Is slavery in itself okay?

[LittleSoldier]

One more post and then I’m really, really done.

Oh, gee, you sound just like me! We have something in common! If you change your mind I will be happy to respond to your post to me. I often leave threads and then check back and respond and I’ve been laughed at for doing so (once). I hope nobody here does that as it is cruel. We all have the right to change our minds, although only women have the prerogative.

So you would suppress truth? Whether it is good or bad does not change facts. Is it not good to know facts? Personally I’m not opposed to any fact. It is not a fact that the South won Gettysburg. But it is a fact that George Washington Carver’s former mistress taught him to read and write. Do we have to strike this fact from the history books because it reveals some slave owners to have compassion and treat their slaves as human beings?

You are correct about truth. It cannot be changed although our understanding of it can. However, Wiki is not well known for presenting facts, although sometimes it’s the best that can be found. What is written in history books, especially as it pertains to war, is usually written by the victors. What is written in history books is often amazingly inaccurate. I have a couple of books about the mistakes that are commonly presented in history books. Someday I hope to have time to read them. And although history books provide what are sometimes commonly thought of as facts and perhaps common belief, they do not provide proof. The best they can provide is evidence of facts. And *Wiki *can’t even provide that.

I should also point out that teaching someone to read and write does not necessarily prove compassion. His former mistress may have had a very selfish reason for teaching him to read and write. I haven’t had time to read what you have provided via your link but I wonder if his mistress taught him to read and write while he was legally her property. The term “former mistress” indicates that she taught him after he was freed. There are some questions in my mind about this whole incident. Why didn’t she teach him while he was her slave? Was he too busy doing manual labor? Did she suddenly need someone who could read and write after the slaves were freed? Is that the reason she taught him? I’m not questioning her compassion. I’m just saying that the whole story is rarely presented.

I very much doubt that what I read about the Revolutionary War in elementary school was correct - that it was our thirst for freedom and the evils of King George (and the rest of the British) and our way of hiding behind trees and hay bales instead of marching like the British (which allowed us to mow them down) are the reasons we won the war. Uh uh. I still don’t know why we won!

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

So we’re defending slavery now. Great… let’s keep claiming the moral high ground over the heathens.

 

[severus68]

What? You only back up your assertions, when challenged on their truth, if it will change the challenger’s mind? This is a debate. In a debate one should back up one’s assertions with some sort of proof or strong evidence. Otherwise they are just groundless assertions and perhaps even lies.

Whether the back-up changes the challenger’s mind is irrelevant.

GOD!

No parent *owns *their children! They *can’t *make them work 20 hours a day. In fact, they really can’t make them work at all. What would you have the parents do if their children will not work? Whip them? Cage them? The government is the one that requires them to be educated - not the parents. Where do you get the (bizarre) idea that “in this world men claim ownership of everything?” And even if that were true (which it isn’t), “claiming ownership” and “owning” are two completely different things. I can claim I own you, but I don’t. I don’t even own myself (God does).

Well said.

 

[Lujack]

One more post and then I’m really, really done.

So you would suppress truth? Whether it is good or bad does not change facts. Is it not good to know facts? Personally I’m not opposed to any fact. It is not a fact that the South won Gettysburg. But it is a fact that George Washington Carver’s former mistress taught him to read and write. Do we have to strike this fact from the history books because it reveals some slave owners to have compassion and treat their slaves as human beings?

It is a fact that George Washington Carver’s mistress taught him to read and write, and this fact should not be struck from the history books. That doesn’t change that slavery is a horrible, horrible thing; there is room for acts of kindness and mercy within a system that is unacceptable.

 

[severus68]

Maybe not. If so please feel free to restate your case.

I agree papers do not make you a slave, but slave is a specific term and the point of a philosophical discussion is to fully probe the general and specific conditions. If the conditions of citizenship are just like the conditions of slavery except that your master is a government and not an individual or household then I’m not sure what the fuss is about slavery specifically.

