Temporary Expanded Duties (T: Fill & Download for Free

The reason poor whites who did not own slaves fought for the Confederacy.The romanticized version is loyalty to their state and love of liberty. The documented reality is something else.Wealthy plantation owners in government made a concerted effort to recruit poor white citizens to fight for the confederacy. I’m sure some fought out of a sense of duty and loyalty to their state. Some volunteered, others were conscripted, but all were encouraged to fight for the “cause.” Surviving literature documents the nature of those appeals. The following is from a published address by John Townsend, a South Carolina legislator and plantation owner from Edisto Island, SC, dated October 28, 1860. The language is typical of literature produced at the time to induce support for secession, and is very revealing of how the wealthy slaveowners played upon the fears of poor white Southerners about what would happen if slavery were abolished.From: The Doom of Slavery:. . . the turning loose upon society, without the salutary restraints to which they are now accustomed, more than four millions of a very poor and ignorant population (Negro slaves), to ramble in idleness over the country until their wants should drive most of them, first to petty thefts, and afterwards to the bolder crimes of robbery and murder.It will be to the non-slaveholder, equally with the largest slaveholder, the obliteration of caste and the deprivation of important privileges. The color of the white man is now, in the South, a title of nobility in his relations as to the negro. In the Southern slaveholding States, where menial and degrading offices are turned over to be performed exclusively by the Negro slave, the status and color of the black race becomes the badge of inferiority, and the poorest non-slaveholder may rejoice with the richest of his brethren of the white race, in the distinction of his color. He may be poor, it is true; but there is no point upon which he is so justly proud and sensitive as his privilege of caste; and there is nothing which he would resent with more fierce indignation than the attempt of the Abolitionist to emancipate the slaves and elevate the Negroes to an equality with himself and his family.There it is in plain terms. White supremacy. The inferiority of the Negro race. The superiority of the White Race.If emancipation occurred, poor whites feared that they would lose their superiority over freed black slaves, that they would have to compete with them in society, or, far worse, that they would be at their mercy. Even the poorest white Southerner of the time, who in no way profited from the labor of slaves, had been indoctrinated to believe that the emancipation of black slaves was a threat to their way of life. Poor, white Southerners and plantation owners already feared slave rebellions, and strict laws were in place to prevent them. If emancipation occurred, they feared roving bands of unrestrained Negroes (using the polite language of that time) would rob their homes, rape their women, and impregnate their daughters. They had been taught that even co-mingling with blacks in society was unnatural and ungodly. Well before the Civil War, wealthy slave owners justified their “peculiar institution” and embedded the doctrine of white supremacy, and the fear of unrestrained negroes, into the fabric of southern culture, literature, and religion.So, many poor white Southerners fought to retain (as they saw it) their natural place of superiority over the black race. They fought to protect themselves and their families from being assaulted by free, unrestrained Negroes, whose only proper place was in bondage serving white people. The literature of the South from that era is full of examples of white superiority, and negro inferiority, as a prevalent social belief.From "The Mud-sill Theory" speech by South Carolina Senator James Henry Hammond, given before the Senate in 1858:In all social systems there must be a class to do the menial duties, to perform the drudgery of life. . . a class requiring but a low order of intellect and but little skill. . . . Such a class you must have, or you would not have that other class which leads progress, civilization, and refinement. It constitutes the very mud-sill of society of society and of political government; and you might as well attempt to build a house in the air, as to build either the one or the other, except on this mud-sill. Fortunately for the South, she found a race adapted to that purpose to her hand. A race inferior to her own, but eminently qualified in temper, in vigor, in docility, in capacity to stand the climate, to answer all her purposes. We use them for our purpose, and call them slaves.Again, white supremacy. The inferiority of the Negro race. The superiority of the White Race.From Cannibals All! or Slaves Without Masters, by George Fitzhugh, a Virginia attorney, 1857.Whilst, as a general and abstract question, negro slavery has no other claims over other forms of slavery, except that from inferiority, or rather peculiarity, of race, almost all negroes require masters, whilst only the children, the women, the very weak, poor, and ignorant, &c., among the whites, need some protective and governing relation of this kind; yet as a subject of temporary, but world-wide importance, negro slavery has become the most necessary of all human institutions.The inferiority of the Negro race. The superiority of the White Race. White supremacy.Some have said that I have quoted from a few remote examples and that the idea of the superiority of the white race was not a prevalent influence. A little research easily proves that argument wrong. The theme of the inferiority of the Negro race and superiority of the White race is widespread in the literature, sermons, and speeches of the antebellum South and secessionist documents. The National Archives and Library of Congress contain volumes of this literature, most of it easily accessible online, as do the libraries of universities throughout the country, including the South.Some examples from the Library of Congress:The Right of American Slavery, Hoit, T. W., Published by L. Bushnell, 1860.The right of American slaveryAlso available in digital form on the Library of Congress Web site.https://www.loc.gov/item/11009330/Here are some images taken from that book expressing the inferiority of the Negro race as an argument for slavery.Other examples:A History and Defense of African Slavery, Trotter, William, Published 1861Library of Congress archivesA history and defense of African slavery : Trotter, William B : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archiveremove-circle Share or Embed This Itemhttps://archive.org/details/historydefenseof00trotA Scriptural examination of the institution of slavery in the United States; with its objects and purposes, Cobb, Howell, 1856A Scriptural examination of the institution of slavery in the United States; with its objects and purposes : Cobb, Howell, 1795-1864 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archiveremove-circle Share or Embed This Itemhttps://archive.org/details/scripturalexamin00cobb/mode/1upThere were many poor, white Southerners that were conscripted. Some may have cared much for the wealthy planters, but most accepted white supremacy as the natural order, and thought that order should be preserved.See also: Why Non-Slaveholding Southerners FoughtWhy Non-Slaveholders Will Fight For SlaveryThe comment thread following the last post reflects the difficulty of coming to terms with the way in which slavery united white slaveholders and non-slaveholders of the South by the end of the ant…http://cwmemory.com/2013/01/26/why-non-slaveholders-will-fight-for-slavery/The interest in slavery of the southern non-slave-holder. The right of peaceful secession. Slavery in the Bible.Also available in digital form.https://www.loc.gov/item/11008376/The Southern Argument for Slavery [ushistory.org]27f. The Southern Argument for Slavery Southern slaveholders often used biblical passages to justify slavery. Those who defended slavery rose to the challenge set forth by the Abolitionists. The defenders of slavery