I would like to begin by commending this interview of Michael Munger by Russ Roberts. They are discussing the shifting attitudes of white Southerners on slavery in the ante bellum period. Slavery began as a necessary evil and by the 1830’s wound up being thought of as a positive good. How did that happen? This is an intelligent discussion of the various factors involved, and I wish more people were as judicious and thoughtful as this.
Apart from a missed Dr. Seuss reference, the one significant misstep is where they obliquely minimized the evils of Roman (and African) slavery. It was not central to their point, and was apparently not their area of expertise, and so ordinarily we could just say “no blood, no foul,” and press on.
However, the reason I bring this up is because Anthony Bradley recently cited this particular interview, praising it also, but his first take was to praise the blunder, and his second application—“Southern Xians practiced dark evil”—shows that he didn’t read the rest of the interview very carefully. Munger and Roberts offered appropriate condemnations that were balanced, and showed great awareness of the actual context. Bradley’s is absolute and isolated, about which more in a moment.
 |
Anthony Bradley (@drantbradley) |
|
Best explanation differences btwn Roman v. American slavery I’ve read recently. Southern Xians practiced dark evil. twitter.com/EconTalker/sta…
|
|
The reason this matters is that we have a wealth of teaching in the New Testament, doctrine that carefully instructs Christians how to interact with the pagan system of slavery that surrounded them on every hand. If the system of Roman slavery was in the same league with the system of American slavery then, mutatis mutandis, the instructions apply to those in the South who professed to be Christians. But if they were apples and oranges as institutions, then they don’t apply. This is why conservative Christians (who are stuck with the biblical teaching) desperately want them to be apples and oranges, and why there is such a glib rush to minimize the evils of ancient pagan slavery.
The problem is that minimizing the evils of Roman slavery runs aground on the facts. It is to do what Francis Bacon condemned, which is to offer to the God of truth the unclean sacrifice of a lie.
Thomas Sowell puts it well:
“Why would anyone wish to arbitrarily understate an evil that plagued mankind for thousands of years, unless it was not this evil itself that was the real concern, but rather the present-day uses of that historic evil? Clearly, the ability to score ideological points against American society or Western civilization, or to induce guilt and thereby extract benefits from the white population today, are greatly enhanced by making enslavement appear to be a peculiarly American, or a peculiarly white, crime” (“The Real History of Slavery”)
But things were pretty grim two thousand years ago. One striking difference is that Roman slavery was not race-based. Apart from that, the pagan institution was about as terrible as you might expect. The slave owner had the right to execute his slaves. Slaves could of course be beaten, and they could also be tortured. They were property, bodies. The paterfamilias had absolute sexual prerogatives with any of the slaves he chose, male or female, and no one, his wife included, thought there was anything immoral about it. In one case, where a slave had murdered his master, there was debate over whether the law should be applied, that particular law requiring the execution of all the slaves in the household, that number running into the hundreds.
Thabiti, to his very great credit, understands the challenge presented by the scriptural manner of undermining pagan slavery. The apostolic way of challenging the pagan system seems to us to be singularly angular, and not in keeping with what we thought we all knew. But Thabiti, being intellectually honest, understands the problem. Most would rather retreat into unhistorical bromides and platitudes, which enable them to give first century slavery that old Song of the South treatment. When that starts to wear thin, the one remaining option is to vilify the people who do understand something of the genuine history of slavery—and who consequently understand what the apostles were actually saying to their generation, and therefore to us.
So Bradley is wrong on two counts. The first is that to the extent there was an appreciable moral difference between Roman and American slavery, Roman slavery was worse. And secondly, when Bradley says, “Southern Xians practiced dark evil,” he is engaging in the kind of blanket partisanship that Sowell describes—and that is not how we ought to do history. The truth is, of course, that some Southern Christians practiced dark evil, while others sought to live as consistent Christians in a bad situation. No one in this discussion wants to praise evil as such. I certainly do not. But the evil needs to be described for us by careful historians, and not by cartoonists.
The final issue before us is the sufficiency of Scripture. As soon as conservatives start playing “that was then, this is now” with the text, they will promptly discover that the children of the revolution can play it a whole lot more adroitly than they can, and—to use the old Scottish saying—the secularists will soon put their head in their lap so that they can play with their ears.