You seem to have a consistent viewpoint. Again we seem to be hung up on words and not the ideas behind the words. I’m not sure that the one forced to work on the island would care about the distinction you have made of master versus tyrant.

Not necessarily. The poor non-slaves were often treated far worse than the slaves. The master cared about his property more than the people who were not his property. One story I’ve heard is a visitor to New Orleans noting it was the poor Irish workers who were in the cargo hold loading ships and not the slaves. This was dangerous as the cargo could fall and kill or maim the worker. When he inquired about why this was it was explained that basically master kept their slaves from this dangerous work. This actually makes sense as people tend to care and protect their property. This is actually the driving force behind capitalism. So while there might be some truth to what you say it is not always exactly true what you said.

Regarding the first question, of course not because even in slavery they considered slaves humans. That is the point. They did not become non-human by being slaves. The second question depends on the system. In some systems the master had sexual rights to his slave. Certainly that aspect of such a system would be wrong, but that does not necessarily make the other aspects wrong, though they could be.

Well yes I can. The American system. I’ve realized that very few people have actually taken any time to study this. The opinions and thoughts of most people seem to be based on a complete lack of knowledge. Slaves in the American system did have the rights of people though they had a diminished set of rights.

There were masters who were found guilty of murder of a slave. Murder can only be a crime against a person. Similarly I know of at least one case where a slave was not found guilty of murdering his master on a claim of self defense. The master was beating the slave unjustly and the slave defended his life by killing the master. Obviously the jury would have been an all White male jury of non-slaves. How do you explain this case if slaves had no rights?

I’m most certainly not trolling. But I can see the topic is not advancing. You seem to think I’m too blind to see. And I think you are making distinctions without a difference.

You appear to be saying the same things and making the point that your saying it makes it so. You also appear to making it up as you go. Give us the proof of these little stories you are relating of a master being gulty of murder, a slave found not guilty, the cargo ship.Even if they were true, so what? Was that master executed for murder, was that slave set free, were those non unloading slaves leading lives of luxury, free to do what they want?

Tell us and give us the authorities which show slaves in the US had some rights.

When people come together as a group, in a civilised group, they give up some rights and the trade off is security, order etc. Citizens in a country are not slaves by virtue of having a government and laws that tell them not to drive their cars the wrong way, not to fire guns in the street.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Maybe not. If so please feel free to restate your case.

I agree papers do not make you a slave, but slave is a specific term and the point of a philosophical discussion is to fully probe the general and specific conditions. If the conditions of citizenship are just like the conditions of slavery except that your master is a government and not an individual or household then I’m not sure what the fuss is about slavery specifically.

You seem to have a consistent viewpoint. **Again we seem to be hung up on words and not the ideas behind the words. I’m not sure that the one forced to work on the island would care about the distinction you have made of master versus tyrant. **

Not necessarily. The poor non-slaves were often treated far worse than the slaves. The master cared about his property more than the people who were not his property. One story I’ve heard is a visitor to New Orleans noting it was the poor Irish workers who were in the cargo hold loading ships and not the slaves. This was dangerous as the cargo could fall and kill or maim the worker. When he inquired about why this was it was explained that basically master kept their slaves from this dangerous work. This actually makes sense as people tend to care and protect their property. This is actually the driving force behind capitalism. So while there might be some truth to what you say it is not always exactly true what you said.

Regarding the first question, of course not because even in slavery they considered slaves humans. That is the point. They did not become non-human by being slaves. The second question depends on the system. In some systems the master had sexual rights to his slave. Certainly that aspect of such a system would be wrong, but that does not necessarily make the other aspects wrong, though they could be.

**Well yes I can. The American system. **I’ve realized that very few people have actually taken any time to study this. The opinions and thoughts of most people seem to be based on a complete lack of knowledge. Slaves in the American system did have the rights of people though they had a diminished set of rights.

There were masters who were found guilty of murder of a slave. Murder can only be a crime against a person. Similarly I know of at least one case where a slave was not found guilty of murdering his master on a claim of self defense. The master was beating the slave unjustly and the slave defended his life by killing the master. Obviously the jury would have been an all White male jury of non-slaves. How do you explain this case if slaves had no rights?

