Origins of slavery in the US

[Ridgerunner]

You might find the book, A Renegade History of the U.S. by Thaddeus Russell interesting reading on this topic on the condition of slaves relative to free whites, or otherwise. The popular conception of ‘12 years a slave’ brutality being the norm may not be historically accurate, according to Prof. Russell.

Thanks by the way for that info on Irish Catholics being the first slaves to be sent to America, I didn’t know that.

I have long doubted that the “typical” treatment of black slaves was as brutal as we are usually told. As I mentioned previously, healthy, strong, work-ready slaves, particularly those with skills, were very expensive. A sensible farmer would no more endanger such a slave with senseless beatings or starving than he would mistreat a $50,000 tractor today. Adjusted for inflation, the costs of the two were fairly comparable. I recall reading that some owners had “come when called” arrangements with local doctors to come and treat a sick slave.

But I also suspect the worst treatment was probably in the big plantations in the very deep south, particularly in miasmic, river bottom plantations. One thinks of the Pearl River and the lower Mississippi in that regard. Troublesome slaves were “sold down the river” into what all regarded as terrible conditions. If they were known to be troublesome, that was probably reflected in the price and in their treatment. And on really big plantations, the owner would not know them personally like a farmer or householder would who had one or two slaves whom they were around on a daily basis, often doing the very same work.

I would suspect, too, that slaves that were “impaired” in some manner were probably fairly inexpensive, not well cared for, and were more subject to abuse.

Slightly off the subject, but perhaps still germane is this. In northwest Arkansas there is a community of Italians in a place where there is no really good reason for a community of Italians to settle. Well, the acknowledged story is that they were originally brought from Italy by big farmers in the Arkansas River valley because Italians were believed (rightly or wrongly) to be relatively resistant to mosquito-borne diseases like malaria. The Arkansas River valley is very rich, but it’s pretty far south and low-lying, and mosquitoes would have been a serious problem for anybody working the soil. Ultimately, though, the Italians, not being owned, left and resettled in the more salubrious mountains of northwest Arkansas where they are today. They didn’t like working in the Arkansas River valley any more than anyone else did.

Nowadays, of course, that river valley is farmed by a very few men in extremely expensive tractors with cabs and air conditioning.

 

[exnihilo]

Um, Texas was guaranteed the right to unilaterally split itself into up to 5 different states, it didn’t actually get the right to secede from the Union.

I believe you are right. I had always thought there was but after researching the issue further apparently that is not so. Of course that does not change the fact that past generations can’t bind further generations, or at least shouldn’t be able to.

I have long doubted that the “typical” treatment of black slaves was as brutal as we are usually told.

Most certainly not. But you usually can’t have an honest conversation on the topic. Another piece of data that makes the typical narrative untrustworthy comes from my state. A slave killed his master. This was not in doubt. The slave claimed self defense. The slave claimed his master was beating him. The facts not in doubt are the master was killed by the slave and the master beat the slave. Now according to the narrative the master had every right to beat his slave and the slave would be executed because he killed a master. But in this case the slave was tried but found not guilty as he acted in self defense. We should keep in mind the jury would have been all men and all White. Of course I don’t think this one story is necessarily representative any more than I think the stories of brutality represent the whole story.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I believe you are right. I had always thought there was but after researching the issue further apparently that is not so. Of course that does not change the fact that past generations can’t bind further generations, or at least shouldn’t be able to.

The context of the writing of the Constitution (just won a war that resulted in independence from Great Britain, no one trusted government, no one trusted the masses, checks and balances on checks and balances incorporated into our governmental system, the Bill of Rights, etc) would lead me to believe that seceding from the Union once a state joined was not something that was seen as an option. If it were, we would have had it expressed in the Constitution.

 

[starshiptrooper]

I meant irrelevant to the question of was the Union justified in making war on the CSA. The CSA might not have respected self-determination within their states. But that does not make the Union right in refusing it to the South. In other words just because the neighbor kid did it doesn’t make it right.

When the neighbor kid starts bullying his little brother, an outside party is justified in stepping in.

Yes, the CSA fired the first shots. The Union also refused to vacate a fort controlling a port city.

A fort that was federal property.

The Union was happy they were fired upon. Considering the whole war the CSA did not intend to take over Union states as it did not take DC when it could have or make war in Northern states in general.

Wrong, Lee believed he needed a victory on Union soil. Ever hear of Antietam or Gettysburg?