If you want to read more, I would recommend the following:
- Jerry Toner, The Roman Guide to Slave Management (New York, Overlook Press, 2014).
- Jennifer Glancy, Slavery in Early Christianity (Oxford, OUP, 2002).
- Thomas Sowell, “The Real History of Slavery” as found in Black Rednecks and White Liberals (San Francisco, Encounter Books, 2005).
Of course, I do not recommend everything that might be said in these books, particularly in Glancy’s, but they will provide an eye-opening introduction to the actual history of ancient slavery, the way it actually was on the ground.
Dark evil as opposed to what? All the angels running around the earth throughout the rest of human history? Darker than the evil in the abortion clinic several thousand times per day? Darker than this rebel sinner’s heart?
I’m reminded of Chesterton’s explanation as to what he thought was wrong with the world. “I am.”
Whew! I just knew it wasn’t me!
I’m so glad to hear that the wrongs of the world are someone else’s fault! The problem is that G K Chesterton and all those people who had slaves! ????
“Darker than the evil in the abortion clinic several thousand times per day?” Not according to Ron Burns.
“…trying to live as consistent Christians” not in a bad situation, but in the world that had existed throughout human history. Eliminating slavery was the aberration in human history: a true “good” but an aberration never-the-less.
Doug, Your points are all well made and your critique is correct regarding those who make the study of history a tool for social engineering. However, you also jump over a necessary nuance with your “that was then, this is now” point. You, too, play that game, as do all bible believing Christians. The only logical position for a Christian to hold is theonomy, but even the most ardent theonomist sees the temporal or symbolic nature of certain commands (WCF 19), the OT sacrificial system and the land being the most prominent examples. I do not agree that slavery or… Read more »
” I do not agree that slavery or homosexuality was then and not for now, the way some use it, but there are without question certain temporal uses of the Law. If not, we become Orthodox Jews or dual-covenant dispensationalists.”
Thank you very much, Kilgore T. Durden. This is an issue I am struggling with right now (what is temporal). I just received a copy of Rushdoony’s “Institutes”, and I am hoping he will answer this.
How do you determine what is temporal and what is not in this current age?
JL, I pray that God’s Law would not be a struggle for you. God’s Law is a gift. Simply enjoy it and let it be good to you, as all things from God are. The way in which one determines how to apply God’s Law is God’s Law. While it sounds circular, it is the only logical way to move forward. So, for a simple instance, God instituted the OT sacrificial system. To be technical, this system is eternal, just like the whole of God’s Law (Matt. 5:17-19) yet the eternality of it is satisfied in Christ. We need not… Read more »
Thank you very much, Kilgore. I only partially understand what you wrote, but I will keep this in mind as I move forward. The satisfaction of the law being completed in Christ I know is true, but I can’t get my mind around it yet. Thanks again.
Can’t figure out why there is so much difficulty on this. Slavery was wrong. The South was wrong to defend it. The North was right to end it. The abolitionists were right, the slave owners were wrong. The war was the South’s fault and the whole issue could have been easily settled if not for their obstinacy and self-righteousness.
That the above paragraph is at all contentious in certain quarters shows where the real issue lies, and it isn’t actually about slavery.
To merely say “slavery was wrong” is to ignore both nature and scripture.
Biblical scripture is to be ignored where immoral… which is to say many places, especially in the OT. Christians necessarily cherry-pick much of their text.
We are evolved animals aware of our own consciousness and by extension the consciousness of others. With that awareness to say slavery is wrong is to speak to a truth of basic human well-being. We can also without caveat say rape and murder is wrong with the same confidence.
Says the guy who gets his morals from creatures that fling poo at one another.
It is amuzing to watch RandMan try so hard to lecture others about morals when his worldview is so trivially lacking in any imperatives or expectations of any kind.
That you guys spend so much time parsing out what might be acceptable about the ownership of another human being says all anyone needs to know about your non-materialistic universe.
Mind: non-material. Soul: non-material. Conscience: non-material.
You might want to rethink your contempt of the non-material there, champ. It might lead to the conclusion that you possess none of these things.