I’m most certainly not trolling. But I can see the topic is not advancing. You seem to think I’m too blind to see. And I think you are making distinctions without a difference.

More and more absurd statements not backed up by the slightest shred of proof.
When making a claim like that, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Maybe not. If so please feel free to restate your case.

I agree papers do not make you a slave, but slave is a specific term and the point of a philosophical discussion is to fully probe the general and specific conditions. If the conditions of citizenship are just like the conditions of slavery except that your master is a government and not an individual or household then I’m not sure what the fuss is about slavery specifically.

You seem to have a consistent viewpoint. Again we seem to be hung up on words and not the ideas behind the words.** I’m not sure that the one forced to work on the island would care about the distinction you have made of master versus tyrant. **

Not necessarily. The poor non-slaves were often treated far worse than the slaves. The master cared about his property more than the people who were not his property. One story I’ve heard is a visitor to New Orleans noting it was the poor Irish workers who were in the cargo hold loading ships and not the slaves. This was dangerous as the cargo could fall and kill or maim the worker. When he inquired about why this was it was explained that basically master kept their slaves from this dangerous work. This actually makes sense as people tend to care and protect their property. This is actually the driving force behind capitalism. So while there might be some truth to what you say it is not always exactly true what you said.

Regarding the first question, of course not because even in slavery they considered slaves humans. That is the point. They did not become non-human by being slaves. The second question depends on the system. In some systems the master had sexual rights to his slave. Certainly that aspect of such a system would be wrong, but that does not necessarily make the other aspects wrong, though they could be.

Well yes I can. The American system. I’ve realized that very few people have actually taken any time to study this. The opinions and thoughts of most people seem to be based on a complete lack of knowledge. Slaves in the American system did have the rights of people though they had a diminished set of rights.

There were masters who were found guilty of murder of a slave. Murder can only be a crime against a person. Similarly I know of at least one case where a slave was not found guilty of murdering his master on a claim of self defense. The master was beating the slave unjustly and the slave defended his life by killing the master. Obviously the jury would have been an all White male jury of non-slaves. How do you explain this case if slaves had no rights?

I’m most certainly not trolling. But I can see the topic is not advancing. You seem to think I’m too blind to see. And I think you are making distinctions without a difference.

Your entire argument is about whether or not those kind of distinctions exist
I consider this more proof that your just trolling.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Maybe not. If so please feel free to restate your case.

**I agree papers do not make you a slave, but slave is a specific term and the point of a philosophical discussion is to fully probe the general and specific conditions. If the conditions of citizenship are just like the conditions of slavery except that your master is a government and not an individual or household then I’m not sure what the fuss is about slavery specifically. **

You seem to have a consistent viewpoint. Again we seem to be hung up on words and not the ideas behind the words. I’m not sure that the one forced to work on the island would care about the distinction you have made of master versus tyrant.

Not necessarily. The poor non-slaves were often treated far worse than the slaves. The master cared about his property more than the people who were not his property. One story I’ve heard is a visitor to New Orleans noting it was the poor Irish workers who were in the cargo hold loading ships and not the slaves. This was dangerous as the cargo could fall and kill or maim the worker. When he inquired about why this was it was explained that basically master kept their slaves from this dangerous work. This actually makes sense as people tend to care and protect their property. This is actually the driving force behind capitalism. So while there might be some truth to what you say it is not always exactly true what you said.

Regarding the first question, of course not because even in slavery they considered slaves humans. That is the point. They did not become non-human by being slaves. The second question depends on the system. In some systems the master had sexual rights to his slave. Certainly that aspect of such a system would be wrong, but that does not necessarily make the other aspects wrong, though they could be.

Well yes I can. The American system. I’ve realized that very few people have actually taken any time to study this. The opinions and thoughts of most people seem to be based on a complete lack of knowledge. Slaves in the American system did have the rights of people though they had a diminished set of rights.

