I was perusing a memoir recently of an Irish aristocrat who came to Florida after she was in American possession and another Irish aristocrat was in two looking to "stand up for the red and black man from American abuse", and in the content of such idiocy, there was mention of the Cuban Bloodhound as a dog utilized to track down escaped human property, as in slaves.
Apparently they were used with little success against the Seminole Indians, which is fascinating to me as to why blacks were such catchable prey to these dogs and the Asian immigrant Indian was not.
The black would seem to be a superior runner, but the Indian perhaps could run longer distances or might be more cunning in evading a tracking dog. In whatever the reason, I choose to examine this fascinating period of dogs hunting humans for the reason of deciphering past the bias and propaganda now couched like that Irish twerp in not viewing the slave as property and not as human, so these dogs would be utilized in their recapture.
I have heard the ignorant line that slaves were cheap and therefore farm slaves were easily replaced. It is as uninformed as those who state that masses of slaves were escaping when the reality is the data shows that most slaves stayed with their owners as it was a pretty good trade for them in food, shelter, protection and sex.
That of course flies in the face of the propaganda, but there is a reality in this which even most people can comprehend.
Most of you have had a pet dog, horse or cat. Would the person who sold you that animal beat that animal, not feed it, chain it up and kill off most of the mates of it or would that person instead do their best for profit in getting as many of them to be sold as possible?
The answer is of course, the seller would do all they could to protect that stock as it dying would mean less being sold. Abusing it, would mean a stock which no one would want to buy.
It was this with slaves in the trade, as only lives slaves who could be sold, brought money. The same holds for the slaves on farms, in they were in America in the price range of 300 to 1800 dollars on auction or sale ranging from young girls to grown working males in 1860.
In the 1600's a slave would be sold for 200 dollars and by 1700 that slave was market value at 400 dollars.
I place those numbers here to refute that slaves were "cheap". To understand this, soldiers in the Civil War were paid under 20 dollars per month. That would be 240 dollars per year, and would fit with the times of farm hands and other occupations, where some did indeed like teachers or clergy, work for under 20 dollars with room and board, and some just worked to eat and sleep in a bed.
I located one quick source which stated the corn was 75 cents per bushel and corn was produced at 50 bushels per acre. That would be under 40 dollars per acre, and mean that to purchase a 400 dollar slave, it would require 10 acres of land, and in 40 acres and mule farming, that would be a small farmers entire crop for one year which was impossible.
Even if a farmer had 100 acres, that one slave would be 1/10th of the farmers income, and if you were forced to pay out 1/10 of what you earn even at 30,000 dollars in current rates you would not be pleased in that would be a great deal of money and you would not be in the habit of abusing or killing off of slaves you owned as you could not afford it.
That is what is interesting in the Cuban Bloodhounds in some reports speak of like the bulldog in the dogs throttling the slave by grabbing the throat which is what hold hounds are meant to accomplish on bulls in choking them off. For a human with major blood plumbing in the throat or the air channels, that would be a kill factor and once again no one with property is going to kill a slave if possible in recapture. The history reveals they were "sold down river" deeper into the South, as that once again is logical in economics in one would sell a problem animal and not just kill it for the loss.
In that these Cuban dogs would be mauling or worrying dogs by habit, as most hounds are, in it would make logical sense to have dogs which would chew on limbs, to not kill, but to disable and terrify, so the slave could be recaptured, and be taught a vital lesson like all herd animals not to leave the herd or Lassie will bite you in the flank.
twenty-four inches high, and thirty-six Inches long, (or thereabouts,) with a head, breast, fore-legs, and shoulders like a light-made mastiff, and snout somewhat elongated, ears erect, like a greyhound, (mostly cropped where they bend) and toes, croup haunches and tall like a greyhound, only thicker set. This combination, you may conceive, produces an animal of great nerve, strength and agility; and such, to all appearances, are these bloodhounds.
