Can you name the Population of slaves in the American States (and Territories) in 1860? by Scyphus

Slave Population	State	Commentary
490,865		30.7% of its population
462,198		43.7% of its population
436,631		55.2% of its population
435,080		45.1% of its population
402,406		57.2% of its population
331,726		33.4% of its population
331,059		33.4% of its population
275,719		24.8% of its population
225,483		19.5% of its population
182,566		30.2% of its population

Slave Population	State	Commentary
114,931		9.7% of its population
111,115		25.5% of its population
87,189		12.7% of its population
61,745		44.0% of its population
3,185		4.2% of its population
1,798		1.6% of its population
29		Less than 0.1%
18
15		Less than 0.1%
2		Less than 0.1%

Javascript is not currently enabled on your browser.
If you do have Javascript enabled:
This site uses javascript to make the magic happen.
Please turn on javascript and reload this page, or use a more current browser (like Firefox)

You might also like these games:
Confederate Cities (1860)	Union Cities (1860)	US Cities - Same Name

There are 17 comments for this game.
(Warning: comments may contain spoilers)

U.S. Slave Population (1860) Quiz

by Scyphus

Created Nov 11, 2009 in History
Game Plays 2,925

Friend Scores and Standings

Loading friend results....

Top Games Today in History

Top Games with Similar Tags

Top User Games in History

	qbsamoa:	Nov 12th, 2009 at 00:13 GMT		-1 points
	do not make this an in order game. only historians will enjoy playing this

	tobinw:	Nov 12th, 2009 at 00:24 GMT		5 points
	Well, I enjoyed it.

	Scyphus:	Nov 12th, 2009 at 00:27 GMT		3 points
	Hm, OK. I'll cut the time a minute and make it an any-order game. Thanks. I will say that this grew out of Dr. I Don't Know's Cities of the Confederacy quiz, so it was a bit historian-centric in conception....

	Unidentifiedkiwi:	Nov 12th, 2009 at 01:07 GMT		25 points
	I wonder who those two slaves in Kansas were. They must've been annoyed that EVERYONE else in the state was free except for them, poor guys.

	Doctor_Tom:	Nov 12th, 2009 at 03:19 GMT		8 points
	I think you should accept Washington for D.C.

	Scyphus:	Nov 12th, 2009 at 11:48 GMT		6 points
	I was of mixed thought on Washington for DC, as it can be confused with the state (which wasn't yet, or wasn't even a territory. I allow "Washington DC", "DC" and "District of Columbia". Other thoughts?

	Hamburger:	Nov 12th, 2009 at 16:35 GMT		4 points
	You have forgotten the Indian Territory (Later Oklahoma) which had a considerable slave population. (That I know for certain). I also believe you have forgotten New Mexico Territory, which also was a slave territory.

	Scyphus:	Nov 12th, 2009 at 17:31 GMT		4 points
	I actually didn't forget - they simply aren't listed on the census tables as having any slave population (check the link; pages 4&5 and 8&9 are the relevant ones). I can't remember what the organization status was in 1860, but the Indian Territory is not even listed as a territory in the census; it may be that it was still unorganized, or included in something else. I agree, though: it is hard to believe that there were no slaves in the New Mexico territory in 1860 out of an aggregate population of 93,516 (only ~15% of which were "Indians, Civilized"). Similarly, 2 slaves in Kansas after the whole Bleeding Kansas/Lecompton Constitution crises doesn't seem credible, either. But that is what the source says. And in regard to 2 comments above, Washington was in fact a named territory in 1860 (with no census-accounted slaves), so accepting "Washington" for "Washington, DC" would be problematic.

Comment below threshold: show it

	dtro:	Nov 15th, 2009 at 18:08 GMT		2 points
	This must be why I consider south jersey the start of the south.

	Kaleb:	Nov 16th, 2009 at 03:15 GMT		2 points
	I still think you should allow Washington for DC, I don't think anyone would really think there would be slaves in Washington territory....

	cocky:	Dec 19th, 2009 at 03:18 GMT		11 points
	All you are doing is typing in the slave states and then guessing a few others.

	Observer:	Dec 28th, 2009 at 22:49 GMT		4 points
	Yeah, I'd go back to in-order.

	johnlk:	Apr 19th, 2010 at 20:53 GMT		-2 points
	What's the point of an any order game? Then you just have to name slave states.

	MFThomas:	Apr 26th, 2010 at 23:16 GMT		-1 points
	you should make this an in-order quiz because someone could just name every slave state instead of paying attention to the population

	MisterF:	Apr 14th, 2011 at 19:48 GMT		2 points
	Are the percentages computed before or after application of the three-fifths rule that was used to count slave populations for allocating seats in Congress back then?

	alphadog:	Sep 24th, 2012 at 18:14 GMT		2 points
	As much as I enjoyed this quiz, I am constitutionally obligated to give it only 3 out of 5 globes. Please accept my apologies.