There were masters who were found guilty of murder of a slave. Murder can only be a crime against a person. Similarly I know of at least one case where a slave was not found guilty of murdering his master on a claim of self defense. The master was beating the slave unjustly and the slave defended his life by killing the master. Obviously the jury would have been an all White male jury of non-slaves. How do you explain this case if slaves had no rights?

I’m most certainly not trolling. But I can see the topic is not advancing. You seem to think I’m too blind to see. And I think you are making distinctions without a difference.

As I (and others in this thread) have explained to you numerous times already, slavery is special because a slave is considered from a social and legal perspective (in places where its legal and socially accepted) an object, not a person.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

No. I asked not to have my time wasted. If the facts are irrelevant, which I’m afraid might be the case, then I dont want to spend my time sourcing statements. Especially since some of the evidence is hard to find because people aren’t interested in the whole story.

But I’ll source some claims and then be done with this thread.

1. ‘Claim that in Roman slavery the master could kill his slave’

The Roman male head of the house had patria potestas. This gave him the right to kill any member of his household as punishment.

1. ‘Slavery in South America and the sugar islands was more brutal (slave life expectancy was much lower than in the US)’

The majority of slaves in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade went to places other than what became the US (In other words slavery in the US was the smallest part of slavery. Slavery continued in Brazil until 1888 and they took far more slaves than any other country). The reason for this was slaves had a much shorter life expectancy in the non-US places. In fact if you study indentured servant contracts you would find that your term of servitude decreased in years as you went from the northern US south to the islands. The reason for this was the work was much more brutal the further south you went in part due to conditions.

‘The harsh conditions of the West Indies cane fields were well known to Europeans, and so it is not surprising that indentures there averaged 9 months less than on the continent of North America. (Eventually the high cost of indentures lead the planters to substitute slavery for indentured labor.)’

[Note: when I first learned of this the difference was in years so I question this which is averaging the whole of North America and not distinguishing between the far North and deep South of the US]

fte.org/teacher-resources/lesson-plans/efiahlessons/indentured-servitude-activity/

1. ‘The British Navy continued to whip disobedient sailors long after slavery ended’

Flogging was not ended in the British Army until 1881. The Navy around the same time. (This means both enlistees and conscripts could be whipped)

victorianweb.org/history/armyrefs.html

1. ‘The US military to this day can punish deserters with execution’

The Uniform Code of Military Justice still provides a death sentence for wartime desertion.

10 USC § 885 - Art. 85. Desertion

If the parent can not make the child work or do anything at all how can the state compell the parents to send them to school? Are you aware than in many places they will jail a parent if their child does not go to school? It seems to me cruel and inhumane to punish someone with jail for something they have no control over. It would be like punishing someone for not making the weather sunny.

Do you not think men claim ownership of everything? It seems to me that every piece of matter is claimed by someone. Can you tell me something that isn’t owned?

Yes claims of ownership do not by themselves constitute ownership. Ownership usually comes down to who has the most power owns what he wants whether that be individuals, families, or nations.

Of course at issue is that each state had its own laws. So it is hard to paint with a broad brush. No I cant point to the specific case because I’d have to find where I originally read it and the narrative is so one sided. The problem I have with this topic is that people feel the need to suppress the truth. I think we should be able to look at all the evidence to have a fully informed opinion. There is no doubt that slavery was brutal but it was not always and everywhere such. That statement shouldn’t be controversial and yet it is.

The facts do indeed appear to be irrelevant when debating you

 

[vladdy]

As an outsider looking at the RCC’s recent history in dealing with slavery I’d have to say they at least thought it was okay.
Individual priests owned slaves as well as orders within the RCC during 1800’s and earlier in the U.S.

And baptists all took a stand against it and did not own slaves, right? Where were most of the baptist churches in 2003 when the war against Iraq broke out? They ‘stood by the troops’ even as bombs were being dropped on Baghdad and Iraqi kids were being blown up and burned alive by your weapoms. What did Baptists do to protest the genocidal war Reagan waged in Central America in the 1980s? How many white majority Baptist churches stood by MLK during the Civil Rights movement?

