Slavery

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

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/snhtml/snintro00.html

Here is a site about the WPA slave study.

[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.

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.

i'm assuming then you would think equally if the blacks were the slave owners & the whites (your ancestors) were the slaves in those conditions???  Treated as property, not having the right to vote, not having the right to read or write, famlies split up.  You would have no problem with this??

[Gabu]

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)

And if World War 2 had never happened, women might still be viewed as inferior to men and disallowed from having the same jobs as men.

That doesn't really mean that World War 2 was a good thing overall, though.

[J. J.]

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.

States, I have not called you a "racist" or "bigot" (on this thread).  And I have also pointed out that, some relationships were more thatn master and slave.

That, however, doesn't change the fact that this was still a race based or ancestry based system.  If we were looking at a system that wasn't raced based, your points would be much more valid.  In 1500, while there were numerous "unfree" people, there was no race based slave system in Western culture; there never had been.

I've also heard one of those WPA tapes where the former slave said if he had to back to slavery, he'd rather be killed.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

There are three main points I'd like to make here, the latter of which takes precedence in my mind.

1. Slavery in the eighteenth and nineteenth century was a normal occurence.  Just shows you how far we've come in the last 100 years.  It is indeed a national shame, but it is not a point that either the descendants of slaves or slaveholders should belabor.  It's simply not that difficult to find injustices committed on almost every race of people on the planet.. even to this day.

2.  Left-wing ideology has murdered more human beings than any heartless slaveholder even dreamed of.   6 million slaves were brought to the US between 1492 and 1776, while Stalin alone murdered at least 40 million.  If we're going to talk about crimes against humanity, start here.

3. I look upon any attempt to justify or look upon slavery with any fondness as....well... horrifyingly inappropriate.  Finding merits with slavery is like finding merits with the holocaust, Communism, or any other great evil committed upon humanity.  It is amazing to me that the same individuals who find gay marriage to be the greatest evil of all time actually wish to find merits with human enslavement.  Slavery is evil and evil has no merit.

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

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.

i'm assuming then you would think equally if the blacks were the slave owners & the whites (your ancestors) were the slaves in those conditions???  Treated as property, not having the right to vote, not having the right to read or write, famlies split up.  You would have no problem with this??

Assuming that slavery fell under one "fact" is intelluctual dishonesty. Every plantation in every state throughout the south had different conditions. My wifes ancestors wrote in their diaries how they treated their slaves and how their slaves were and it was not "horrific beatings, rapes, split families" like you assume ALL slavery was.

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.

States, I have not called you a "racist" or "bigot" (on this thread).  And I have also pointed out that, some relationships were more thatn master and slave.

That, however, doesn't change the fact that this was still a race based or ancestry based system.  If we were looking at a system that wasn't raced based, your points would be much more valid.  In 1500, while there were numerous "unfree" people, there was no race based slave system in Western culture; there never had been.

I've also heard one of those WPA tapes where the former slave said if he had to back to slavery, he'd rather be killed.

JJ,

I guess I can see your point about race based slavery. But you must look to the fact that the north had race based slavery as well. How the Irish were treated was just as bad and probably worse then how southern slaves were treated. Yes, I know you can give me an argument that the Irish were somehow "free" but I have yet to see much evidence that immigrant Irish could just walk up and leave the factory they were bound to. Like I told smash255 every condition was different. You may have heard that on one tape but I have also heard several tapes in which the slaves were angry at the north destroying their homes and the plantations they were on. I do not advocate re-instituting slavery and I do think it was a terrible thing. But to just point the blame on the south and close your mind and accept what the schools teach blindly with out any thought or research into other views is just ridiculous in my opinion.

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

There are three main points I'd like to make here, the latter of which takes precedence in my mind.

1. Slavery in the eighteenth and nineteenth century was a normal occurence.  Just shows you how far we've come in the last 100 years.  It is indeed a national shame, but it is not a point that either the descendants of slaves or slaveholders should belabor.  It's simply not that difficult to find injustices committed on almost every race of people on the planet.. even to this day.

2.  Left-wing ideology has murdered more human beings than any heartless slaveholder even dreamed of.   6 million slaves were brought to the US between 1492 and 1776, while Stalin alone murdered at least 40 million.  If we're going to talk about crimes against humanity, start here.

3. I look upon any attempt to justify or look upon slavery with any fondness as....well... horrifyingly inappropriate.  Finding merits with slavery is like finding merits with the holocaust, Communism, or any other great evil committed upon humanity.  It is amazing to me that the same individuals who find gay marriage to be the greatest evil of all time actually wish to find merits with human enslavement.  Slavery is evil and evil has no merit.