These were not massive dogs, and could not be due to the southern heat would kill a large and meaty dog. They were instead as by this description a medium sized dog, which could apparently scent track and run on trail for a number of miles in order to recapture a slave. It would be deemed a slave traveling at night would not make good time, and not be over 10 miles from starting point. On horse it would be not a difficult task for an overseer or owner to accomplish the recapture within 3 hours and in another 5 be home at sundown with Toby being a bloodied example for the other property to stay in their hut.
The short ear being telling of the breed in not using the long ear of the hound to gather in scent, but of necessity the short ear was bred to not be torn off in fighting dangerous game, and short ears could not be grabbed by humans to control the biting or worrying.
I have heard the European tales which were manufactured about how horrendous slave ships were in the huge death count. That would not economically make no sense and no investor or Captain would allow half his cargo to die, as that would mean half his profits would be gone.
Were slaves chained and confined? Most assuredly as would be a pig, and it would be certain the ship's interior would smell of human excrement, but as these were wild peoples, the cause for deaths would be looked for as in the Indian savage and not so savage Cherokee who were removed from their Carolina to beyond the Mississippi, where numbers expired, not from lack of food or shelter, but like a wild animal deprived of a "home vicinity" they expired in simply giving up.
The idea that half cargoes were delivered and that an entire new race of sharks were evolved in feeding off of dead slaves is ludicrous as if the slaves were dying, they would be drugged as opium was in large amounts and it was a cheap investment compared to a several hundred dollar dead slave.
All of this returns to the dogs which are of the old Eurasian bloodlines, and did exceptional service for a specific use. The above painting is fiction as such large dogs would have died of heat stroke in being used in the tropics, and lest you forget they had to be fed, and the propaganda that some slaves were fed to the dogs to keep them "on the bait" is again a fact that slaves were too expensive to abuse that way.
A small dog as described in the quote would be easier to feed and more able to chase down over long distances an escaped slave. It is why one does not see St. Bernards in dog sled packs as a large dog has no long distance value.
The reality is, the Indian was no doubt more predatory and experienced on his home territory, and possessing better long distance "wind" was able to deal better with tracking dogs, while the African who was not capable in the first place of not being caught in Africa, would not possess the ability to elude these dogs.
One can observe the American Afroid in the 21st century like their full blooded counterpart in Africa, does not have an affinity with dogs. In America, the black trends to dogs which are ugly in the pit bull type class, and those who are drawn to such breeds, not used in subduing bulls as that is illegal, are attracted to the power nature of the breed to make up for an inner weakness, much like bling or loud colors.
It is of note in this, that the black does indeed scent different as no cases of whites or Indians being savaged by mistake was ever noted. Yes the races do smell different and these Cuban dogs were bred race specific and were not like other hounds in running deer when fox was the quarry.
I do not consider this type a handsome dog, but then I do find beauty in the rough coated Irish Wolfhounds and the plodding redbones, blueticks and plotts.
I find it all interesting that humans took a wild dog and transformed it into so many diverse working and hunting groups in such a short time, by lethal methods that a puppy was killed when it did not exhibit the attributes desired which produced the breeds being ruined today by the American Kennel Club.
I do wonder though if a slave ever did kill one of these dogs in making an escape if the owner was more upset by a dead dog or a dead slave. I would conclude a dog which killed a slave was almost beaten to death for damaging property, and that a dog killed by a slave was soundly avenged as people today tend to be highly attached to their canines.
The Cuban was bred to respond to hunting human slaves and that would have been the only thing it gained delight from, like a Labrador in fetching ducks or a Blue Heeler biting cows hooves. So much of this is of interest in the dynamics of it all and will never be fully explored due to prejudice and bias on either the side of the slave or the dog..........
With no one actually comprehending if dogs can be bred to hunt people, then people can be bred to be an accepting slave class. God had to wipe out the Israelites in the first generation in being Egyptian slaves, as that is all they could accomplish as the warrior caste of Abraham had been bred out of them in captivity and they were longing to return to Egypt to be slaves as it was their natural psychology.
Consider all of this in what America was and what she is being bred to be.
agtG