Answer these questions and then let’s see you continue your Catholic-bashing. Cheers.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

No. I asked not to have my time wasted. If the facts are irrelevant, which I’m afraid might be the case, then I dont want to spend my time sourcing statements. Especially since some of the evidence is hard to find because people aren’t interested in the whole story.

But I’ll source some claims and then be done with this thread.

1. ‘Claim that in Roman slavery the master could kill his slave’

The Roman male head of the house had patria potestas. This gave him the right to kill any member of his household as punishment.

1. ‘Slavery in South America and the sugar islands was more brutal (slave life expectancy was much lower than in the US)’

The majority of slaves in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade went to places other than what became the US (In other words slavery in the US was the smallest part of slavery. Slavery continued in Brazil until 1888 and they took far more slaves than any other country). The reason for this was slaves had a much shorter life expectancy in the non-US places. In fact if you study indentured servant contracts you would find that your term of servitude decreased in years as you went from the northern US south to the islands. The reason for this was the work was much more brutal the further south you went in part due to conditions.

‘The harsh conditions of the West Indies cane fields were well known to Europeans, and so it is not surprising that indentures there averaged 9 months less than on the continent of North America. (Eventually the high cost of indentures lead the planters to substitute slavery for indentured labor.)’

[Note: when I first learned of this the difference was in years so I question this which is averaging the whole of North America and not distinguishing between the far North and deep South of the US]

fte.org/teacher-resources/lesson-plans/efiahlessons/indentured-servitude-activity/

1. ‘The British Navy continued to whip disobedient sailors long after slavery ended’

Flogging was not ended in the British Army until 1881. The Navy around the same time. (This means both enlistees and conscripts could be whipped)

victorianweb.org/history/armyrefs.html

1. ‘The US military to this day can punish deserters with execution’

The Uniform Code of Military Justice still provides a death sentence for wartime desertion.

10 USC § 885 - Art. 85. Desertion

If the parent can not make the child work or do anything at all how can the state compell the parents to send them to school? Are you aware than in many places they will jail a parent if their child does not go to school? It seems to me cruel and inhumane to punish someone with jail for something they have no control over. It would be like punishing someone for not making the weather sunny.

Do you not think men claim ownership of everything? It seems to me that every piece of matter is claimed by someone. Can you tell me something that isn’t owned?

Yes claims of ownership do not by themselves constitute ownership. Ownership usually comes down to who has the most power owns what he wants whether that be individuals, families, or nations.

Of course at issue is that each state had its own laws. So it is hard to paint with a broad brush. No I cant point to the specific case because I’d have to find where I originally read it and the narrative is so one sided. The problem I have with this topic is that people feel the need to suppress the truth. I think we should be able to look at all the evidence to have a fully informed opinion. There is no doubt that slavery was brutal but it was not always and everywhere such. That statement shouldn’t be controversial and yet it is.

Perhaps you would also like to debate the merits of human sacrifice or cannibalism?

Yes, these things were once widely accepted, but now they are almost universally considered wrong (much like slavery). Moreover the evidence we have on the issues seems to show that they were NOT good.

If you want to seriously propose that such things are actually good you need to present strong arguments and evidence.
You exnihilo have presented neither.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by Lujack
The narrative should be one-sided on that score. You won’t find books saying that the South won the Battle of Gettysburg because they didn’t. Slavery is a bad thing and you won’t find many books arguing that its a good thing because it isn’t.

So you would suppress truth? Whether it is good or bad does not change facts. Is it not good to know facts? Personally I’m not opposed to any fact. It is not a fact that the South won Gettysburg. But it is a fact that George Washington Carver’s former mistress taught him to read and write. Do we have to strike this fact from the history books because it reveals some slave owners to have compassion and treat their slaves as human beings?

That is not what he is saying at all.
Unless you consider false information and outright lies the truth (that is being suppressed).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

One more post and then I’m really, really done.