I agree with you up until the third part. Why even bother having historians or debates if somehow taking the opposite view is "evil" "wrong" or whatever buzz word you want?

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Evil is not a buzzword, it is a term that describes great injustice against humanity.  There is no point in a historian debating the merits of evil.

There are three main points I'd like to make here, the latter of which takes precedence in my mind.

1. Slavery in the eighteenth and nineteenth century was a normal occurence.  Just shows you how far we've come in the last 100 years.  It is indeed a national shame, but it is not a point that either the descendants of slaves or slaveholders should belabor.  It's simply not that difficult to find injustices committed on almost every race of people on the planet.. even to this day.

2.  Left-wing ideology has murdered more human beings than any heartless slaveholder even dreamed of.   6 million slaves were brought to the US between 1492 and 1776, while Stalin alone murdered at least 40 million.  If we're going to talk about crimes against humanity, start here.

3. I look upon any attempt to justify or look upon slavery with any fondness as....well... horrifyingly inappropriate.  Finding merits with slavery is like finding merits with the holocaust, Communism, or any other great evil committed upon humanity.  It is amazing to me that the same individuals who find gay marriage to be the greatest evil of all time actually wish to find merits with human enslavement.  Slavery is evil and evil has no merit.

I agree with you up until the third part. Why even bother having historians or debates if somehow taking the opposite view is "evil" "wrong" or whatever buzz word you want?

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

Evil is not a buzzword, it is a term that describes great injustice against humanity.  There is no point in a historian debating the merits of evil.

There are three main points I'd like to make here, the latter of which takes precedence in my mind.

1. Slavery in the eighteenth and nineteenth century was a normal occurence.  Just shows you how far we've come in the last 100 years.  It is indeed a national shame, but it is not a point that either the descendants of slaves or slaveholders should belabor.  It's simply not that difficult to find injustices committed on almost every race of people on the planet.. even to this day.

2.  Left-wing ideology has murdered more human beings than any heartless slaveholder even dreamed of.   6 million slaves were brought to the US between 1492 and 1776, while Stalin alone murdered at least 40 million.  If we're going to talk about crimes against humanity, start here.

3. I look upon any attempt to justify or look upon slavery with any fondness as....well... horrifyingly inappropriate.  Finding merits with slavery is like finding merits with the holocaust, Communism, or any other great evil committed upon humanity.  It is amazing to me that the same individuals who find gay marriage to be the greatest evil of all time actually wish to find merits with human enslavement.  Slavery is evil and evil has no merit.

I agree with you up until the third part. Why even bother having historians or debates if somehow taking the opposite view is "evil" "wrong" or whatever buzz word you want?

Why does it have to be "merits". Like I said I don't want to re-institute slavery. But it is worthy of debate just like any historical debate. You have to have people debating both sides of the story or else we can start talking about "brainwashing" and "whitewashing" history.  I do not debate reasons why to reinstitute slavery. I debate to dispell obvious MYTHS of slavery.

[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.

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.

i'm assuming then you would think equally if the blacks were the slave owners & the whites (your ancestors) were the slaves in those conditions???  Treated as property, not having the right to vote, not having the right to read or write, famlies split up.  You would have no problem with this??

Assuming that slavery fell under one "fact" is intelluctual dishonesty. Every plantation in every state throughout the south had different conditions. My wifes ancestors wrote in their diaries how they treated their slaves and how their slaves were and it was not "horrific beatings, rapes, split families" like you assume ALL slavery was.

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.

States, I have not called you a "racist" or "bigot" (on this thread).  And I have also pointed out that, some relationships were more thatn master and slave.

That, however, doesn't change the fact that this was still a race based or ancestry based system.  If we were looking at a system that wasn't raced based, your points would be much more valid.  In 1500, while there were numerous "unfree" people, there was no race based slave system in Western culture; there never had been.

I've also heard one of those WPA tapes where the former slave said if he had to back to slavery, he'd rather be killed.

JJ,

I guess I can see your point about race based slavery. But you must look to the fact that the north had race based slavery as well. How the Irish were treated was just as bad and probably worse then how southern slaves were treated. Yes, I know you can give me an argument that the Irish were somehow "free" but I have yet to see much evidence that immigrant Irish could just walk up and leave the factory they were bound to. Like I told smash255 every condition was different. You may have heard that on one tape but I have also heard several tapes in which the slaves were angry at the north destroying their homes and the plantations they were on. I do not advocate re-instituting slavery and I do think it was a terrible thing. But to just point the blame on the south and close your mind and accept what the schools teach blindly with out any thought or research into other views is just ridiculous in my opinion.

you might be able to make the point that "SOME" slaves were better off than "SOME" white Irish immigrants in the north all in all that argument holds little.

