"By 1770, the top 1 percent of property owners owned 44 percent of the wealth."

[Gravitycollapse]

All excerpts from A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn...

What happened to these servants after they became free? There are cheerful accounts in which they rise to prosperity, becoming landowners and important figures. But Abbot Smith, after a careful study, concludes that colonial society "was not democratic and certainly not equalitarian; it was dominated by men who had money enough to make others work for them." And: "Few of these men were descended from indentured servants, and practically none had themselves been of that class.

Through all that growth, the upper class was getting most of the benefits and monopolized political power. A historian who studied Boston tax lists in 1687 and 1771 found that in 1687 there were, out of a population of six thousand, about one thousand property owners, and that the top 5 percent- 1 percent of the population - consisted of fifty rich individuals who had 25 percent of the wealth. By 1770, the top 1 percent of property owners owned 44 percent of the wealth...

James T. Lemon and Gary Nash found a similar concentration of wealth, a widening of the gap between rich and poor, in their study of Chester County, Pennsylvania, in the 1700s.

What kind of difference does 250 years, a quarter of a millennium, make to the nature of wealth in the United States?

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105

Essentially nothing.

"Those upper classes, to rule, needed to make concessions to the middle class, without damage to their own wealth or power, at the expense of slaves, Indians, and poor whites. This bought loyalty. And to bind loyalty with something more powerful even than material advantage, the ruling group found, in the 1760s and 1770s, a wonderfully useful device. That device was the language of liberty and equality, which could unite just enough whites to fight a Revolution against England, without ending either slavery or inequality."

Zinn, Howard. "Persons of Mean and Vile Condition." A People's History of the United States: 1492-2001. New ed. New York: Harper Perennial , 2003. 46, 49, 50, 58. Print.

[Gravitycollapse]

1. I've noticed a lot of flamebait threads keep jumping up in GD and posts like this plummet.

I'll keep bumping it for a while. Maybe it will gain some traction when the shit-stirring settles down.

[adirondacker]

2. Excellent post! Informative along with fascinating. Thanks! nt

[davekriss]

3. K & R

[adirondacker]

4. k&r!!! nt

[Gravitycollapse]

5. Thank you.

[AverageJoe90]

6. Interesting, but not quite that informative.

In fact, this is actually virtually completely wrong:

"
"Those upper classes, to rule, needed to make concessions to the middle class, without damage to their own wealth or power, at the expense of slaves, Indians, and poor whites. This bought loyalty. And to bind loyalty with something more powerful even than material advantage, the ruling group found, in the 1760s and 1770s, a wonderfully useful device. That device was the language of liberty and equality, which could unite just enough whites to fight a Revolution against England, without ending either slavery or inequality."

In fact, if anything, it was the other way around; the more corrupt factions of the North American Anglo elite were very much in support of not just staying with Britain, but they also were quite tolerant of slavery as well.....something that the large majority of the Founders sought to eliminate, when possible(which took until the 1860s to actually complete, sadly).

I am honestly surprised that this came from Howard Zinn, of all people; I'd honestly have expected this to come out of the mouth of somebody like Pat Buchanan or somebody like that(in fact, there's a whole *bunch* of conspiracy literature dedicated to various theories that all have one claim in common, that the U.S.'s very creation was the result of a malicious Illuminati/Talmudic/Satanic/Masonic/etc. conspiracy).....but not a liberal like Zinn.

Ah well, I guess even the greatest of minds can make a mistake once in a while. Doesn't lessen my respect for the man, though. Just my 2 cents

[Gravitycollapse]

7. Half of the founding fathers owned slaves.

If your argument is that a large majority of founding fathers wanted to eliminate slavery, you're woefully naive.

[AverageJoe90]

9. "You're woefully naive." Not at all, actually.

Even Jefferson expressed that desire.....now, it may be true that Jefferson didn't actually act on it, unlike Washington(although it can be said that this was more thanks to the political climate of the times more than anything. Pretty much every great American statesman from Lincoln to Obama has had that problem. In fact, look at what Obama has to deal with today!), but it doesn't change the facts however. Not one bit.

[Gravitycollapse]

10. Ah, yes the "it was just part of the times" argument.

Just as stupid now as it has ever been.

[AverageJoe90]

11. As much as I'd wish it wasn't.....it certainly was.

Believe me, a world in which Jefferson actually took the plunge and freed all his slaves just like G.W.....would be a nice world to see, IMHO.

[Gravitycollapse]

12. Nothing was stopping him but the admiration of his full wallet.

Which, regardless of the era, makes him a greedy, inhumane piece of shit, IMHO.

[AverageJoe90]

13. History is often more complex than we can initially comprehend sometimes.

That definitely wasn't meant as an insult, btw; I had to learn that lesson myself.

[Gravitycollapse]

14. But apologizing for slave owners is pretty simple. I bet you're a big fan of Christopher Columbus.

[AverageJoe90]

16. "But apologizing for slave owners".......um.....you gotta be kidding, right?

I'm sorry, but it should be plainly obvious that there was no apologia for the fact they owned slaves. Yes, it was terrible. I'm not doubting that at all. In fact, I honestly think that this country would have been better off if that one law that prohibited slavery in all new territories(and not just the northwest) had passed. We might not have had to fight the Civil War and slavery itself likely would have ended perhaps a full two decades earlier than it did in our world.

All I did here was just point out the simple truth of the political & social realities of the day, and how such a problem has plagued every great American statesman, including Obama in the modern era. Nothing "apologetic" about that. It's just the facts.

[DebJ]

15. Washington only freed the slaves post-mortem, making it his wife's problem. n/t

[AverageJoe90]

17. Which may be true.

Even so, though, it doesn't really change anything, TBH.

Yes, btw, slavery was an awful tragedy. Everyone here understands that fact. All I was trying to do was just point out that political & social realities can sometimes get in the way of people's civic ambitions; again, I'll refer to what President Obama's had to put up with from the Repubs in today's era.

[DebJ]

18. I agree with you. I have about 20 books on Jefferson. n/t

[TheKentuckian]

8. Food for thought