So you would suppress truth? Whether it is good or bad does not change facts. Is it not good to know facts? Personally I’m not opposed to any fact. It is not a fact that the South won Gettysburg.** But it is a fact that George Washington Carver’s** former mistress taught him to read and write. Do we have to strike this fact from the history books because it reveals some slave owners to have compassion and treat their slaves as human beings?

The exception does not (necessarily) disprove the rule.
Otherwise I could say that Black people are white skinned because some of them are albinos and expect to be taken seriously (when saying that).

Just because a few slavemasters were kind does not mean that slavery itself wasn’t a brutal system.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Oh, gee, you sound just like me! We have something in common! If you change your mind I will be happy to respond to your post to me. I often leave threads and then check back and respond and I’ve been laughed at for doing so (once). I hope nobody here does that as it is cruel. We all have the right to change our minds, although only women have the prerogative.

You are correct about truth. It cannot be changed although our understanding of it can. However, Wiki is not well known for presenting facts, although sometimes it’s the best that can be found. What is written in history books, especially as it pertains to war, is usually written by the victors. What is written in history books is often amazingly inaccurate. I have a couple of books about the mistakes that are commonly presented in history books. Someday I hope to have time to read them. And although history books provide what are sometimes commonly thought of as facts and perhaps common belief, they do not provide proof. The best they can provide is evidence of facts. And *Wiki *can’t even provide that.

I should also point out that teaching someone to read and write does not necessarily prove compassion. His former mistress may have had a very selfish reason for teaching him to read and write. I haven’t had time to read what you have provided via your link but I wonder if his mistress taught him to read and write while he was legally her property. The term “former mistress” indicates that she taught him after he was freed. There are some questions in my mind about this whole incident. Why didn’t she teach him while he was her slave? Was he too busy doing manual labor? Did she suddenly need someone who could read and write after the slaves were freed? Is that the reason she taught him? I’m not questioning her compassion. I’m just saying that the whole story is rarely presented.

I very much doubt that what I read about the Revolutionary War in elementary school was correct - that it was our thirst for freedom and the evils of King George (and the rest of the British) and our way of hiding behind trees and hay bales instead of marching like the British (which allowed us to mow them down) are the reasons we won the war. Uh uh. I still don’t know why we won!

There were a lot of different factors, but help from the French was perhaps the biggest one.
Frankly the rebelling colonists lost more battles than they won:shrug:

 

[garegin_asatrya]

brutality has nothing to do with the issue at hand. the core problem of slavery is the kidnapping and holding part. some managers would 40 hour weeks and sleep in the office. i’m sure people who have to write and maintain x.org drivers also work under harsh conditions. does not make them slaves, though.

 

[ora_pro_nobis]

I’m astonished to see this thread is still going, and there are still people defending slavery.

 

[LittleSoldier]

There were a lot of different factors, but help from the French was perhaps the biggest one.
Frankly the rebelling colonists lost more battles than they won:shrug:

Actually that is one of the few factors that I found out about a few years ago and I was very surprised. I had never been taught about this. From what little I have read, the French saved our ********* yet are derided by many Americans.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I’m astonished to see this thread is still going, and there are still people defending slavery.

I agree. It’s really awful.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Actually that is one of the few factors that I found out about a few years ago and I was very surprised. I had never been taught about this. From what little I have read, the French saved our ********* yet are derided by many Americans.

We like to mock the French for capitulating so quickly to the Nazis during World War II, but prior to World War I, our record against major powers was pretty pathetic compared to theirs.

 

[Lujack]

We like to mock the French for capitulating so quickly to the Nazis during World War II, but prior to World War I, our record against major powers was pretty pathetic compared to theirs.

Well the Mexican Army was highly regarded and Spain was considered a great power until we took their empire…but really, the French get short shrift even in World War II. It was poor command, not a lack of fighting spirit, that got the French Army wiped out. Where French units remained intact, they fought bravely and well.

And to be fair, they also had to deal with the moral shock of seeing the greatest living Frenchman, Petain the hero of Verdun himself, abruptly turn collaborator. I think almost anyone would have folded after that particular blow.