Now every slave case was diffeerent, some were treated decently ( I'm not going to say well because their is no such thing as a slave being treated well).  While life for the average slave wasn't all beatings, rape & torture that was much more freequet amont black slaves in the south than Irish immigrants in the north.

Bottom line these people had NO RIGHTS, NOTHING, they were not even allowed to read or write.  They were born into the slavestyle for the sole reason of the color of their skin.  Thats just WRONG in every sense of the word.

I'm not belittling the problems the irish faced in the north (I'm a mutt, but do have Irish ansecstors that came to New York in the 1800's and life was hard no question.  However that doesn't compare to the lives slaves led. even with all slaves not being beaten & totured, even those who had the so called "good" masters were worse off than those Irish immigrants in the north.

Anyway my question still remains.  Would your feelings towards slavery be any different if instead of White's owning everything in the south during the 1800's and blacks being the slaves.  It was blacks that owned everything in the south and whites including your ancestors were those that were slaves for the sole reason that they were white.  that they had no rights, weren't allowed to read & white, and some of them may have had "good' owners who treated them with respect and pretty well some of they may have also had "bad" owners who totured them, and as a whole in society they were thought as "property"  Would your feelings on slavery be any different then???

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Would your feelings on slavery be any different then???

States would be advocating reparations and celebrating a Marxist holiday instead of Christmas.

[J. J.]

JJ,

I guess I can see your point about race based slavery. But you must look to the fact that the north had race based slavery as well. How the Irish were treated was just as bad and probably worse then how southern slaves were treated. Yes, I know you can give me an argument that the Irish were somehow "free" but I have yet to see much evidence that immigrant Irish could just walk up and leave the factory they were bound to. Like I told smash255 every condition was different. You may have heard that on one tape but I have also heard several tapes in which the slaves were angry at the north destroying their homes and the plantations they were on. I do not advocate re-instituting slavery and I do think it was a terrible thing. But to just point the blame on the south and close your mind and accept what the schools teach blindly with out any thought or research into other views is just ridiculous in my opinion.

States, I do not disagree with you that some slaves were well treated and were treated better than some Irish.  The Irish, however, were not bound.  The could leave for another job (as JFK's great grandmother did).  True there was indentured servitude in the Colonial Period and even to the early 1800's but not beyond that.  See:  http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_045000_indenturedse.htm

Further, indentured servants could not marry and produce children (in theory at least) without their master's consent.  The children were not indentured.  This was not the condition of slavery.

I also wouldn't classify this a being closed minded.  I can remember a history lesson on Uncle Tom's Cabin.  It was pointed out that one the objections slave owners had that they would never treat their slaves that way, because doing would damage their property.  I don't subscribe to the notion that all of slavery was "horrific beatings, rapes, and split families." (And don't ge me started on why slavery is not genocide.)  I'm not, however, seeing that as the major objection here.

Slavery robbed millions of freedom of choice, even if the slaves were well cared for; that is the point.  Further, to justify it, it was necessary to create a myth that it's subjects somehow deserved to be slaves, either by a lack of being human, or of being unintelligent enough to need to be cared for.  All of those things outweigh any benefits.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

4 people voted for choice #1? We've got the pro-slavery wing of the Republican party.

[J. J.]

4 people voted for choice #1? We've got the pro-slavery wing of the Republican party.

Well jFRAUD the only party that every had a proslavery wing was Democratic party, as in Senator Jefferson Davis (D-MS).

[Democratic Hawk]

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.

For me, the best aspect was the fact that owners had a moral obligation for their slaves welfare. I admired the paternalistic nature of such a society. Other than that, I don't like the concept of slavery too much

Dave

[J. J.]

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.

For me, the best aspect was the fact that owners had a moral obligation for their slaves welfare. I admired the paternalistic nature of such a society. Other than that, I don't like the concept of slavery too much

Dave

For me, you have hit the problem with slavery, as it existed in the South.  It had an underlying assumption that owners were in the "father" position and slaves were the "child" position.

What made that determination?  Who your ancestors were and how much melenin was in your skin.  Even if the "father" treated the "child" well, they was never a chance to change this relationship.

[patrick1]

As I mentioned before, IMO, the slave relationship was more master-pet (when an owner was "good") or master-animal.  The entriched slave system was designed to strip the slave of their humanity.  The whole paternalistic aspect is a transplant of the English system who saw it as their duty to save the savage Scots, Irish, Welsh and later Indians and Africans from themselves.

