*American Indians brought their slaves to the west in the 1830s and 1840s when the federal government removed the nations from the southern states. The Cherokee, with more than fifteen hundred, had the largest number. Enslaved persons removed with the other nations ranged from approximately three hundred in the Creek Nation to more than twelve hundred in the Chickasaw Nation. When the Civil War erupted in 1861, more than eight thousand Black men and women were enslaved in Indian Territory.* ***They comprised 14 percent of the population****. Slavery continued in the territory through the Civil War, after which the five nations legally abolished the practice.*
– from The Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture
Tructruc00 on
What is the little gray band above texas ?
All-696969 on
The map is Peder Groffin
RedHeadedSicilian52 on
Very easy to miss, given that the shading’s so light, but there were still a handful of slaves in _New Jersey_ at this time:
i remember seeing a map like this in school and it stuck with me way more than just reading about it… something about actually seeing it laid out makes it hit differently
AllHailTheKilldozer on
According to census figures, Kansas only had 2 slaves in 1860 in a population of over 100,000. That is statistically 0%.
Grantology on
People should look at a map of slave populations by country in the Americas. Willing to bet the average Redditor has no clue that the US pales in comparison to much of latin america
CatNapDad on
The northeast had tons of slaves too.
Newport RI was the heart of the trans Atlantic slave trade.
The story of slavery always omits slavery in the northeast.
Creates a false sense of moral superiority for people in the northeast.
As a Midwesterner I look down on the northeast for supporting slavery. Just as northeasterners look down on the south for slavery.
19 Comments
This could lead to a civil war probably
Oklahoma surprised me. I always associated it with Southern slave states for some reason.
Plot twist, today, slaves live rent free in the heads of racists.
It also though just kind of doesn’t feel right that they colored the states like people
Some Indian tribes (cherokees more famously) had slaves, and these have fought to be recognised part of the tribe.
Kentucky should be the same color as Tennessee and Arkansas. 20% of Kentucky was enslaved in 1860. Not 10%.
https://terpconnect.umd.edu/~sfmiller/population%20statistics,%201860.htm
*American Indians brought their slaves to the west in the 1830s and 1840s when the federal government removed the nations from the southern states. The Cherokee, with more than fifteen hundred, had the largest number. Enslaved persons removed with the other nations ranged from approximately three hundred in the Creek Nation to more than twelve hundred in the Chickasaw Nation. When the Civil War erupted in 1861, more than eight thousand Black men and women were enslaved in Indian Territory.* ***They comprised 14 percent of the population****. Slavery continued in the territory through the Civil War, after which the five nations legally abolished the practice.*
– from The Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture
What is the little gray band above texas ?
The map is Peder Groffin
Very easy to miss, given that the shading’s so light, but there were still a handful of slaves in _New Jersey_ at this time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_New_Jersey
What’s the current employment rate? Slavery has been privatized.
Anybody else going to say that Native American also had slaves?
[https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/wfwl5l/oc_slavery_in_the_american_colonies_and_the/](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/wfwl5l/oc_slavery_in_the_american_colonies_and_the/) here’s my animation of the growth of slavery in the British colonies / United States. I know I missed 1800, but I don’t think I have access to that data anymore.
Serious question, are those numbers based on the actual or [3/5 of the slave population](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_Compromise)?
New Jersey is probably the only surprise to me.
i remember seeing a map like this in school and it stuck with me way more than just reading about it… something about actually seeing it laid out makes it hit differently
According to census figures, Kansas only had 2 slaves in 1860 in a population of over 100,000. That is statistically 0%.
People should look at a map of slave populations by country in the Americas. Willing to bet the average Redditor has no clue that the US pales in comparison to much of latin america
The northeast had tons of slaves too.
Newport RI was the heart of the trans Atlantic slave trade.
The story of slavery always omits slavery in the northeast.
Creates a false sense of moral superiority for people in the northeast.
As a Midwesterner I look down on the northeast for supporting slavery. Just as northeasterners look down on the south for slavery.
See how this works?