included economics, history, religion, legality, social good, and even humanitarianism, to further their arguments. Defenders of slavery argued that the sudden end to the slave economy would have had a profound and killing economic impact in the South where reliance on slave labor was the foundation of their economy. The cotton economy would collapse. The tobacco crop would dry in the fields. Rice would cease being profitable. Defenders of slavery argued that if all the slaves were freed, there would be widespread unemployment and chaos. This would lead to uprisings, bloodshed, and anarchy. They pointed to the mob's "rule of terror" during the French Revolution and argued for the continuation of the status quo, which was providing for affluence and stability for the slaveholding class and for all free people who enjoyed the bounty of the slave society. Some slaveholders believed that African Americans were biologically inferior to their masters. During the 1800s, this arguement was taken quite seriously, even in scientific circles. Defenders of slavery argued that slavery had existed throughout history and was the natural state of mankind. The Greeks had slaves, the Romans had slaves, and the English had slavery until very recently. Defenders of slavery noted that in the Bible, Abraham had slaves. They point to the Ten Commandments, noting that "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, ... nor his manservant, nor his maidservant." In the New Testament, Paul returned a runaway slave, Philemon, to his master, and, although slavery was widespread throughout the Roman world, Jesus never spoke out against it. Defenders of slavery turned to the courts, who had ruled, with the Dred Scott Decision , that all blacks — not just slaves — had no legal standing as persons in our courts — they were property, and the Constitution protected slave-holders' rights to their property. Defenders of slavery argued that the institution was divine, and that it brought Christianity to the heathen from across the ocean. Slavery was, according to this argument, a good thing for the enslaved. John C. Calhoun said, "Never before has the black race of Central Africa, from the dawn of history to the present day, attained a condition so civilized and so improved, not only physically, but morally and intellectually." Defenders of slavery argued that by comparison with the poor of Europe and the workers in the Northern states, that slaves were better cared for. They said that their owners would protect and assist them when they were sick and aged, unlike those who, once fired from their work, were left to fend helplessly for themselves. James Thornwell , a minister, wrote in 1860, "The parties in this conflict are not merely Abolitionists and slaveholders, they arehttps://www.ushistory.org/us/27f.aspCauses Of The Civil WarPrimary Sources: Slavery as the Cause of the Civil WarLast week, I had someone challenge me on Facebook about the cause of the Civil War. Because slavery wasn’t a cause of the war, he said, the point I was trying to make was moot. “It wasn’t *a* cause…https://emergingcivilwar.com/2019/01/22/primary-sources-slavery-as-the-cause-of-the-civil-war/That the Civil War was about the enslavement of those of the black race for profit is without question, according to the declarations made by the states that seceded from the Union (see: The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States and The Decision to Secede and Establish the Confederacy: A Selection of Primary Sources). That white supremacy was a motivating factor for both slavery and poor whites fighting to keep it is also without question.Many sociologists and political scientists believe the belief of negro inferiority prevalent in the antebellum South is a root cause of racism today, even among whites who do not consider themselves racist. From the Miami Herald opinion section, The Confederacy was a con job on whites. And still is.:Starting in the 1840s wealthy Southerners supported more than 30 regional pro-slavery magazines, many pamphlets, newspapers and novels that falsely touted slave ownership as having benefits that would – in today’s lingo – trickle down to benefit non-slave owning whites and even blacks. The flip side of the coin of this old-is-new trickle-down propaganda is the mistaken notion that any gain by blacks in wages, schools or health care comes at the expense of the white working class.Today’s version of this con job no longer supports slavery, but still works in the South and thrives in pro trickle-down think tanks, magazines, newspapers, talk radio and TV news shows. . . For example, a map of states that didn’t expand Medicaid – which would actually be a boon mostly to poor whites – resembles a map of the old Confederacy with a few other poor, rural states thrown in. . . .For those who somehow think I am claiming absolute moral superiority of the North over the South, I am not. Many in the North who opposed slavery did not necessarily view the “Negro race” as equal to the “White race.” The belief of the White race being superior to the Negro race was not limited to the South. However, since slavery was already illegal in the Northern states, it was not used as a justification to continue the institution.Neither can I say without question that, had I been raised in the antebellum South under the influence of the social norms that existed there at the time, that I would not have supported slavery, or at least not worked to abolish it. It seems morally appalling to me today that in the United States during WWII, 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry were rounded up and placed in internment camps, and over 60% of them were US citizens. Thousands of Americans participated and there was little public outrage at the time.The moral outlook I have today about some issues is a product of generations of education, scientific discovery, empathy, and reciprocal thinking and the influence these have had on the society in which I live. It is certainly not because I can claim innate moral superiority over others. My moral perspective is certainly incomplete, if not skewed in some ways. Fifty years from now, my descendants may find some of my actions morally reprehensible. I hope they will judge me gently. I suggest you read my answer here:Tom Buczkowski's answer to If you lived in the South in the 1800s, do you think you'd support slavery?Added March 9, 2021:No matter how many historical references from the national archives, library of Congress, and various universities I cite, with links to each source, there are many comments appearing which challenge the historical accuracy of these documents. I will continue to update the answer as I have time, but it’s impossible to answer every comment. I appreciate factual comments pertaining to the historical documents, even if I do not agree. If you claim that the historical documents from that era found in the National Archives, Library of Congress, and universities throughout the United States are inaccurate, please provide some evidence. Otherwise, your comment will be ignored.Though many people will not be interested, I include this extended information to address some common misrepresentations of the historical data for those who wish to research and cite historically accurate information.One source of inaccurate data that I feel should be cleared up is this. Many people say that only 1% of people in the South owned slaves. This inaccurate figure can be traced to a social media post made in 2017 that went viral. This article gives details:PolitiFact - Viral post gets it wrong about extent of slavery in 1860Confederate-themed posts are cropping up on social media in the wake of the Unite the Right march in Charlottesville, Va/>https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/aug/24/viral-image/viral-post-gets-it-wrong-extent-slavery-1860/I have also seen statistics cited that indicate that only 3 to 5% of Southerners owned slaves, implying that 95 to 97% of Southerners did not benefit from slave labor. This is a misrepresentation of data, and can be traced to confusion about statistics cited in Allan Nevins historical accounts of the Civil