I have no contempt for that which does not exist. Like god. Like the soul. What we refer to as ‘I'( including mind and conscience) may be simply artifacts of consciousness. Or it may not. But to jump to: god/soul is literally a childish notion with all it’s divisive manifestations. Time for our species to do better.
How ironic to see RandMan carry on about the non-existence of non-material things, and then speak longingly of self-identity, and “artifacts of consciousness”. If he had ever bothered to understand the Chinese Room thought experiment, he might grasp why consciousness is not a measurable property of matter. In other words, material artifacts can tell us nothing conclusive about whether consciousness is actually present. All that is detectable is syntax manipulation, which is not conclusive of consciousness. As a materialist, RandMan contradicts himself to believe in consciousness, or self, or meaning, or anything beyond material artifacts and material syntax. Experience and… Read more »
What I meant was- better than believing in superstition. Like thinking there is an intercessory invisible being who telepathically interacts with us. As ever, you misrepresent. I never claimed consciousness as a measurable property of matter. But could it be? Maybe. Do we know for sure? No. Hmm, let me try some kateho logic: Don’t have an answer? Try god, because god! (honestly katecho, your circular presuppositional logic does FEEL good… so easy!) Thomas Nagel asserts, “a creature is conscious if there is ‘something that it is like’ to be this creature. Something is consciously perceived if there is ‘something… Read more »
Definition of contempt:
1 a : the act of despising : the state of mind of one who despises : disdain b : lack
of respect or reverence for something
This is how RandMan has described a Being which, in his “artifact of consciousness”, doesn’t exist: murderous, vengeful, jealous toddler, irrelevant, rampaging, capricious, genocidal, etc.
Either RandMan’s definition of contempt needs a complete overhaul, or he just unwittingly proved God’s existence.
I don’t despise Darth Vader either. But calling his actions despicable and like that of a murderous, genocidal psychopath could be considered dispassionately accurate. Get it yet?
Your category error is mildly amusing. Darth Vader and God aren’t even in the same universe, let alone the same ballpark. And no, your many, many mischaracterizations of God are a lot of things, but dispassionate is not among them. You’ve used more pejoratives to libel Him than you’ve ever used for Darth Vader, or any fictional being for that matter.
Why do you suppose that is?
Well I suppose it’s because this isn’t a Star Wars blog site?
The government owns everyone in the military, is there anything acceptable worth parsing about that?
Realizing that RandMan is reduced to hollow emotive posturing (because his worldview is conspicuously absent of any expectations), it is still valuable for us to understand principles of restitution. In debt-based slavery, what is owned is a debt payable. In a moral economy, or an economy without coinage, the only thing that the debtor may have to offer for payment is himself. In that sense, to own a debt is to own a claim upon the person of the debtor himself. Sometimes God requires it directly, and the debtor’s life is forfeit. Other times the debt can be repaid through… Read more »
That was pretty great. (Claps, whistles, wipes a tear.) You just did the blogmablog-monologue version of Col. Jessup from A Few Good Men. Where Jack Nicholson’s character felt compelled by his ‘code’ to publicly justify his hierarchical institution’s awful conduct. Still, your fervent reverie aside, we are discussing the ownership of one human by another. If your extrapolation the servitude to you feel you owe to your imaginary god leads you to rationalizing the slavery of another human, you should be ashamed. But like Jessup, I imagine some of you are quite proud of this distinction in an unexamined way.… Read more »
“We are evolved animals aware of our own consciousness and by extension the consciousness of others.”
I sometimes wish I had your naivete, Rand. You really don’t see the depravity of mankind, do you?
How does recognizing the ‘miracle’ of conciousness let mankind off the hook for it’s violent beginnings and continuing tendencies? We are involved in a slow movement to a less violent world. I choose to see this decline (in murder, personal violence, warfare. etc) as a yardstick of human progress. This is statistically supported. I am a realist. I do not wish to be delusional based upon wish fulfillment and fear of death.
“I choose to see this decline (in murder, personal violence, warfare. etc) as a yardstick of human progress.”
That’s kind of a bummer because I’m pretty sure the 20th century just delivered us more mass genocide, war, and extermination of our young, than we’ve seen in all of human history.
If we’re evolving, we seem to be doing it backwards.
“Let mankind off the hook”? Hmm. Careful there, sounds like you’re implying that someone is going to judge mankind for its actions. I wonder who?
