Slavery

[dazzleman]

There are good aspects only if you owned slaves.

Overall, the economic benefit was negative, as a large chunk of the population was denied economic equal opportunity.

Very true.  The south suffered greatly economically from slavery and its aftermath.  Anytime you deliberately impoverish a large segment of your population, there will be a large negative economic impact.  Illogical discrimination is always very short-sighted and against the greater good, and the condition of the south during and for 100 years after slavery is good proof of that.

[John Dibble]

My first instinct was just to put 'No' but I decided to think about it. The real answer depends on what you mean by 'good aspects' and is between option 4 and 5 accordingly.

Philisophically, slavery is never a good thing, so from a purely philisophical stance I say purely NO.

Now, if 'good aspects' means benefits somebody, then yes. Of course, this is like saying tyranny has good aspects, because it benefits the tyrant.

What it ultimately came down to for me was did have benefits for humanity as a whole. I really had to think on this. I came up leaning towards no good aspects. It certainly did define the economy of the South, but what would the South had been like if there never were slaves, but instead paid labor? Well, I would think that technology would have advanced much faster - slaves are virtually free labor, you pay once(you don't even have to do that if you breed them) and then you only have to feed them cheap food, so there is little need to reduce labor costs. In a system where people are paid to do work, there is greater incentive to invent machines to reduce the amount of workers needed. Slavery also slowed down the mental development of a good deal of the population - an educated society generally advances faster, and slavery prohibited that.

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

Option 4.

I hope you aren't serious.

Yes their definately were good aspects to slavery. The main one being free labor. I don't advocate re-institution of slavery or anything but their are good aspects to it.

I guess if you're the one getting the free labor, it's a good aspect, but if you're the one providing free labor, while being beaten and having your family sold, then I guess it's a different matter.

I think the term good aspect is supposed to mean that it advances the overall good, not simply the good of one side of the transaction.  That's like saying robbery has good aspects because the robber gets money.

     I believe most modern americans are wholly ignorant on how they view slavery and how it actually was. Slavery is a very complicated issue and it is not black and white and all the same. The conditions of slavery varied very much from plantation to plantation and state to state. Their was a very very well established social heirarchy throughout the south at the time and to get into this "club" you had to meet certain requirements. Among these requirements would be, marital status, bloodline, social status, etc. It was almost like feudalism. For example, the majority of slave owners in the south owned fewer then 5 slaves on average. Now the condition in which these slaves had it was often very very good. The "owners" would often work side by side with the slave and usually live in conjoined houses or right next door. The ownership situation would pretty much be forgotten and their children would often play together and very often they would both be educated.

     Now it started to get a little more seperate in the "middle class" level of slave owner. This is the category most of my wifes ancestors fell under. They were middle size farm owners (plantations were much larger) who often owned only a few hundred acres at the most. They often owned 200-500 slaves maximum. The "owners" often oversaw the fields and the workers. Family ties were close but the gap was more noticeable then the "lower class" slave owner. Slaves were still feed and clothed pretty good, as best the family could afford, but often they would suffer w/the family when crops failed and the like. These "middle class" owners were often looked down upon by the richer owners, though they were not considered "white trash" by the wealthier planters they would often avoid associating to much with them.

     The third class of "owner" was the very rich owner. They owned large plantations (often thousands of acres in size) and often owned two to three farms. You can compare these types to the hollywood elite or multi millionares. To them farming was far above sustinance and was a true and outright business. For an example of these types you may want to read about Wade Hampton. He was the largest owner in the south and owned over 5,000 slaves and six plantations. The culture among these super rich was very very closed much like the monarchies of Europe. People often talk about "beating slaves" and the like. Although I can not deny this did happen it was a rather rare thing. The upper class looked down on masters who beat their slaves or ordered them to be beat for no reason. I have read several accounts in which rich owners were shunned by the other elites for severe abuse.

     The reason slaves were beat would be for severe disobedience or trying to run away. Now beatings are very very cruel but one must understand that corporal punishment of this nature was COMMON in the 19th century and not wholly reserved for slaves. Naval captains often punished sailors by keel hulling them. That is the process in which a rope was tied to the feet of a sailor and he was drug on the bottom of the ship while it was sailing.