[J. J.]

As I mentioned before, IMO, the slave relationship was more master-pet (when an owner was "good") or master-animal.  The entriched slave system was designed to strip the slave of their humanity.  The whole paternalistic aspect is a transplant of the English system who saw it as their duty to save the savage Scots, Irish, Welsh and later Indians and Africans from themselves.

I tend to agree.  I'm going quote something that States said:

     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.

I agree with States statements here.  The south was not as depicted in Uncle Tom's Cabin.  From what I learned in history, slavery was less brutal in the US than it was in South America, for example.  A slave had a better chance of surviving in the US (even when they were colonies) than they did accross the rest of the hemisphere.

Slaves were, as slaves, a valuable asset.  It didn't make too much sense for the owner to damage that asset.  I would use the analogy of an automobile.  To use it, you have to put gas in it and maintain it.

That better treatment does not justify its existence on the basis of the system.  It is this "paternalistic" or "Owner-Pet" relationship.  To justify it, as a race/ancestery based system, you basically have to assume that the race of the master makes him superior to the slave; there is no reason to be paternalistic with an equal.  That, not the treatment of slaves, is the underlying problem with the system.  I would further argue that the reason why this "paternalistic view" developed was to justify the holding of slaves.  It was, basically, "They can't take of themselves, so we're going to help them."  It came as a shock to realize that they could really manage just fine without a master.

I would argue that it was this "view" that led to segregation and and to racial conflict today.

[Smash255]

Would your feelings on slavery be any different then???

States would be advocating reparations and celebrating a Marxist holiday instead of Christmas.

The fact that states has failed to respond to my question about would he view slavery the same if it was the blacks that owned slaves and his white ancestors that were the slaves speaks volumes

[Redefeatbush04]

4 people voted for choice #1? We've got the pro-slavery wing of the Republican party.

Well jFRAUD the only party that every had a proslavery wing was Democratic party, as in Senator Jefferson Davis (D-MS).

Ya JFERN. The south will never go republican!!! Oh wait......

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

Would your feelings on slavery be any different then???

States would be advocating reparations and celebrating a Marxist holiday instead of Christmas.

The fact that states has failed to respond to my question about would he view slavery the same if it was the blacks that owned slaves and his white ancestors that were the slaves speaks volumes

That fact that I didn't respond was because I just spent 12 hours at work.

To answer your question. It would really depend on the socio-economic condition, my intelligence and general interest in the subject. If I was the common everyday black american I would probably be anti-white and fighting white StatesRights tooth and nail. But perhaps if I was a better educated black person I may feel differently or agree with myself. And for the record I do know quite a few well educated blacks that somewhat either agree with my position or can at least understand my position without automatically assuming I hate all blacks.

As I mentioned before, IMO, the slave relationship was more master-pet (when an owner was "good") or master-animal.  The entriched slave system was designed to strip the slave of their humanity.  The whole paternalistic aspect is a transplant of the English system who saw it as their duty to save the savage Scots, Irish, Welsh and later Indians and Africans from themselves.

I tend to agree. I'm going quote something that States said:

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.

I agree with States statements here. The south was not as depicted in Uncle Tom's Cabin. From what I learned in history, slavery was less brutal in the US than it was in South America, for example. A slave had a better chance of surviving in the US (even when they were colonies) than they did accross the rest of the hemisphere.

Slaves were, as slaves, a valuable asset. It didn't make too much sense for the owner to damage that asset. I would use the analogy of an automobile. To use it, you have to put gas in it and maintain it.

That better treatment does not justify its existence on the basis of the system. It is this "paternalistic" or "Owner-Pet" relationship. To justify it, as a race/ancestery based system, you basically have to assume that the race of the master makes him superior to the slave; there is no reason to be paternalistic with an equal. That, not the treatment of slaves, is the underlying problem with the system. I would further argue that the reason why this "paternalistic view" developed was to justify the holding of slaves. It was, basically, "They can't take of themselves, so we're going to help them." It came as a shock to realize that they could really manage just fine without a master.

I would argue that it was this "view" that led to segregation and and to racial conflict today.

J.J.,

I agree with you a lot on this. I have used the analogy often of a horse. If you owned a horse and it kicked down your fence or tried to run away you wouldn't beat the snot out of it because it's your property. People today don't understand how very expensive slaves were. The average field hand ran 500-800 dollars for a 22-25 year old male. Younger males 15-20ish would often go up well over 1000 dollars which in 21st century money is about 10 times that amount.