Good point. For a self-professed realist, RandMan sure seems to think that his universe comes with noble expectations about how mankind ought to behave. Serious disconnect there. Notice that he also used the word “mankind”, instead of hominid. Interesting. Perhaps he believes in created kinds? There persists so much vocabulary for RandMan to yet surrender to us. RandMan wrote: We are involved in a slow movement to a less violent world. RandMan seems to think that this accidental, purposeless universe is going somewhere. That’s heresy against the materialist realist creed. The only place his materialism goes is on rails straight… Read more »
Is this worldview adaptive to your environment?
Cute.
If you really want to make slavery into a biblical litmus test, then you’ll get it. But you won’t like the result.
I’m curious why you think that.
Which part?
What do you think I won’t like?
The issue here is in the cognitive dissonance that is the result of the bible’s attitude toward slavery. It chafes those like Douglas that the bible’s morality is a reflection of the slave-based economy of it’s time. It rubs his biblical literalism and requires all of the shifty tossing of word salad and mountain of dressing. Thus all of the sidestepping, conflation, and redirecting of the conversation to inmates and ‘states rights’. Yes, the state’s right to own another human. Good thing there was no biblical advice on how to treat your underage sex slaves or we’d be have a… Read more »
Hey randi. I can’t help but think, that if we rented a sailboat, and cruised the Gulag Archipelago, the biblical attitude toward slavery would look pretty good compared to the communist attitude toward slavery, as demonstrated by that archipelago! ????
I think we would need to rent an ice breaker. And I don’t mean the kind they have at parties!
Well, jilly, if you were coming along, we’d all have to go!????????????
An amphibious boat, really, or better yet, no boat at all. ;)
We are not talking about the communist attitude toward slavery. Any pro-slavery attitude is despicable. Clean up your house.
Randi, we are talking about slavery, as practiced by humans.
What with us being humans and all, it’s our house to clean, yours and mine.????
RandMan,
I haven’t been reading here long, so I’m not exactly following you as it seems you are answering previous conversations that I’m not familiar with. I do have a question, if you are inclined to answer though.
In a situation where two nations war with each other, what do you believe is the moral choice regarding what to do with the defeated peoples?
I’m not RandMan, but I think what America and Britain did with Germany post-world war II was moral.
What if the victor doesn’t have vast amounts of cash to throw around like that, though?
Then I think you observe the Geneva Conventions. Amnesties for all except war criminals. Fair trials of war criminals. No reprisals, no plundering. Reasonable terms for repayment of reparations. I am assuming, of course, that it is a just war, and that your nation is not the aggressor. Or, that if it is, it is a kind of King Henry V aggression to get back what is rightfully yours. But you will remember Henry’s insistence there was to be no rape or plunder. And, if the king of the defeated nation is willing to toss his beautiful daughter into the… Read more »
Right, but I think the question is, what do we do with all the people whose homes and fields and workshops have been burnt and husbands/fathers have been killed, in the absence of billions for charity? Regulated slavery solved that problem, at least.
Hi Jillybean,
Dunsworth understood where I was going. I should have been more clear and asked specifically regarding biblical times. In those times there were no easy answers, and I wonder when people make a blanket statement like, “Slavery is always evil,” if they have thought through the alternatives.
Randman, for someone who loves to toss word salads about “reciprocal altruism” found in chimps, you sure do find it difficult to demonstrate that same virtue toward others, don’t you? Could it be that monkeys have better morals than you?
Matt seems to want to advertise his unwillingness or inability to make important distinctions around the topic of slavery. As has often been pointed out, Wilson doesn’t defend race- or kidnap-based slavery, but he does defend slavery (forced labor) for debt restitution. Matt is particularly naive when he suggests that slave owners being wrong somehow makes abolitionist vigilantism right. He doesn’t seem to comprehend that both could be wrong in different aspects. Until Matt can join us in making basic distinctions (theological and historical), he doesn’t have much to contribute to the discussion, and he’s just encouraging folks to be… Read more »
All well and good, but what’s never mentioned in these discussions is: What is to be done with people not capable of living as free men?
They get divorced from Huma Abedin?
You are on fire today.
Yes!
It’s my hair. ; – )
(and why I am bald!)
