<< <i>Interesting however that there appear to be current fortunes and landholders who profitted by slavery not too much over 100 years ago. That makes it a lot less removed than that in ancient times. >>
Slavery ended 146 years ago in this country after the conclusion of the Civil War. I fully support reparations for all former slaves. Their ancestors will have to settle for welfare, food stamps, affirmative action, etc. >>
I was very interested in the original post and wanted to hear what people who actually knew the answer might say. I am now very disappointed in most of this discussion. Many of people's comments have to do with slavery but nothing to do with the branch mints or coins.
Slavery ended 146 years ago in this country after the conclusion of the Civil War. I fully support reparations for all former slaves. Their ancestors will have to settle for welfare, food stamps, affirmative action, etc.
Contrary to popular perception, the majority of recipients of public assistance programs on a national scale are whites.
Edit to add: I also think we need to elevate this discussion from stereotypes and misconceptions and stay on topic to the OP's original question..
With regard to Beauregard (no pun intended, lol), I found this passage rather interesting from an article that appeared in Coin World, especially the part about the casks of beer.
Beauregard profited handsomely through the work of his slaves at the New Orleans Mint. The slaves on the payroll were either paid the same or slightly less than free men.
New Orleans Mint Superintendent J.D. Duncan in 1856 was paid $8 per day, just a bit more than five times what a common laborer made.
Records associated with repairs to the New Orleans Mint in 1856 show that while supplies and other materials were secured to execute those repairs, topping the list were two casks of beer at $2.50 per cask.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<<The idea about Beauregard contracting out his slaves is an interesting one. I never for a second even considered that transactions like that might have occurred under US slavery. Have a slave one owns, go work a job on the payroll, except the OWNER of the slave keeps the wage. Slavery sub letting............I had no idea that occurred.
Is this confirmed? I always just assumed slaves were only ever on their owners 'payrolls' , and not contracted out for a profit.>>
The autobiography of Frederick Douglas is quite interesting. He was a skilled ship caulker. He got good pay for it which went to his master. I think he was allowed to keep a small portion of his wages. When Douglas escaped to the north, he was not allowed to pursue his trade and had to settle for more menial work. His escape was a financial loss to his owner. The owner jumped at the chance to sell him to Northerners who freed him. Other Southerners were quite dismayed at that. A proven elequent slave was now free and untouchable.
Douglas made his escape by disguising himself as a sailor and taking the train to Philadelphia "to rejoin hs ship".
I'm a Bostonian. It's well documented that the shops on Charles St. on Beacon Hill had help wanted signs in the windows with NO IRISH NEED APPLY. I have seen political cartoons from 19th century newspapers showing the NO IRISH NEED APPLY signs. They also showed drawings of Irishmen. The Irishmen were drawn in the appearance of Quasimodo. They were drawn to appear sub-human.
The English took Irish women and shipped them to the Caribbean to breed with slaves to make better slaves.
My Irish ancestor had to change his name and religion to Protestant and a English sounding name. This has been passed down in my family from generation to generation. It was passed down as a family secret as the women in the family didn't want anyone to know we were of Irish descendant.
The Irish were forced to served on English galleys.
The Boston Brahmins built a castle in Boston because of the fear of the Irish. Fear was caused by mistreatment of the Irish. They were afraid the Irish were going to rebel.
A Boston convent where Irish nuns lived was burned and nuns killed because the were Irish and Catholic by the English. I would consider killing nuns possibly a form of discrimination.
All of the above discrimination and more has been well documented in books and newspapers on the Irish discrimination.
My main hobby is genealogy so I have spent a lot of time researching. I never believe anything till I see it documented.
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>Interesting however that there appear to be current fortunes and landholders who profitted by slavery not too much over 100 years ago. That makes it a lot less removed than that in ancient times. >>
Slavery ended 146 years ago in this country after the conclusion of the Civil War. I fully support reparations for all former slaves. Their ancestors will have to settle for welfare, food stamps, affirmative action, etc. >>
Wow
Ed. S.
(EJS)
I am now very disappointed in most of this discussion.
Many of people's comments have to do with slavery but nothing to do with the branch mints or coins.
Contrary to popular perception, the majority of recipients of public assistance programs on a national scale are whites.
Edit to add: I also think we need to elevate this discussion from stereotypes and misconceptions and stay on topic to the OP's original question..
With regard to Beauregard (no pun intended, lol), I found this passage rather interesting from an article that appeared in Coin World, especially the part about the casks of beer.
Beauregard profited handsomely through the work of his slaves at the New Orleans Mint. The slaves on the payroll were either paid the same or slightly less than free men.
New Orleans Mint Superintendent J.D. Duncan in 1856 was paid $8 per day, just a bit more than five times what a common laborer made.
Records associated with repairs to the New Orleans Mint in 1856 show that while supplies and other materials were secured to execute those repairs, topping the list were two casks of beer at $2.50 per cask.
Here's the link to the article in Coin World:
Coin World Link
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Is this confirmed? I always just assumed slaves were only ever on their owners 'payrolls' , and not contracted out for a profit.>>
The autobiography of Frederick Douglas is quite interesting. He was a skilled ship caulker. He got good pay for it which went to his master.
I think he was allowed to keep a small portion of his wages. When Douglas escaped to the north, he was not allowed to pursue his trade and had to settle for more menial work. His escape was a financial loss to his owner. The owner jumped at the chance to sell him to Northerners who freed him. Other Southerners were quite dismayed at that. A proven elequent slave was now free and untouchable.
Douglas made his escape by disguising himself as a sailor and taking the train to Philadelphia "to rejoin hs ship".
The English took Irish women and shipped them to the Caribbean to breed with slaves to make better slaves.
My Irish ancestor had to change his name and religion to Protestant and a English sounding name. This has been passed down in my family from generation to generation. It was passed down as a family secret as the women in the family didn't want anyone to know we were of Irish descendant.
The Irish were forced to served on English galleys.
The Boston Brahmins built a castle in Boston because of the fear of the Irish. Fear was caused by mistreatment of the Irish. They were afraid the Irish were going to rebel.
A Boston convent where Irish nuns lived was burned and nuns killed because the were Irish and Catholic by the English. I would consider killing nuns possibly a form of discrimination.
All of the above discrimination and more has been well documented in books and newspapers on the Irish discrimination.
My main hobby is genealogy so I have spent a lot of time researching. I never believe anything till I see it documented.