War. Nevins states census data indicates just under 350,000 of those in the southern states owned slaves. In a free populating of over 6 million, that puts slave ownership at about 5.6%. Yet, census data from both 1850 and 1860 indicates that, on average, 30% of households in the South owned slaves. The apparent discrepancy exists because the ownership figures are derived from counting only the male head of household as the slave owner. Obviously, there were more people living in those households that benefited from slave labor. In some cases, slaves were bequeathed to other family members including wives and children in the same household. Some figures include them in ownership, but others include only the male head of household.See:Historians and the Extent of Slave Ownership in the Southern United StatesIn lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content: Historians and the Extent of Slave Ownership in the Southern United States Otto H. Olsen In a recent brief and thoughtful volume, David Brion Davis has directed attention to what he calls a "paranoid style" affecting the antebellum debate over slavery in the United States.1 Encouraged by insecurities as well as convictions, this style has remained a lasting as well as distorting force in American thought and its influence upon the posture of the victorious "free" society has had enduring consequences. Then and since, slavery has served as a convenient and perfect enemy. It epitomized evil and became a symbol that has been used to define and justify the social conditions and history of a capitalist, free labor society . A symbol of such convenience obviously would invite distortion; that it has, in fact, done so is suggested by the persistence of certain questionable assumptions about the nature of slave ownership in the antebellum South. For generations historians have been almost unanimous in emphasizing that black slaves were owned by a surprisingly small minority of whites. Allan Nevins states in his distinguished history of the Civil War era that "from the terms used in the angry discussion of slavery, it might have been supposed that almost the whole Southern population had a direct interest in it. Actually, of the 6,184,477 white folk in the slave States, only 347,525 were listed by the census of 1850 as owners, and even this number gave an exaggerated impression of the facts." Adding members of slave owning families and other involved individuals, Nevins increases the figure, but retains the emphasis, concluding that the number of whites directly involved in slavery probably "did not exceed 2,000,000. If so, not one-third of the population of the South and border States had any direct interest in slavery as a form of property. This is a fact of great important [sic] when we attempt to estimate the effect of slaveholding upon the culture and outlook of the Southern people."2 Nevins' conclusion is invariably affirmed by prominent commentators. According to the standard account by James G. Randall and David Donald "the total number of slaveholders in 1850 was only 347,525 out of a total white population of about six million in the slaveholding areas." Donald is even more emphatic elsewhere when he complains that "writ1 David Brion Davis, The Slate Power Conspiracy and the Paranoid Style (Baton Rouge, 1969). - Allan Nevins, Ordeal of the Union (New York, 1947), I, 415-16. Italics added. 101 102civil war history ers speak of the Southern interest in slavery, even when they perfectly well know that in the 'plantation' South only one fourth of the white families owned any slaves at all."3 Roy F. Nichols and Elbert B. Smith assume the same stance,4 as do the authors of practically all the outstanding college textbooks on the history of the United States. Typically these textbooks inclhttps://muse.jhu.edu/article/419076Based on that, historian Otto H. Olsen concludes, “every third white person in those states had a direct commitment to slavery and, barring occasional dissidents, had cause to be a supporter and propagandist for that system.”Historians and the Extent of Slave Ownership in the Southern United StatesIn lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content: Historians and the Extent of Slave Ownership in the Southern United States Otto H. Olsen In a recent brief and thoughtful volume, David Brion Davis has directed attention to what he calls a "paranoid style" affecting the antebellum debate over slavery in the United States.1 Encouraged by insecurities as well as convictions, this style has remained a lasting as well as distorting force in American thought and its influence upon the posture of the victorious "free" society has had enduring consequences. Then and since, slavery has served as a convenient and perfect enemy. It epitomized evil and became a symbol that has been used to define and justify the social conditions and history of a capitalist, free labor society . A symbol of such convenience obviously would invite distortion; that it has, in fact, done so is suggested by the persistence of certain questionable assumptions about the nature of slave ownership in the antebellum South. For generations historians have been almost unanimous in emphasizing that black slaves were owned by a surprisingly small minority of whites. Allan Nevins states in his distinguished history of the Civil War era that "from the terms used in the angry discussion of slavery, it might have been supposed that almost the whole Southern population had a direct interest in it. Actually, of the 6,184,477 white folk in the slave States, only 347,525 were listed by the census of 1850 as owners, and even this number gave an exaggerated impression of the facts." Adding members of slave owning families and other involved individuals, Nevins increases the figure, but retains the emphasis, concluding that the number of whites directly involved in slavery probably "did not exceed 2,000,000. If so, not one-third of the population of the South and border States had any direct interest in slavery as a form of property. This is a fact of great important [sic] when we attempt to estimate the effect of slaveholding upon the culture and outlook of the Southern people."2 Nevins' conclusion is invariably affirmed by prominent commentators. According to the standard account by James G. Randall and David Donald "the total number of slaveholders in 1850 was only 347,525 out of a total white population of about six million in the slaveholding areas." Donald is even more emphatic elsewhere when he complains that "writ1 David Brion Davis, The Slate Power Conspiracy and the Paranoid Style (Baton Rouge, 1969). - Allan Nevins, Ordeal of the Union (New York, 1947), I, 415-16. Italics added. 101 102civil war history ers speak of the Southern interest in slavery, even when they perfectly well know that in the 'plantation' South only one fourth of the white families owned any slaves at all."3 Roy F. Nichols and Elbert B. Smith assume the same stance,4 as do the authors of practically all the outstanding college textbooks on the history of the United States. Typically these textbooks inclhttps://muse.jhu.edu/article/419076Otto H. Olsen, “Historians and the Extent of Slave Ownership in the Southern United States,” Civil War HistoryThe author at this website does a good job explaining this error in interpreting Nevins work. Note his work is copyrighted as per below.The Extent of Slave Ownership in the United States in 1860I’ve touched on this before in other posts. See here, here, here, and here. In an effort to minimize the importance of slavery, modern neoconfederates will focus on the percentage of slave ow…https://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2017/04/18/the-extent-of-slave-ownership-in-the-united-states-in-1860/Student of the American Civil War, Reflections on learning about the Civil War–Copyright 2020.Many other sources cite the same facts:The confederacy’s 11 states had 316,632 slave owners out of a free population of 5,582,222. This equals 5.67 percent of the free population of the confederacy were slave owners.