Also, I must add that in this period the economic class structures were very very  distinct. Poor whites (Po'white trash, as they were called) were often treated with as much respect or often much less then slaves. They were considered a lower form of human and were often run off their land by the wealthy.

[Smash255]

Would your feelings on slavery be any different then???

States would be advocating reparations and celebrating a Marxist holiday instead of Christmas.

The fact that states has failed to respond to my question about would he view slavery the same if it was the blacks that owned slaves and his white ancestors that were the slaves speaks volumes

That fact that I didn't respond was because I just spent 12 hours at work.

To answer your question. It would really depend on the socio-economic condition, my intelligence and general interest in the subject. If I was the common everyday black american I would probably be anti-white and fighting white StatesRights tooth and nail. But perhaps if I was a better educated black person I may feel differently or agree with myself. And for the record I do know quite a few well educated blacks that somewhat either agree with my position or can at least understand my position without automatically assuming I hate all blacks.

As I mentioned before, IMO, the slave relationship was more master-pet (when an owner was "good") or master-animal.  The entriched slave system was designed to strip the slave of their humanity.  The whole paternalistic aspect is a transplant of the English system who saw it as their duty to save the savage Scots, Irish, Welsh and later Indians and Africans from themselves.

I tend to agree. I'm going quote something that States said:

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.

I agree with States statements here. The south was not as depicted in Uncle Tom's Cabin. From what I learned in history, slavery was less brutal in the US than it was in South America, for example. A slave had a better chance of surviving in the US (even when they were colonies) than they did accross the rest of the hemisphere.

Slaves were, as slaves, a valuable asset. It didn't make too much sense for the owner to damage that asset. I would use the analogy of an automobile. To use it, you have to put gas in it and maintain it.

That better treatment does not justify its existence on the basis of the system. It is this "paternalistic" or "Owner-Pet" relationship. To justify it, as a race/ancestery based system, you basically have to assume that the race of the master makes him superior to the slave; there is no reason to be paternalistic with an equal. That, not the treatment of slaves, is the underlying problem with the system. I would further argue that the reason why this "paternalistic view" developed was to justify the holding of slaves. It was, basically, "They can't take of themselves, so we're going to help them." It came as a shock to realize that they could really manage just fine without a master.

I would argue that it was this "view" that led to segregation and and to racial conflict today.

J.J.,

I agree with you a lot on this. I have used the analogy often of a horse. If you owned a horse and it kicked down your fence or tried to run away you wouldn't beat the snot out of it because it's your property. People today don't understand how very expensive slaves were. The average field hand ran 500-800 dollars for a 22-25 year old male. Younger males 15-20ish would often go up well over 1000 dollars which in 21st century money is about 10 times that amount.

Also, I must add that in this period the economic class structures were very very  distinct. Poor whites (Po'white trash, as they were called) were often treated with as much respect or often much less then slaves. They were considered a lower form of human and were often run off their land by the wealthy.

I first asked the question last night and you glossed over it in ypur first response.  Also you glossed over it again.  I didn't ask the question how you would feel if you were black.  i asked how you would feel if the SLAVE OWNERS were black and the SLAVES were white.  How you would feel if YOUR WHITE ANCESTORS were slaves.  Would your feelings toward slavery be the same.  Some of those anscestors may have been treated decenty, but some of them may have also been simply beaten & totured as well.  How would you feel if your white ancestors were forced into a life of slavery, had no rights, no nothing for the sole reason that they were white??  Would you feel the same way toward slavery then??

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

Well whatever. Just reverse black for white and that is my response.

[Smash255]

Well whatever. Just reverse black for white and that is my response.

So your basically saying your feelings toward slavery would be the same if it was the blacks that owned your white ancestors.  That your white ancestors were treated as mere property, with absolutley no rights what so ever.  That while some of those white ancestors may have been treated respectfully by their black masters some of your other white ancestors may have been beaten and totured by the black slave owners  And that your white ancestors were forced into a life of slavery for no other reason that they were white??/  Your saying your views on slavery would be the same if that was the case??

[J-Mann]

Evil is not a buzzword, it is a term that describes great injustice against humanity.  There is no point in a historian debating the merits of evil.

Yes, and the Cro Magnons were "evil" for wiping out the neanderthals.  Pizarro was "evil" for butchering 80,000 at Cajamarca.  BUT, they were different times and things were done differently.  I'm not making an attempt to defend slavery at all, but a person even 100 years ago would hardly understand our preoccupation with political correctness and multiculturalism and diversity.  It's out of context when people try to apply today's political correctness to historical events.  Slavery may be a great evil in today's society, but it was normal 150 years ago and has a legacy that stretches back thousands of years and affects people of all colors.