I think this would depend on the reason for their incapacity. Is it because they are so profoundly intellectually inadequate that they can’t earn a living or function without constant supervision? Are there really that many people out there who cannot hold down any kind of job because they are too dumb? Or, are you referring to people who are too anti-social to live independently? And how have other nations dealt with such people other than by enslaving them? And are we talking about individuals, or are you making assumptions about larger groups? And are you talking past or present?
Well, as you point out, it’s a big topic. I’m not demanding detailed answers so much as attention to the concept at all. Every variety of civilisation has some form of superior-inferior relationship where those on top have a duty to care and provide for those in their charge, and the people under them have a duty to respect and show loyalty to them. This has taken many forms — masters and slaves, lords and serfs, and of course social workers/Democratic politicians and welfare recipients. I’d like to see more Christians discussing what a God-honouring form of these relationships looks… Read more »
I think the work world used to accommodate this much better. I remember that my father retained a few inefficient, not too bright workers because they were loyal and hard working, and he felt an obligation to their families. There used to be file clerks, typists, elevator operators–lots of jobs for people who were not highly intelligent. And I think many of us have lost our sense of obligation to people who work for us. Similarly, so many people work for faceless conglomerates. It was much easier to feel loyalty to your boss when he signed your paycheck. You felt… Read more »
Don’t forget gangsters and unions!????
“One striking difference is that Roman slavery was not race-based.”
And we should not skim over that difference.
Paul admonished Christian slaves to gain their freedom, if they could. My understand is that there was at least that possibility in the Roman world. By the time slavery came to be seen as a positive good in the antebellum south could Paul’s instruction have been of any value to a black slave?
I believe there were laws in Rome than limited the number of slaves a man could set free.
Of course no one source is the last word but… http://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/empire/slaves_freemen.html Slaves were sometimes freed in the United States too, however that become less common as time went on. Part of the reason it became less common was of course economic. Part of the reason no doubt was that the theory concocted to justify the enslavement of blacks became more firmly established as doctrine. Indeed, if that theory were correct it would be downright wrong to manumit a black slave, as slavery to white masters is categorically the proper condition of blacks and no black ought ever to exist as… Read more »
No.
To the topic of gradualism, at the start of the US civil war, more than 1/2 the states had changed to free states.
England got on with the same program of no slavery, except without a corresponding civil war.
No indeed, but there are people you have yet to convince. Good luck with that. Of course if in 1861 all of the states were free states then none of them would have attempted secession.
After the Dred Scott decision, Lincoln noted that the tide of slavery laws was moving in the other direction: In these the Chief Justice does not directly assert, but plainly assumes, as a fact, that the public estimate of the black man is more favorable now than it was in the days of the Revolution. This assumption is a mistake. In some trifling particulars, the condition of that race has been ameliorated; but, as a whole, in this country, the change between then and now is decidedly the other way; and their ultimate destiny has never appeared so hopeless as… Read more »
Democrats, then, as now, remain a problem!
????
I may have posted this before but it is compulsory viewing for Christians wanting to address the issue of slavery in the Bible and elsewhere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUOsBQYuZ9g
I have yet to read the interview. Although valid complaints may be made against the US: such as did you need to kill over half a million men to end slavery when other Western nations did not; it seems that the world wishes to especially hate on the US, as it was more Christian, than on the other slaving nations throughout history. Now there is some truth to the fact that greater knowledge brings greater expectations but are people really familiar with what it was like elsewhere? My knowledge is sketchy, but some examples. I had read about 400,000 slaves… Read more »
Well they wouldn’t have wanted to castrate the slaves in the South. Where would they then get new slaves from?
They may have had that motivation after the slave trade was banned, but they weren’t castrating like the Arabs when slaves were still being shipped and they cost less. And the Arabs were particularly brutal. Castration alone prevents both progeny and sexual prowess yet the practice of also removing the penis held sway. The Arab slave trade was particularly brutal. And there is no large group of slave descendants in Arabia.
Castration would potentially have made economic sense during the heyday of the slave trade, particularly on the sugar plantations, where adult males slaves were essentially considered an ongoing expense, due to the short life expectancy that resulted from the brutality, ardor of the work, and unhealthy conditions. It would have likely lowered aggression, always a desirable thing from a certain point of view.