“That, however, does not tell us the extent of slave ownership. To better understand the extent of slavery’s impact, we need to realize a slave owner was the one person in a family who legally owned slaves. That person was usually the patriarch. There would be a spouse and sons and daughters who directly benefited from the family’s slave ownership and who stood to inherit enslaved people,” wrote Mackey.So, according to the Census of 1860, 30.8 percent of the free families in the confederacy owned slaves. That means that every third white person in those states had a direct commitment to slavery.Fact Check: What Percentage Of White Southerners Owned Slaves?Here is another:Statistics on SlaveryStatistics on Slavery Population of the Original Thirteen Colonies, selected years by type 1750 1750 1790 1790 1790 1810 1810 1810 1860 1860 1860 State White Black White Free Slave White Free Slave White Free Slave Nonwhite Nonwhite Nonwhite 108,270 3,010 232,236 2,771 2,648 255,179 6,453 310 451,504 8,643 - Connecticut 27,208 1,496 46,310 3,899 8,887 55,361 13,136 4,177 90,589 19,829 1,798 Delaware 4,200 1,000 52,886 398 29,264 145,414 1,801 105,218 591,550 3,538 462,198 Georgia 97,623 43,450 208,649 8,043 103,036 235,117 33,927 111,502 515,918 83,942 87,189 Maryland 183,925 4,075 373,187 5,369 - 465,303 6,737 - 1,221,432 9,634 - Massachusetts 26,955 550 141,112 630 157 182,690 970 - 325,579 494 - New Hampshire 66,039 5,354 169,954 2,762 11,423 226,868 7,843 10,851 646,699 25,318 - New Jersey 65,682 11,014 314,366 4,682 21,193 918,699 25,333 15,017 3,831,590 49,145 - New York 53,184 19,800 289,181 5,041 100,783 376,410 10,266 168,824 629,942 31,621 331,059 North Carolina 116,794 2,872 317,479 6,531 3,707 786,804 22,492 795 2,849,259 56,956 - Pennsylvania 29,879 3,347 64,670 3,484 958 73,214 3,609 108 170,649 3,971 - Rhode Island 25,000 39,000 140,178 1,801 107,094 214,196 4,554 196,365 291,300 10,002 402,406 South Carolina 129,581 101,452 442,117 12,866 292,627 551,534 30,570 392,518 1,047,299 58,154 490,865 Virginia 934,340 236,420 2,792,325 58,277 681,777 4,486,789 167,691 1,005,685 12,663,310 361,247 1,775,515 United States (Source: Historical Statistics of the U.S. (1970), Franklin (1988): http://www.eh.net/encyclopedia/wahl.slavery.us.php ) Throughout colonial and antebellum history, U.S. slaves lived primarily in the South. Slaves comprised less than a tenth of the total Southern population in 1680 but grew to a third by 1790. At that date, 293,000 slaves lived in Virginia alone, making up 42 percent of all slaves in the U.S. at the time. South Carolina, North Carolina, and Maryland each had over 100,000 slaves. After the American Revolution, the Southern slave population exploded, reaching about 1.1 million in 1810 and over 3.9 million in 1860. Population of the South 1790-1860 Year White Free Nonwhite Slave 1790 1,240,454 32,523 654,121 1800 1,691,892 61,575 851,532 1810 2,118,144 97,284 1,103,700 1820 2,867,454 130,487 1,509,904 1830 3,614,600 175,074 1,983,860 1840 4,601,873 207,214 2,481,390 1850 6,184,477 235,821 3,200,364 1860 8,036,700 253,082 3,950,511 (Source: Historical Statistics of the U.S. (1970).) Slaves as a Percent of the Total Population selected years, by Southern state 1750 1790 1810 1860 State Black/total Slave/total Slave/total Slave/total population population population population Alabama 45.12 Arkansas 25.52 Delaware 5.21 15.04 5.75 1.60 Florida 43.97 Georgia 19.23 35.45 41.68 43.72 Kentucky 16.87 19.82 19.51 Louisiana 46.85 Maryland 30.80 32.23 29.30 12.69 Mississippi 55.18 Missouri 9.72 North Carolina 27.13 25.51 30.39 33.35 South Carolina 60.94 43.00 47.30 57.18 Tennessee 17.02 24.84 Texas 30https://faculty.weber.edu/kmackay/statistics_on_slavery.htmSelected Statistics on Slavery in the United StatesSelected Statistics on Slavery in the United States (unless otherwise noted, all data is as of the 1860 census) Total number of slaves in the Lower South : 2,312,352 (47% of total population). Total number of slaves in the Upper South: 1,208758 (29% of total population). Total number of slaves in the Border States: 432,586 (13% of total population). Almost one-third of all Southern families owned slaves. In Mississippi and South Carolina it approached one half. The total number of slave owners was 385,000 (including, in Louisiana, some free Negroes). As for the number of slaves owned by each master, 88% held fewer than twenty, and nearly 50% held fewer than five. (A complete table on slave-owning percentages is given at the bottom of this page.) For comparison's sake, let it be noted that in the 1950's, only 2% of American families owned corporation stocks equal in value to the 1860 value of a single slave. Thus, slave ownership was much more widespread in the South than corporate investment was in 1950's America. On a typical plantation (more than 20 slaves) the capital value of the slaves was greater than the capital value of the land and implements. Confederate enlistment data is incomplete because many records were lost when the South collapsed, but it is possible to estimate, very loosely, the number of men in the Confederate army who came from slave-holding families. For this discussion, click here . Slavery was profitable, although a large part of the profit was in the increased value of the slaves themselves. With only 30% of the nation's (free) population, the South had 60% of the "wealthiest men." The 1860 per capita income in the South was $3,978; in the North it was $2,040. Census data can be appealed to in order to determine the extent of slave ownership in each of the states that allowed it in 1860. The figures given here are the percentage of slave-owning families as a fraction of total free households in the state. The data was taken from a census archive site at the University of Virginia. Mississippi: 49% South Carolina: 46% Georgia: 37% Alabama: 35% Florida: 34% Louisiana: 29% Texas: 28% North Carolina: 28% Virginia: 26% Tennessee: 25% Kentucky: 23% Arkansas: 20% Missouri: 13% Maryland: 12% Delaware: 3% In the Lower South (SC, GA, AL, MS, LA, TX, FL -- those states that seceded first), about 36.7% of the white families owned slaves. In the Middle South (VA, NC, TN, AR -- those states that seceded only after Fort Sumter was fired on) the percentage is around 25.3%, and the total for the two combined regions -- which is what most folks think of as the Confederacy -- is 30.8%. In the Border States (DE, MD, KY, MO -- those slave states that did not secede) the percentage of slave-ownership was 15.9%, and the total throughout the slave states was almost exactly 26%.https://faculty.weber.edu/kmackay/selected_statistics_on_slavery_i.htmAlmost one-third of all Southern families owned slaves. In Mississippi and South Carolina it approached one half. The total number of slave owners was 385,000 (including, in Louisiana, some free Negroes). As for the number of slaves owned by each master, 88% held fewer than twenty, and nearly 50% held fewer than five. (A complete table on slave-owning percentages is given at the bottom of this page.)In the Lower South (SC, GA, AL, MS, LA, TX, FL -- those states that seceded first), about 36.7% of the white families owned slaves. In the Middle South (VA, NC, TN, AR -- those states that seceded only after Fort Sumter was fired on) the percentage is around 25.3%, and the total for the two combined regions -- which is what most folks think of as the Confederacy -- is 30.8%. In the Border States (DE, MD, KY, MO -- those slave states that did not secede) the percentage of slave-ownership was 15.9%, and the total throughout the slave states was almost exactly 26%.And another:Ratio of Slaveholders to FamiliesRATIO OF SLAVEHOLDERS TO FAMILIES, (1860) STATE: SLAVEHOLDERS: FREE FAMILIES: RATIO (* 100) MISSISSIPPI 30943 63015 49 SOUTH CAROLINA 26701 58642 46 GEORGIA 41084 109919 37 ALABAMA 33730 96603 35 FLORIDA 5152 15090 34 LOUISIANA 22033 74725 29 TEXAS 21878 76781 28 NORTH CAROLINA 34658 125090 28 VIRGINIA 52128 201523 26 TENNESSEE 36844 149335 25 KENTUCKY 38645 166321 23 ARKANSAS 11481 57244 20 MISSOURI 24320 192073 13 MARYLAND 13783 110278 12 DELAWARE 587 18966 3 Note: These numbers should be considered a close approximation only of the percentage of free households that held slaves. While the normal case was that only one individual per