     Choice slaves (those who had gained their masters favor) were often given many priviledges that other slaves were forbidden. Often the master would loan him/her to a neighboring plantation to help out with extra work and often these choice slaves were paid small amounts of cash for their extra work. In the 19th century slave children started recieving educations often on the plantations and their are well documented cases of slaves doing paperwork (financial, etc) for the master. Some slaves were often allowed to use rifles to hunt with and to help defend the plantation against Indian attacks and the like.

Well I could go on and on but I'll stop now. I probably have two or three more posts like this of what I've learned. Next up...housing.

[Bono]

Philisophically, slavery is never a good thing, so from a purely philisophical stance I say purely NO.

I disagree. Slavery is good as a form of punishment, and since one owns one body, one can sell himself as a slave. I think the proper thing to say is "forced slavery", though this may sound oxymoronic, is immoral.

[A18]

It doesn't sound oxymoronic at all. The very opposite; I think you meant redundant.

[J. J.]

It doesn't sound oxymoronic at all. The very opposite; I think you meant redundant.

Not necessarily redundent.  There were cases where people did sell themselves into slavery.

[John Dibble]

Philisophically, slavery is never a good thing, so from a purely philisophical stance I say purely NO.

I disagree. Slavery is good as a form of punishment, and since one owns one body, one can sell himself as a slave. I think the proper thing to say is "forced slavery", though this may sound oxymoronic, is immoral.

1. Forced labor for a crime is not slavery - involuntary servitude perhaps, but not slavery. I don't think the difference is easily explained in words, I'm sure you get my meaning, but I'll try anyways. A criminal who is being 'enslaved' for his crime is being forced to take responsibility for their actions. A slave, in the sense we are talking about, is owned by someone else for an arbitrary reason - race, being born to a slave, and anything else that really isn't their fault.

2. A person who sells themself into the service of another isn't a slave. They are voluntary servants.

3. You know we're talking about involuntary servitude in the form of one person owning another person.

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

I guess no one read my longwinded post

[John Dibble]

I guess no one read my longwinded post

I did. You're right about the punishments in the Navy. Listened to an audio documentary about an exploratory expidention the Navy did in the late 1830's and early 1840's, and the commander punished his men pretty bad sometimes - 20 lashes each for three guys once.

[phk]

I support Slavery.

[JohnFKennedy]

Don't forget, slavery built most of those nice grand buildings in Washington.....

[J. J.]

I guess no one read my longwinded post

I did too.

[patrick1]

     I believe most modern americans are wholly ignorant on how they view slavery and how it actually was. Slavery is a very complicated issue and it is not black and white and all the same. The conditions of slavery varied very much from plantation to plantation and state to state. Their was a very very well established social heirarchy throughout the south at the time and to get into this "club" you had to meet certain requirements. Among these requirements would be, marital status, bloodline, social status, etc. It was almost like feudalism. For example, the majority of slave owners in the south owned fewer then 5 slaves on average. Now the condition in which these slaves had it was often very very good. The "owners" would often work side by side with the slave and usually live in conjoined houses or right next door. The ownership situation would pretty much be forgotten and their children would often play together and very often they would both be educated.

     Now it started to get a little more seperate in the "middle class" level of slave owner. This is the category most of my wifes ancestors fell under. They were middle size farm owners (plantations were much larger) who often owned only a few hundred acres at the most. They often owned 200-500 slaves maximum. The "owners" often oversaw the fields and the workers. Family ties were close but the gap was more noticeable then the "lower class" slave owner. Slaves were still feed and clothed pretty good, as best the family could afford, but often they would suffer w/the family when crops failed and the like. These "middle class" owners were often looked down upon by the richer owners, though they were not considered "white trash" by the wealthier planters they would often avoid associating to much with them.

     The third class of "owner" was the very rich owner. They owned large plantations (often thousands of acres in size) and often owned two to three farms. You can compare these types to the hollywood elite or multi millionares. To them farming was far above sustinance and was a true and outright business. For an example of these types you may want to read about Wade Hampton. He was the largest owner in the south and owned over 5,000 slaves and six plantations. The culture among these super rich was very very closed much like the monarchies of Europe. People often talk about "beating slaves" and the like. Although I can not deny this did happen it was a rather rare thing. The upper class looked down on masters who beat their slaves or ordered them to be beat for no reason. I have read several accounts in which rich owners were shunned by the other elites for severe abuse.