So yes, it was probably something other than sheer pragmatism that prevented it in the situation of North American slavery.
Thomas Jefferson?????
Just for kicks, Anthony Bradley should change his name to Ron Burns.
Can anyone tell me the name of the artist and/or image used in this post?
I suspect the image is public domain. (?)
A look through these results might yield the answer.
Doug, speaking of ears, and being all them, I’m sure there are not a few of your readers who would like you to read your thoughts about the Colin Kaepernick kerfluffle.
(And, yes, jilly, I know it’s technically kerfuffle, but I like kerfluffle better. So it’s OK. It just sounds better, and it should be the correct version.)
I agree. It does sound much more kerfluffly.
I raised an eyebrow at this: “The truth is, of course, that some Southern Christians practiced dark evil, while others sought to live as consistent Christians in a bad situation.” And then I thought, wait, Thabiti is voting for Hillary $%^ing Clinton. Someone trying to live as a consistent Christian in a bad situation? Well, yeah, I guess so.
Thanks for the interesting read. I have some disagreements with it, but ideas worth discussing. They say near the beginning MM: Now, it’s easy for us to look at this with hindsight and say, ‘Oh, come on.’ Or, ‘They were telling themselves that, but they are evil people.’ I think that’s a mistake. The fact is — and I actually have talked about this some in class and people are pretty uncomfortable with it; and I am, too; let me just say, I am, too — I think, that if I were born to a slave-owning wealthy family in the South in 1830, 1835,… Read more »
bethyada,
You hit me right between the eyes with this:
“As part of this argument it is useful to note whether you hold to the current zeitgeist.”
Yikes. Another area where I have bowed to the predominant culture’s view of right and wrong. Here’s a hard question. Do you think Scripture has indicated that there is a place for slave and/or indentured servant in God’s order?
I think paying back our debts is important. In a subsistence society debt servitude serves that well. Bankruptcy is an option depending on how it is structured though it seems a society probably needs more wealth for this to be an option. I think debt servitude would prevent people from taking unreasonable risk. The poor should not be getting into significant debt. The Hebrews were forbidden from charging usury which appears to be interest on necessities (like food). However it seems that debt servitude in Israel was marked different from slavery. For example, if you ran away from your master… Read more »
I watched the first half of the video you posted, which was really helpful. I hope to watch the second half today (low bandwidth).
The debt servitude is easier to understand than captives from war. I hope he will go into that in the second half. I really want to understand this without squeamishness, because to have any discomfort over God’s Word is shameful. If you have any other references, I would appreciate it. Thanks!
There is nothing wrong by necessity holding to the current zeitgeist. I think murder is bad and the law deems this too.
But it is harder to see when you are wrong when your beliefs are in line with cultural beliefs. When we think differently to the world this difference is constantly challenged. Not so when we agree with them. Living in or reading about different cultures can be very helpful.
“There is nothing wrong by necessity holding to the current zeitgeist. I think murder is bad and the law deems this too.”
Yes, I agree with that, but there are still things I think many of us accept without thought. Slavery was one for me, which was why I was so apprrecitive of your statement.
“Any pro-slavery attitude is despicable.” RandMan
Well that pretty well sets the tone for getting rid of abortion, welfare, the minimum wage, equal opportunity employment, Obamacare, Obamaphones, government handouts to illegal aliens, subsidized government housing, student loans and loads more of our government programs. All of these programs are government sponsored slavery. Thanks RandMan for setting us on the correct trajectory.
Douglas, I am very glad to see you write these words: “Slavery began as a necessary evil and by the 1830’s wound up being thought of as a positive good.” That accurately encapsulates the historical situation, versus the historical revisionism of gradual manumission. I also believe in “gospel gradualism”—the term you have applied in your defense of gradual manumission. However, gradualism at what cost? It’s easy to point out the horrific Civil War costs to the North and South soldiers, but what about the gradual manumission cost to the slaves? Robert Fogel has shown that Southern slavery was hugely profitable,… Read more »
“If we agree that man-stealing is contrary to the gospel (1 Tim. 1:10) and that the system built upon it was likewise sinful, then it seems clear we must reject the very notion of one man owning another under those conditions.” This seems to be an enormous logical leap. Man-stealing is a sin and a crime. Any system built upon man-stealing should be labeled sinful and criminal and dismantled (though it doesn’t require a 5-yr war and half-a-million lives to do that). But…it is NOT so clear that we must reject the very notion of “man-owning” just because “man-stealing” is… Read more »
Not trying to hijack the conversation, but a question has recently occurred to me: How many American slaves were originally gained by what is properly called “manstealing”?