household held title to all slaves, under special circumstances census takers sometimes counted more than one individual from a family as a separate slaveholder. On other occasions the census taker excluded out-of-state slaveholdings. Because slaves were taxed and census marshalls were government officials it is likely that under-reporting of the numbers of both slaves and slaveholders was higher than under-reporting of free families. On balance, therefore, these error sources should cancel out. Return to 19th Century Documents Pagehttp://history.furman.edu/~benson/docs/shfam60.htmIt should be noted that household ownership of slaves varied by state. According to census data, in 1860 the number of households owning slaves in Mississippi was 49%, in South Carolina 46%, Virginia 26%, Missouri 23%, and Delaware 3%.The United States official Census Bureau site has a map created in 1861 showing the the distribution of slaves in states according to the 1860 census data.Distribution of Slaves in 1860Distribution of Slaves in 1860 In 1861, in an attempt to raise money for sick and wounded soldiers, the Census Office produced and sold a map that showed the population distribution of slaves in the southern United States. Based on data from the 1860 census , this map was the Census Office's first attempt to map population density. It is a precursor to population density maps that have been produced since the 1870 census and especially forshadowed the work published in the Statistical Atlas of the United States by Francis Walker in 1874. View Larger [5.5MB PDF] Distribution of the slave population in the South, based on 1860 census results. Originally published in 1861. Courtesy of the Library of Congress. View larger image Francis Bicknell Carpenter's 1864 painting, "First Reading of the Emancipation Proclamation by President Lincoln," depicts the 1860 Slave Distribution Map in the right corner. For more information:https://www.census.gov/history/www/reference/maps/distribution_of_slaves_in_1860.html1860 census data:https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1860/population/1860a-02.pdf

Here is a list of things that would have been very appropriate and intelligent things to do in response to Covid-19, none of which the Trump Administration did.Years before the virus hits, you expand funding for the CDC and NIH (Trump proposed cutting funding and unbelievably, his 2021 budget for both cut CDC and NIH). You absolutely do NOT eliminate the pandemic team within the CDC (like Trump did). You absolutely do NOT keep the pandemic management roles in DHS empty and unfilled (like Trump did). Ideally you have a senior person in DHS who has a strong infectious disease background because there is only going to be greater risk of pandemics now and in the future because of climate change.Did I mention climate change? You put the force of the USG behind efforts to study climate change and its’ impacts. You don’t ban USG research in to it. You don’t unfund or cut offices that do that work. You don’t prevent USG researchers from going to conferences that study climate change and its’ impact. Here’s a reality check for climate change skeptics and deniers: among people who research climate change in great detail, pandemics are a BFD, something that there is a lot of work on. Seriously—there is tremendous amounts of pandemic research and analysis that is occurring through the climate change lens/perspective.You know all of those rules that the Trump Administration has reversed or not enforced dealing with game hunting and cracking down on trafficking of endangered species? Well, it appears the vector location where the Covid-19 virus appeared to emerge is a wildlife market in Wuhan. Yeah, people are pointing at bats—but that’s simplistic. How bats get involved is they poop—and other animals eat it. Or the bat eats a bug (like a mosquito) that sucked some blood off of a creature. Ladies and Gentleman, let me introduce you to the Pangolin. Very endangered, it has a coronavirus internal to most Pangolins that is almost a dead ringer to what is hitting humans now—except it has mutated a bit. And Pangolins (especially from Africa) are very popular in China. Did pangolins spread the China coronavirus to people? I think when all is said and done with this virus in 2–3 years, we’ll likely conclude that Covid-19 did NOT come directly from the pangolin. But they played a role. That’s why the flu stations are in China. Yes, the season starts in that part of the world. But they have so much mixed use farms (ducks and pigs together, eat each other’s scat, viruses intermix, end up in bats or birds and so China is the birthplace for most modern new flu strains—that’s why the Swine flu scare to come out of Mexico was unexpected).Healthcare—woah, this is a biggie. As in: expand the number of people in the US who have healthcare (so they have access to it—and no, I don’t mean “they can always go to the ER!”). What happens with more people getting health insurance? Fewer smokers, more early screening, access to testing, more preventative care, and when people get it (and most cases will be mild) they’ll get better advice on how to avoid spreading it (which increases the chances that you stay healthy). The Trump administration has gone in the complete opposite direction, seeking to kneecap Obamacare, has a court case right now up on appeal that would wipe out Obamacare (doing this in the middle of a pandemic—that’s a perfect storm folks—a fricking perfect storm from an epidemiological or public health perspective).Supplies. If you’re smart, and you realize that because every day the world is getting smaller (more global, more migration, more business travel) combined with climate change produces warmer climates and more extreme weather, you start preparing for pandemics more than we currently were. You have a larger supply of gloves and masks for medical workers and first responders. A larger supply of Tamiflu (and anti-viral) as well as antibiotics (because you don’t know what is going to emerge). You do “what if” scenarios that you war game out with key leaders in industry and government: what would it take to ramp up production of antibiotic X in 2 weeks? What if we had to quarantine a couple of cruise ships? What if a military unit overseas became infected with something communicable? What if the next flu season was a killer? You can’t plan for everything or even most things—but you don’t have to. You work out—how do we handle a pandemic? FEMA does this sh*t all the time with hurricanes and natural disasters—talk to anyone at the state or federal level who does emergency preparedness and they’ll tell you that if you prepare for 3–4 scenarios it enhances your ability to deal with all of them because you get supplies pre-positioned, you get light on your feet organizationally, you develop an emergency response capability. Good lord—look at the fricking Trump Administration—inept at anticipating and then quickly responding to Maria and the other hurricanes that hit Puerto Rico and the USVI. My point is not that they were delayed specifically in preparing for Covid-19, it’s that they don’t prepare for and handle crises well in general. Talk to anyone in disaster planning for organizations and they’ll tell you it all starts with what you do before the crisis ever hits. Oh, and btw, you don’t respond to pandemic risks by slicing funding from one concern to get money for another (I’m talking about Congress cutting Ebola funding to address Zika over the wishes of the Obama Administration—that’s just bassackwards!).Now everything I’ve listed so far is stuff you do BEFORE anyone in the administration even knows how to spell “coronavirus” let alone knowing Wuhan has a crisis. This is all pandemic-101 stuff. And the Trump Administration flunked all of it—every single thing I’ve mentioned.Now let’s talk about what happens when one of the CDC flu spotting stations in China gets a report from a doctor (let’s call him….Li Wenliang) complaining that the government won’t listen to him about this new type of flu. Let me eliminate the suspense and just tell you that everything I’m about to list about what you do once you get a hint this is