     The reason slaves were beat would be for severe disobedience or trying to run away. Now beatings are very very cruel but one must understand that corporal punishment of this nature was COMMON in the 19th century and not wholly reserved for slaves. Naval captains often punished sailors by keel hulling them. That is the process in which a rope was tied to the feet of a sailor and he was drug on the bottom of the ship while it was sailing.

     Choice slaves (those who had gained their masters favor) were often given many priviledges that other slaves were forbidden. Often the master would loan him/her to a neighboring plantation to help out with extra work and often these choice slaves were paid small amounts of cash for their extra work. In the 19th century slave children started recieving educations often on the plantations and their are well documented cases of slaves doing paperwork (financial, etc) for the master. Some slaves were often allowed to use rifles to hunt with and to help defend the plantation against Indian attacks and the like.

Well I could go on and on but I'll stop now. I probably have two or three more posts like this of what I've learned. Next up...housing.

Yes I read it and had visions of Margaret Mitchell running through my head.^^^  While I agree with some of your suppositions, I took a dim view of the general approach and tone.  You stated that most Americans are wholly ignorant of slavery and "how it actually was"- I don't think any of us 21st century netizens can truly understand what it means to be stripped of our identity, rights and have our families split up, divided and sold.  Be barred by law from learning how to read, travel, own a dog-every aspect of one's existence legislated and harsh punishment meted out for any infraction.  You said some slaves had it very very good.  This may be true materialy but it totally disregards the crushing spiritual pain inflicted on a human being that is no more than property.  Many dogs have it good too- they are well fed- a roof is put over their heads.  Human beings require more than the these material comforts.  Some slaves were given special treatment and priviledges- throwing their dog a bone.  The whole system of slavery was designed to dehumanize the slaves and treat them as mere animals. 
There were some good slave owners and some evil ones but they were all masters profiting off the ill gotten toil of other human beings.  I'll stop rambling now- I just feel you are being a little too apologetic and glossing over an appaling institution.

[J. J.]

I'm going to withhold judgment and let StatesRights finish his missive.

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

I'm going to withhold judgment and let StatesRights finish his missive.

No, I'd like to hear what you have to say?

[J. J.]

I'm going to withhold judgment and let StatesRights finish his missive.

No, I'd like to hear what you have to say?

Well, first of all, pardon the pun, is not black and white.

As I pointed previously, some people did voluntarily sell themselves into slavery.  There is a Historical Marker on Christian Street in South Philadelphia showing one of the oldest Black Baptist Churches in the US.  There first pastor freed only when two of the church's free members agreed  to sell themselves to purchase his freedom.

Second, an old girlfriend of mine has photos of her family from the 1870 on her wall; some them were White, some are Black.  I ask her about it once.  Even after the Civil War, the family stayed together; they entered business together and operated a lumber mill.  Some of her "Black" relatives still own the land that was left to them.  In that respect, yes, in some cases at least, it like what you describe, especially with small farmers.

Now, I can make an intellectual argument that, in a totally free society, someone should be able to sell themselves into slavery.  I will add that this was not the case in the American South in the 19th Century.

You've posted you photo, so I know what you look like.  Living in a state where you live, where "slavery" was perfectly legal, you could not have legally sold yourself into slavery.  What you had there was something else where slavery was not based on your free choice as a free person, but on something else.  Basically, the law said, "You could not be a slave unless you had a certain ancestry." 

I cannot see how that can be divorced from the issue.  Even if every slave ever held in the United States entered slavery voluntarily and if every slave was treated as you suggest the lower and middle class owners treated their slaves (and I suspect that might have been the rule), it still doesn't make up for the fact that it was tied to ancestry.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Of course it was! It was fabulous having all those dirty little jungle bunnies do our work for us.

HAHAHAHA very nice, that funny

truth be told if we hadnt enslaved them theyd still be the savages they were, (not they any progress has been made in africa)

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Of course it was! It was fabulous having all those dirty little jungle bunnies do our work for us.

HAHAHAHA very nice, thats funny

truth be told if we hadnt enslaved them theyd still be the savages they were, (not that any progress has been made in africa)

im afraid states, that you are quite outnumbered by the textbook drones on this poll

voted option 4

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

Of course it was! It was fabulous having all those dirty little jungle bunnies do our work for us.

