seeing a TV ad which slammed a company because they were run out of Washington state. The company that ran the ad thought that was a major negative for their competitor.

14

There are many documented cases of slaves being allowed to marry of their own accord and chosing. Even though slave marriages were not “legal” in most states (slaves could not enter a contract and marriage is a contract) that illegality was only in the eyes of the state. Slaves took the vows seriously.
http://www.findarticles.com/m2082/1_62/57874144/p1/article.jhtml

There are many documented cases of those marriages (and resulting families) being broken up by the sale of one or more family member.
http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smithsonian/issues99/nov99/civilwar.html

There are even documented cases of free blacks owning black slaves:
http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm

As for slave breeding, I could find only one reference. From the same source as above:

The ‘Ellison’ mentioned was a freed black man.

Your premise is poorly researched, poorly thought out and very poorly worded. I would suggest that, in the future, you read more accurate sources.

15

Two things-

  1. Didn’t the former Soviet Union admit to practicing Eugenics amongst their scientists and athletes?

  2. I’m pretty sure that this is the exact topic that got Jimmy ‘the Greek’ Snyder into a boat load of trouble.

16

The Eastern block countries used lots of steroids on Olympic athletes. One woman took so much she ended up having a sex change to be a man. I never heard about breeding athletes but they did try to get kids into training at very young ages - even 5 in some sports.

17

Ah yes. Dr. Jimmy “The Greek” Snyder did some fascinating work in this area. I recall his seminal research paper Black Linebackers Have Huge Thighs, Am I Right?

On an entirely different topic, deserving its own thread…

You mean they don’t do this in the Lower 48? It’s true, we Alaskans settle arguments by stacking our length of residency against each other (“I been here for 40 years, and I say…”). But don’t other states take pride in their common heritage? Are there no “Proud To Be Delawarian” bumper stickers?

Incidentally, it’s partly convenience: a locally owned bank or phone company will at least be in the same time zone.

18

Some businesses do say they are “locally owned” everywhere. I just think it was a bigger deal in Alaska from what I noticed. Of course I didn’t even mention how expensive things are there! :slight_smile:

19

In regards to the slave trade there is a whole literature on this. Try starting with Thornton. It is not at all clear whether trans-Atlantic traders were offered or got the best deal on slaves on a consistent basis. No way to force the market consistently and there were competing markets, domestic and trans-Saharan.

From a purely biological perspective there’s no real reason to presume the Middle Passage really differed in its biological effect from say, a plague or a drought. A brief shock to the population. Nothing unique from a biological perspective. No reason to believe that from this sole event there was a great shift in genetics any more than one would believe that the hardship early Anglo settlers faced as compared to home country conditions.

Now morally it is an entirely different story…

So I rather hope this … well I’ll call it “Just So Story” can be laid to rest at least on the SDMB.

20

Regarding selective effects of the Middle Passage, it has been proposed that the high rate of hypertension in U.S. blacks compared to both U.S. whites and, especially, West Africans is due to the fact that many slaves died of thirst on the voyage. From this site:

However, this view has been strongly disputed by others.