happening—is stuff the Trump Administration has done poorly on.6. You don’t cut off access to China—you rush people in. You get additional CDC and NIH talent in China. This isn’t a variation on the normal flu. China is the hothouse for this stuff—the flu season starts with them, that’s why CDC has flu spotting stations there—to get a jump on the flu and begin development of a flu shot early. Except this isn’t influenza. But with teams on the ground quickly, getting samples, observing what the Chinese are going, trying to nail down this bad boy as quickly as possible—that is what you do as soon as you hear a unsubstantiated rumor coming out of Asia. Ditto with Iran (more on this later). Ditto with Italy. It’s critical to get a reliable test nailed down and then start testing like crazy. Why? Because the first most critical step in dealing with pandemics before they become a pandemic is: INFORMATION. We were late on this. The USG didn’t get started on a test until late (we were relying on China, rather than pushing our people out in to the field we were cutting off access) and then when we got a test we only tested people returning from China. Information tells you what kind of beast you’re dealing with, how to deal with it, how widespread it likely is, who’s must vulnerable. It all starts with information and that only happens if, at the first hint of a problem, you push people in to the infected areas rather than cutting them off.7. Set up a task force to coordinate the gathering and sharing of the research from the field plus interact with various agencies (DoD, DHS, CDC, NIH, CIA, DoS, USAID, FBI, Customs, TSA, FDA, USAMRID, US Surgeon General—who has been invisible through all this mess by the way—and I’m sure I’ve left about 12–15 other offices or agencies off the list) to coordinate who is doing what, what supplies are being acquired, begin briefing states and governors and their health directors. This action should have started within a week of the first cases coming out of Wuhan. And the head of this task force should be a research or medical professional. Fauci is a good person to go with—he’s fought this fight before and has bi-partisan credibility. The head of the Center for the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (Nancy Messionier) would also be a great choice. I’d probably avoid the head of USAMRID (Col. Darrin Cox) because he’s active duty US military that would feed wild conspiracy rumors that this is somehow a Chinese/American/Israeli bioweapon. But Carl Shaia who retired there back in the Fall was the former Director of Administration (but is now a civilian) and he’d do a bang-up job managing a task force of a lot of government people dealing with complex, unplanned health and medical issues—if you felt like you didn’t want to pull Fauci or Messionier from their organizations (because their supervision of their work was too vital) than Shaia could be a good option. If the head of DHS or HHS was someone with public healthcare expertise then they’d be a fallback option. We don’t currently have an actual DHS head (that position is vacant) and the acting person (formerly of TSA) Chad Wolf has no background in this issue. Alex Azar (HHS) is a lawyer and worked in healthcare organizations but frankly wouldn’t be a strong choice in terms of knowing the public healthcare players. Picking Mike Pence is a poor choice. He double-screwed up the HIV mini-epidemic in Indiana (first cutting support for PP, then refusing to follow the data and wouldn’t do a needle exchange until the cases had exploded). Pence isn’t the worst choice—as a governor he’s got background in dealing with emergencies (in his case: floods and tornados) so that’s a positive plus he’s pretty high up. Still, with a little bit of research (ie: 4 hours) I could give you about 200 names of people who would be a better choice than Pence.8. What Donald Trump says. Now if you really want to know the optimal approach here, it would be that Donald Trump never says or tweets anything about Covid-19 or the Coronavirus at all—when asked about it he refers to the head of the taskforce and then shuts up. That would be optimal. But if we can’t have that, then it would be that he says NOTHING in any media form without clearing it first with a senior healthcare SME (subject matter expert). This post is already too long for me to list all the things he’s said so far that are dumb or false: the virus would go away in April because of temperatures (tell that to Singapore, plus there is a new paper out of the Harvard epidemiology Dept. that says this virus doesn’t seem be affected by warmer temps), that the WHO death rate was wrong (not what he should have said), that Democrats are trying to make this a scare tactic to win the election, that there was nothing to worry about. Donald Trump has added probably not one piece of value to this whole issue—just confusion or wrong information plus delays. I mean, suggesting we should seal the border with Mexico: they have 5 cases as of yesterday and 3 of them came from exposure to foreigners (Italy and America)—I think Mexico might want to seal their border for protection from the US! If you could cut him out of the picture and he’d tolerate that from Day One, things would be so much better now.9. Policy on cruise ships: have one. Right now the US does not and is scrambling. Think about that—there have already been a couple of cases of passengers on cruise ships with Covid-19 signs, why hasn’t the US developed a policy for what to do other than tell the ship to stay offshore? We knew this was an issue a month ago and we’ve got ships off the US coast that we’re trying to figure out what to do because there is no policy in-place. This is exactly what the USG is supposed to do—establish policies. And I said cruise ships because that’s an immediate issue. Someone is going to have a 14 hour plane flight and in the middle of the flight (with air being circulated through the cabin) it will be clear that a passenger is sick with the coronavirus—so what’s the procedure? Have them disembark and stand in line at a crowded customs and immigration portal with hundreds of other incoming passengers? Every single US airport that has an international terminal needs to be setting up infrastructure and implementing USG policy (except there is none) besides setting up hand sanitizer and putting out more tissue dispensers.10. Establish and follow basic risk protocols for individuals who are exposed or possibly exposed re-entering the country. The healthcare workers who met the plane load of sick and at-risk Americans returning to the US—none of them had any kind of protection or established procedure for processing those individuals. WTF? This sounds like an isolated example. There will be hundreds of thousands of Americans seeking to return back to the US from overseas. Students, business professionals, tourists, retirees, military, diplomats, USG workers, professors. You need a basic protocol for screening and handling them (and it’s not all the same—it will vary with the country they’re coming from, if they’ve been tested, if they have obvious signs, if they’d had contact). That doesn’t exist right now.11. Information is critical at times like this—to avoid panic. You don’t want to downplay it all, you need to be open and honest but put things in perspective. So for instance, people need to be told that you should not be wearing a mask unless you’re sick (wearing a mask INCREASES the likelihood you get infection if you’re exposed to someone) unless you change your mask every hour (or every encounter). In the effort to downplay the spread and infection, there is very little (okay, none) Federal govt. resources talking publicly about “let’s talk through planning for if schools in most of the country shut down for a month—can we get all businesses to give people temporary family leave?” Local governments are working on this (kudos to them) but they’re often having to do this in the dark. The Feds should be driving this and be pre-eminent. What Jay Inslee (gov. of Washington State) had to tell Pence is sad, just appalling but that’s a reflection on the Federal coordination effort to-date. So