slaves in the south

[MaC]

How were slaves in the south really treated back in the 17th, 18th and first half of the 19th centuries in America.  I hear different things from different people.  What was day to day life like?  Did they really whip them?  What did they eat? What were the living quarters like for them?  What was the slave life expectancy?

Anyone who has answers to these questions, it'd be appreciated.

[PBrunsel]

Jefferson Davis's plantation treated them quite well.

Davis treated them with great respect. He never punbished a slave, but let those who seriously broke the rules stand trial with a jury of his slave peers. He could only lessen their punishment.

All of his slaves were fed well and given an education. All could read, write, and cypher to the rule of 3.

[A18]

All could read, write, a cypher to the rule of 3.

All could "a cypher" to the rule of 3? What does that mean?

[PBrunsel]

All could read, write, cypher to the rule of 3.

All could "a cypher" to the rule of 3? What does that mean?

Multiply to 3.

I see I put "a" before "cypher." Just a typo.

[A18]

Multiply to three? You mean multiply by three?

[Erc]

Slavery is only the most outwardly visible sign of the oppression of the proletariat in the United States...concentration on a 150-year-old problem, although serving as a reminder of what capitalism can lead to, has only detracted the proletariat from its own oppression--creating the nation of lumpenproletariat that we see today...

[Akno21]

Jefferson Davis's plantation treated them quite well.

Davis treated them with great respect. He never punbished a slave, but let those who seriously broke the rules stand trial with a jury of his slave peers. He could only lessen their punishment.

All of his slaves were fed well and given an education. All could read, write, and cypher to the rule of 3.

PBrunsel, while he may have treated them better than others, if he had "great respect" for them, wouldn't he not treat them property? All he did is good and fine, but they were still his property, and were still slaves. 

[PBrunsel]

Jefferson Davis's plantation treated them quite well.

Davis treated them with great respect. He never punbished a slave, but let those who seriously broke the rules stand trial with a jury of his slave peers. He could only lessen their punishment.

All of his slaves were fed well and given an education. All could read, write, and cypher to the rule of 3.

PBrunsel, while he may have treated them better than others, if he had "great respect" for them, wouldn't he not treat them property? All he did is good and fine, but they were still his property, and were still slaves. 

I don't condone that he owned slaves, I (having Quaker beliefs) would have worked Underground Railroad proababaly. I just wanted to point out that he tereated his slaves well, but he still treated as property, and that is disgustiting.

[Akno21]

Jefferson Davis's plantation treated them quite well.

Davis treated them with great respect. He never punbished a slave, but let those who seriously broke the rules stand trial with a jury of his slave peers. He could only lessen their punishment.

All of his slaves were fed well and given an education. All could read, write, and cypher to the rule of 3.

PBrunsel, while he may have treated them better than others, if he had "great respect" for them, wouldn't he not treat them property? All he did is good and fine, but they were still his property, and were still slaves. 

I don't condone that he owned slaves, I (having Quaker beliefs) would have worked Underground Railroad proababaly. I just wanted to point out that he tereated his slaves well, but he still treated as property, and that is disgustiting.

Ok, just checking you were sane on that one. The "he treated his slaves well" argument seems to me like hypothetically defending a school mass murderer because he murdered only adult teachers, and not the young children.

[dazzleman]

On the whole, slaves were treated poorly.  There may have been some more "enlightened" and paternalistic slaveowners who treated their slaves decently, but for the most part, it was a brutal life.

There was a distinction between a field slave and a house slave.  A house slave was generally better treated, and sometimes may have been the offspring of a master-slave relationship.  The house slaves were generally of lighter complexion than the field slaves.

It was illegal in many areas to teach a slave to read or write.  The idea was to keep them as ignorant as possible, to make it harder for them to escape, or to hope for anything better in life.

Families were often broken up when slaves were sold.  Children were sold away from their parents, and husbands away from their wives.  The legacy of these family breakups is often listed as one of the reasons for the largely deficient black family structure today.  I don't really buy that explanation fully, but I think there's some basis for it.

Many slaves were whipped if they didn't "behave."  It was perfectly OK for an owner to to that to his property.

I don't know any statistics about life expectancy, literacy or the like.

Overall, it was a hideous and brutal institution, notwithstanding the fact that a few slaveowners may have treated their slaves decently.

[??????????]

On the whole, slaves were treated poorly. 

Completely rubbish. But I am no longer debating this subject as most people here don't want to bother to look at basic facts.

[??????????]

On the whole, slaves were treated poorly.  There may have been some more "enlightened" and paternalistic slaveowners who treated their slaves decently, but for the most part, it was a brutal life.

Fallacy

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not true. It depended on the slave owner. Some slaves were educated. Especially house slaves. The slaves that were on the Lee Plantation could read and write.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Questionable.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not true

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Revisionism.

[MaC]

yeah, I thought that slaves getting whipped was something that Hollywood movies like Roots portrayed, but never really happened in real life.  I think the worst part was probably the boat ride over.  It was probably very cramped and disease spread easily.  There's no doubt slavery was a bad idea.  However some slaves were treated worse than others.

[Colin]

Jefferson Davis's plantation treated them quite well.

Davis treated them with great respect. He never punbished a slave, but let those who seriously broke the rules stand trial with a jury of his slave peers. He could only lessen their punishment.

All of his slaves were fed well and given an education. All could read, write, and cypher to the rule of 3.

PBrunsel, while he may have treated them better than others, if he had "great respect" for them, wouldn't he not treat them property? All he did is good and fine, but they were still his property, and were still slaves. 

I don't condone that he owned slaves, I (having Quaker beliefs) would have worked Underground Railroad proababaly. I just wanted to point out that he tereated his slaves well, but he still treated as property, and that is disgustiting.

You're a Quaker? No wonder you hate alcohol.

[??????????]

yeah, I thought that slaves getting whipped was something that Hollywood movies like Roots portrayed, but never really happened in real life.  I think the worst part was probably the boat ride over.  It was probably very cramped and disease spread easily.  There's no doubt slavery was a bad idea.  However some slaves were treated worse than others.

Well, some slaves certainly were whipped. Although that punishment was not actually uncommon in the 18th & 19th century. Sailors and Army soldiers often were whipped as a form of punishment.

[minionofmidas]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Questionable.

I`d certainly expect that to have an effect, yes.
Dred Scott was separated that way from his first wife and their children.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not true
[/quote]It was certainly "totally okay" in the sense that it was widely spread and legal. It was not "totally okay" in the sense that all slaveholders approved of it. Not all did. (And even of those who did, many preferred this dirty work to happen out of their eyesight.)