From what I understand, the taking of slaves from conquered peoples isn’t actually “manstealing,” so I just wonder how many were actually kidnapped? My premise for asking that may be wrong, and I’m open to being corrected on that.
More importantly, most slaves in North America were not imported. About 450,000 slaves were imported to the USA; the 1860 census counted just under 4 million. (Whereas Brazil, for example, imported 4.5 million.)
Why do you say slaves were viewed as “not human” in the South? To whom are you ascribing this belief?
Talking about “the innate desire for liberty” is lofty-sounding but why is it any more significant than the “innate desire for a million dollars”?
ashv, Why do I even respond to you?… Suffice it to say (for all mankind) that the “innate desire for liberty” is more significant than the “innate desire for a million dollars.”
If this is how you think persuasive arguments work, I believe Canon Press has a couple books you could benefit from.
Plagiarized ones?
I don’t understand this phrase “necessary evil.” Why was it “necessary” for Christians to practice the evil of slavery? “Tempting to”, “difficult in the circumstances not to”, etc… But why do you say “necessary”?
Necessary in the sense that African slaves were much more able to thrive as labourers in the climate of the southern colonies than the white settlers were. Georgia was originally established as a colony for Englishmen in debtors’ prison and didn’t allow slaves unlike its neighbour South Carolina.17 years after its founding slaves were permitted, chiefly because white labour was more susceptible to disease and the heat. So, it was considered a “necessary evil” because they viewed it as a choice between use of African slaves and not having a colony at all.
That was not the case on many plantations and farms. Often, the owner was in the field working right along with the slaves. Life wasn’t all mint juleps and big porches as the movies and revisionist history books like to portray the antebellum South.
Yes, wealthy individuals had more slaves that less wealthy individuals. That was true with the black owners of slave plantations also. The black owners with more money had more black slaves than those blacks without as much money. But the fact remains that many of the slave owners worked the fields and other areas right along with the slaves.
So you agree with gfkdzdds that ashv’s argument is silly, right?
You seem to be arguing a tangent. Your claim directly contradicts the claim by ashv which gfkdzdds was opposing.
You know, your racism often takes you to ridiculous lengths of logic, but this is out there even for you. You start with the silly idea that White people just don’t have the constitution to handle outdoor labor in places like South Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee. Then there’s the idea that without Black slaves, White people couldn’t have had a colony because White slaves weren’t hardly (even though Native Americans famously made horrible plantation laborers and poor slaves, yet they lived in those same regions for thousands of years). And finally, there’s the subtle implication that living in a place… Read more »
People of African descent have a higher resistance to malaria. People of European descent tolerate cold weather better. Before modern medicine and air conditioning this affected where people could live significantly. (The latter is why the Massachusetts colony didn’t import many African slaves — they often didn’t survive the winter.)
I don’t believe that there was any “right” to colonisation or that importation of Africans was necessary. I’m just saying that these were reasonable decisions, not the actions of cartoon villains.
I’m sure that you’re well aware that the form of malaria which Africans are somewhat resistant to was the form they BROUGHT OVER with them. Claiming the African slaves were necessary to survive the human malaria that the American continent didn’t even have before Europeans brought them there is quite the joke. Yellow fever, brought over with the slave populations, caused massive outbreaks of disease that wouldn’t have ever happened without the imported slaves. Hookworm, brought over with the slave populations, also caused lots of suffering and lost work that wouldn’t have ever happened without the imported slaves. Smallpox, brought… Read more »
Sure, and malaria was probably a bad example – rice cultivation definitely made that worse. Another factor, of course, was that many of the settlers in South Carolina came from Barbados and brought the plantation slavery system used there with them.
Likely enough the average Roman slave would’ve gladly changed places with the average Southern slave, but the Romans (and OT Hebrews) were cool with manumission and with slave literacy, and the USA was not.