information not only about “this is what we know, this is what we don’t know, here’s what you should be doing know, here’s what you should plan for just in-case” is critical and it’s not happening. That’s not really happening publicly driven by the Feds, it’s very piecemeal and fragments. Look at the comments from Carson (HUD). He shouldn’t be in the public eye on this except the Trump information shortage/gap has people hungry for information and since he was a surgeon, he got approached by media. So he was asked about the Trump policy on the cruise ship approaching the US and he said it was finalized but it wasn’t going to be revealed yet. Then he said it was formulated but some details were being worked out. Then he said there were no plans as of yet. This is from one senior Administration official within one 24 hour period who shouldn’t even be talking about cruise ships. And this happens because there is no coordination or reliable information source on this issue at the moment. So people are going all over the place seeking information.12. There are a gazillion specialty situations that need to be addressed by government. If you’ve got a kid overseas in an exchange program (say—studying art in Milan, or teaching English in Beijing), can they come back home? Or what if they wait till the end of the semester? What about US military? What about large crowds at sporting events—any policy or recommendations regarding those? I bet every police officer out there is now wondering “hmmm….how does this affect me and possible infected people or areas?” Could you imagine medical professionals or first responders refusing to go out in the field if we have a shortage of gloves and masks? Certain industries (any place like Orlando that does a lot of conventions), cruise ships, airlines, travel, tourism, caterers, restaurants—they’re likely dealing with tremendous business crashes right now or in the near future. Saying “we’ll give you a tax break” is a crappy answer—that’s not what they need right now. Their immediate concern is about safety and a tax break doesn’t address that. They need to be given some direction on what to expect, how the USG is going to intervene, if there will be tests set up when people board/deplane/disembark. These are issues that industry can’t solve or fix and a tax break is irrelevant to. And we aren’t even talking about jobs like TSA that involve touching a lots of things. The latest word I’ve heard is that Covid-19 can live for up to a week on a surface. So any high-traffic screening personnel would be a great risk-2,000 people could come through your shift and it only takes one to pass on something (because of a suitcase they brought from home where an asymptomatic individual—not the traveler—coughed on it).13. This is related to #11 but you need to balance the panic and the information. You should not be trying to “spin” this event or push good news. Right now, the Trump Administration has tried hard to downplay this and say it is something that will go away quickly with little pain. Meanwhile the markets are taking deep dives, Italy is quarantining 15 million people, and the Fed issues an unprecedented emergency rate cut while the President is saying “no biggie.” Let me let you in on something: our numbers on infections in the US are bogus. We’ve mostly been testing only people who were traveling overseas or those immediately next to someone who’s infected. Partially that was lack of planning, partially that was a lack of test availability. Once we expand the number of tests, you’re going to see the number of people with a “positive” result (meaning: they got it or have antibodies so were exposed and may be a carrier) to probably go up 5X the current number (if not higher). That’s to be expected—we had artificially low numbers previously. But to fearful members of the public, it will seem like their government was lying to them or that all of sudden the virus has gotten really bad when it hit the US (neither case was true). That’s why the mis-statements by the Trump Administration and the efforts to downplay this sucker are just stupid, stupid, stupid. You’ve got a balancing act—it’s tough—but it’s critical. You’ve got to level with people, talk about what we know, what we don’t know, talk a little about an unknown future. When you try to downplay or minimize the bad news, and then you suddenly get a bunch of bad news, you lose your credibility. You don’t just look bad, instead you become the bad guy.14. Protecting Asians and Immigrants. The Trump Administration is probably the least credible and competent governmental entity to engage in this. You’re already seeing individuals verbally or physically attacking Asians. People who are 2nd generation US and from Japan or the Philippines are being told to go back to China. After 9–11, George W. Bush gave a very powerful speech where he said we were all Americans, we couldn’t turn on each other, that it should still be safe for someone wearing a hijab to go to a mosque, and it was shameful for us to betray our values by turning on minorities. At a time when there are a ton of rumors, lots of fear, it’s important for our government to do something that they’re very capable of doing—standing up for targeted minorities and letting people know “hey, they’re not the danger here.” Seriously—this is a “no-brainer” kind of action because the USG is well positioned to deal with it, can do it RIGHT NOW, and variations of this come up whenever there is a terrorist attack, a pandemic, a violent crime or something that stereotypes a specific group. And it doesn’t require scientists coming up with a new vaccine or some medical advance. it’s about USG leadership saying “hey—no scapegoating, we’re all in this together, don’t turn on each other.” Has anyone seen anything from Trump or Pence or any senior USG official addressing this issue? I haven’t.15. Do not rely on information from Xi. China has not handled it well, they were initially in denial. Xi basically told Trump “nothing to worry about, it’s going to go away” and then Trump came out with his “it will disappear in April” statement. Let healthcare professionals talk to their foreign counterparts—they’ll be able to decipher what is bullish*t and what is truth.16. South Korea: we should have teams over there right now looking at what they’re doing. ROK isn’t perfect but they’re a great example of getting it “mostly” right. They’ve got drive-in stations for quick tests to see if you’re contagious or not. From the git-go they were testing far more people than just international travelers—making us look like idiots. South Korea hasn’t been perfect but they’ve been pretty darn good. I bet that right now, we’re so focused on the US that any potential lessons or tips we might gain from ROK are going to be ignored until this thing plays itself out and a year or so from now we’re doing a “hot wash” and go “gee, wouldn’t it have been smart if we’d implemented this thing they tried in South Korea?”17. Do not, do not, use the Coronavirus as an excuse to implement other policies you have. The Trump Administration has already tightened immigration rules with Iran (actually, we should be sending CDC teams there to see what we can learn and also identify if it’s the same strain). Trump has talked about closing the border with Mexico (but not Canada which has far more cases—although a significant number came from exposure to Americans—sorry Canada!). Do you hear any talk of closing immigration with Italy (which is attempting to quarantine 15 million of its’ citizens)? Nope, neither have I. You see, the problem when you do stunts like this (sneak in another policy using the rationale of it’s dealing with Covid-19) is it ends up hurting your credibility and perceived confidence across the board. If shutting down borders is “the answer” then why shut off a border with Mexico but not Canada? If shutting down borders is “the answer” then why allow trucks full of auto parts from Mexico to still come in to the US (answer: it would shut down nearly all US auto manufacturing plants and immediately lead to a recession plus kill Trump in a bunch of battleground states like Michigan that he needs to win).18. This