HAHAHAHA very nice, thats funny

truth be told if we hadnt enslaved them theyd still be the savages they were, (not that any progress has been made in africa)

im afraid states, that you are quite outnumbered by the textbook drones on this poll

voted option 4

Yes, it really is sad that most modern people have no historical open mindness.

[J. J.]

Well StatesRights, you did ask.   Any response?

[Nation]

Of course it was! It was fabulous having all those dirty little jungle bunnies do our work for us.

HAHAHAHA very nice, thats funny

truth be told if we hadnt enslaved them theyd still be the savages they were, (not that any progress has been made in africa)

im afraid states, that you are quite outnumbered by the textbook drones on this poll

voted option 4

Since when it is wrong to think that NOTHING was right with slavery? Everything about it was horrible.

[Smash255]

Of course it was! It was fabulous having all those dirty little jungle bunnies do our work for us.

HAHAHAHA very nice, thats funny

truth be told if we hadnt enslaved them theyd still be the savages they were, (not that any progress has been made in africa)

im afraid states, that you are quite outnumbered by the textbook drones on this poll

voted option 4

Since when it is wrong to think that NOTHING was right with slavery? Everything about it was horrible.

And states wonders why some people think he is a racist.

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

Of course it was! It was fabulous having all those dirty little jungle bunnies do our work for us.

HAHAHAHA very nice, thats funny

truth be told if we hadnt enslaved them theyd still be the savages they were, (not that any progress has been made in africa)

im afraid states, that you are quite outnumbered by the textbook drones on this poll

voted option 4

Since when it is wrong to think that NOTHING was right with slavery? Everything about it was horrible.

And states wonders why some people think he is a racist.

Go read a real history book before you label me racist ok? See thats why I don't waste time having historical debates with you people. You automatically label anyone a "racist" or "bigot". This sh*t really aint even worthy my time with all the name calling anymore.

[Smash255]

Of course it was! It was fabulous having all those dirty little jungle bunnies do our work for us.

HAHAHAHA very nice, thats funny

truth be told if we hadnt enslaved them theyd still be the savages they were, (not that any progress has been made in africa)

im afraid states, that you are quite outnumbered by the textbook drones on this poll

voted option 4

Since when it is wrong to think that NOTHING was right with slavery? Everything about it was horrible.

And states wonders why some people think he is a racist.

Go read a real history book before you label me racist ok? See thats why I don't waste time having historical debates with you people. You automatically label anyone a "racist" or "bigot". This sh*t really aint even worthy my time with all the name calling anymore.

First off I majored in History so I have done a helluva alot of reading research & I do know what I am talking about.  Slavery was not nearly as good a you make it out to be.  While SOME owners treated their slaves well, it wasn't a majority of them.  Also the whole issue of not having any rights, not being allowed to read or write, and being treated as PROPERTY.  Having a whole race of people treated as second-class citizens with no rights & as property, is HORRIFIC.

I'm sorry, but in my book, anyone who thinks holding an entire race of people basically as hostages, giving them absolutley no rights, treating them as mere property was beneficial to society is a racist.  When you do your reading do you look at ALL sorces or do you just look at sources partial to the old Confederacy??  Do you every look at old slave stories from the slaves themselves??  Or do you block all the bad ones out & only look at the slaves that were treated well??  (Which is basically an oxymoron anyway, but you get the point,)

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

Of course it was! It was fabulous having all those dirty little jungle bunnies do our work for us.

HAHAHAHA very nice, thats funny

truth be told if we hadnt enslaved them theyd still be the savages they were, (not that any progress has been made in africa)

im afraid states, that you are quite outnumbered by the textbook drones on this poll

voted option 4

Since when it is wrong to think that NOTHING was right with slavery? Everything about it was horrible.

And states wonders why some people think he is a racist.

Go read a real history book before you label me racist ok? See thats why I don't waste time having historical debates with you people. You automatically label anyone a "racist" or "bigot". This sh*t really aint even worthy my time with all the name calling anymore.

Slavery was not nearly as good a you make it out to be.  While SOME owners treated their slaves well, it wasn't a majority of them.

First off as I've stated before that assumption is incorrect.

If you ever listened to the tapes of Ex slaves done by the WPA in the 1930s you would soon learn some facts about slavery. I'm positive you have never even heard of or heard the recordings. The only books I ignore are those who were published by northern publishers and certain historians which have been discredited. Stephen Ambrose and Shelby Foote are two which I consider to have been discredited.