last piece is tough to do but it’s now essential: we need to flatten the curve and expand capacity ASAP. Let me explain the concept: the US healthcare system is near capacity. We don’t have a lot of empty beds. We have fewer doctors (especially in rural areas) per capita then places like Italy. Our ICU’s are maxed out mostly (in part due to a very bad flu season). A massive influx of new Covid-19 cases is a healthcare disaster. It doesn’t matter if the case mortality rate for infections is only 1% (or .2%) rather than 3.5%. You end up with not enough ventilators, not enough ICU beds, not enough healthcare providers. And while the extreme Covid-19 cases (about 4–10% of those infected) are in ICUs, other patients are either underserved or don’t get help. Seriously folks, with every epidemic the public healthcare data shows an increase in mortality for healthcare issues not related to the pandemic. So if you’re a healthcare administrator, you should be doing whatever you can to add beds, bring people out of retirement, add interns or admin support to free up nurses from work that someone without a degree can do. In terms of the Trump administration (ie: this question), they should be pushing all strategies to add capacity. And we (as an administration) should be looking at ways to “flatten the curve” by reducing the speed of infection. This chart is from Vox and Christina Animashaun and it illustrates why Covid-19 is got a lot of public healthcare folks alarmed, why you’re seeing so many Universities and localities canceling events and what the Federal Government needs to be focusing on much more than it currently is.I’m sure I’m leaving out a couple of other things but this post is long enough as is. Quite simply, the Trump Administration has done a terrible job preparing for a pandemic and then responding to the initial news and then acting when it hit the US.Let me say one last thing here: some people will write this post off as being “anti-Trump.” Preparing for disasters (diseases, natural emergencies, energy blackouts, rioting, etc.) is a special kind of challenge. We have professionals who do this stuff for a living. It absolutely infuriates me when we violate some of the most basic rules of disaster planning and emergency management—whether it’s with storms or pandemics. If this post comes off as “anti-Trump” it’s only because the Administration has badly bungled their response to the coronavirus. We had a reasonable shot at containing this sucker. No longer.

There are no ‘false twins”, but there can be Catalysts who can trigger spiritual development. Catalysts have a pre-birth plan with you - so you will have all kinds of syncs and signs, maybe even telepathy if both of you are a bit psychic. But they are not your TF or a Soulmate with a lot of past lives, they might have some past lives with you, or just familiarity in the Spirit World, students of the same Spirit Guide, members of the same hobby clubs or professional guilds in 5D. With a Catalyst - it takes time to differentiate, as Catalysts communicate with you for a while and leave forever, never coming back. Or if you have a lot of interests in common - the romantic feelings subside and you become friends or co-workers. You can have missions or projects with Catalysts, but typically they leave after a temporary relationship.Soulmates from the ‘Soul birth family” are quite similar to Twin Flames - as they all share underlying energy (they all are created from the same energy being - the initial Monad) - there are just more than 2 of them, so they are not really “Twins”, it can be a large group, sometimes only one of them is incarnated in this life, or you can have several of these ‘soul-family members” - but one is the closest and in a romantic role, while the rest are real-life family members and platonic friends. With Soul Family members - the relationship is usually easier than typical Twin Flame dynamics, as they are after all Soulmates, but very close ones. You might not be able to tell them apart without a regression, - but it is no big deal if you call them the Twin Flame, as typically only one has the deepest connection with you, and this relationship is usually more romantic and can lead to a quick marriage. The telepathy and astral travel usually kick in much faster than with “normal human Soulmates”, who are not of the same energy frequency. But since empathy also kicks in fast - it might be a more difficult relationship than “normal human Soulmates”, as they can really “push your buttons” - being of the same energy frequency as you (this will also be true for your family members who are from your Original Soul Birth Family - you love them to death, can feel their emotions, super-deep connection, but they can also drive you really crazy! )“Hive Minds” are very similar to Soul-birth families or Monadic Twins as they all are one energy being - except hive-minds only separate in physical incarnations, and can create any member of personalities. They travel between worlds as one collective consciousness, so anybody from the hive-mind is a part of your soul. Meeting any member of a hive-mind is similar to meeting the TF - all kinds of psychic phenomena, telepathy, signs, syncs, memories of shared lives and other worlds, energetic downloads, new abilities, etc. The only way to differentiate is to do a regression, it can be considered a rare Twin Flame type, but again, there are more than 2 souls in this configuration, you just only met one of them. The relationship is usually easier than a typical Twin Flame dynamics, and they either become lovers or marry or become best friends. Many hive-mind-members are asexual or pansexual, or genderfluid, they do not have a very strong ego or sense of individual identity or exact gender or sexual orientation, being a part of a much larger energy-being and able to shapeshift into all kinds of creatures.Another ‘energy link” connection similar to Twin Flames are ‘Cosmic Soulmates” - these are souls who shared past lives on another planet or world, usually together, sometimes just in the same star race (both Andromedans, or Sirians, or Pleiadeans, etc. - the energy of the star race can trigger all the memories of those lives, shared star race or civilization) this is an ‘otherworldly link” which can not be compared to any human connection, it can blow your mind, but in the long run - they might not have a contract with you, just miss in passing, like when you meet somebody from your town, wearing a T-shirt of your local football team in a bar or airport in a far-away country.It is easy to distinguish from a karmic relationship - in a true karmic relationship (based on a past life debt and negative karma) there is a feeling of being stuck, not being able to leave them for some reason (guilt, children, business, no other place to go), but also feeling suffocated. TF relationship is the opposite - it can give you lots of pain, but also creativity, spiritual awareness, newfound freedom, new psychic, or creative abilities. TF relationship ‘expands” you, even if it is painful. Karmic relationship ‘contracts” you, even if it is smooth and comfortable. Again, I am not talking about Romantic Soulmates here - but about real ‘Karmics”.If you met a Romantic Soulmate - you most likely would not be on Quora, you’d be happily dating, planning the wedding, or expecting a child. Romantic Soulmate relationships are usually really smooth and happy, you would not care how to call it, you would know you met the Love of Your Life, and it is mutual, and there is no running or separation except for work or any other duties. Sure, Soulmates can fight, but they make up pretty quickly, and unlike Twin Flames - they are compatible socially, physically, generationally etc. They can be of different races or nationalities, but there will not be huge obstacles for them to be together, as this is a pre-birth c contract for family life. Twin Flame contract is mostly for spiritual development, not necessarily for physical romance or marriage.All of this becomes apparent in Twin Flame regression, you can read about it in my space on Quora Twin Flame Regression or check my website on my profile for further reading.