Had the Union abandon the fort there would have been no war. Had the Union not campaigned in the CSA there would be no war. The Union is responsible for the rest of the war and the body count.

That is ludicrous. The South needed to expand and spread the blight of slavery westward. The entire west would have been Bleeding Kansas write large.

How would I be having it both ways? Why can I not bring up the constitution? How does it show the hypocrisy of the South? The Federal constitution did not apply to the CSA but did apply to the Union. The Union was the party ignoring parts of it.

Self-determination for white slave-owners but not for slaves and pro-Union men is hypocritical, no? You just claimed the CSA was a foreign nation. If you believe that, then constitutional objections to the way West Virginia was formed from another state (which was not a state but a separate nation according to you) are irrelevant.

I didn’t say we can’t differentiate I said measuring badness is difficult. Do you disagree? The only reason I respond is because I get tired of the narrative about the evil South and the heroic North. It is the same fable that has us killing people overseas ever since.

So now people who ram planes into buildings full of civilians are now morally better than the USA? Are Nazis good people? Were the Japanese fanatics justified? These are the people we have killed overseas. They deserved to die.

Your claim is the claim of the victors. But I see no reason why the states can not secede from the Union. There is nothing in the constitution that prohibits it. I guess it could be in there invisibly like the right to abortion and sodomy. What a glorious document! The states predated the current federal constitution. They as sovereign states joined together under the Articles of Confederation. They as sovereign states ended that federation and created a new one. At what point did they cease to be sovereign states and under what legal theory?

Try reading the Constitution. The states lack all the marks of a sovereign nation. They cannot coin money, declare war, raise armies, make treaties with foreign powers, or even make treaties with each other without the consent of Congress. Also, the Constitution states that federal law is supreme over state law. The Founding Fathers did not intend for secession to be an option. James Madison wrote extensively on this issue. Besides, when they wanted the states or the people to have a way of defending themselves from federal overreach they wrote it explicitly in the Constitution, i.e. the 2nd Amendment, or the methods of amending the Constitution which do not require the federal government.

 

[tabycat]

Their was nothing romantic about the Old South that was built on the backs of innocent men who were treated as animals.

As the Bible tells us God hears the call of the poor and will vanquish those who oppress them. In this case God spoke and He punished the Southern States of the US - and He didn’t do it because of “self determination”, but because what they were doing was evil, nothing more.

I did not say it was romantic, you did.

 

[tabycat]

You neglect the major point…

Slaves are not paid.

But the ‘wage slaves’ owe their souls to the company story. Also, a wage slave was cheaper to replace then a owened slave.

 

[tabycat]

Ok, let’s try this. Many slaves tried to escape from the plantations. No slave ever returned voluntarily because he could not stand the free North. No freeman ever voluntarily enslaved himself to a Southern plantation owner.

Some ‘runaway’ slaves (like Hennret Tubman) went back and helped bring out slaves out of the South while many anti-slavery whites did nothing.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

But the ‘wage slaves’ owe their souls to the company story. Also, a wage slave was cheaper to replace then a owened slave.

Slaves- property
Workers who are underpaid, in massive debt to the company store, overworked, etc- not property

 

[tabycat]

Slaves- property
Workers who are underpaid, in massive debt to the company store, overworked, etc- not property

That is not what the company store thinks and the owerns did not think that their ‘workers’ were underpayed and overworked. Also. a wage worker was easier and cheaper to replace then a slave was.

 

[Jerurussia]

Islam did then and does now initiate the African slavery that infected the western world. Jews have been more active in protesting the revival of Islam enslaving Christians in Sudan. And there is little popular protest about Christian women who are now being auctioned off to ISIS “rebels.” Islam is the religion gleaned from an angelic appearance to Mohammed. “Beware of Satan appearing as an angel of light.” Once people actively disdain one entire gender as “fair game” from childhood on as Islam has, there are few other constraints to man’s inhumanity to man.

Dutch “indentured servants” in America were horribly treated, and they ran away to be happily captured by the Seminole tribe, among others, where they became “slaves” but were treated as a member of the family. With all the depredation by settlers, the natives in America can be grateful it was not the Dutch who won the day. The Spanish ultimately refused to enslave their New World denizens after impassioned intervention by the Church.

The African slave was highly prized as having a genetic adaptation to combat malaria via various degrees of anemia, with the Sickle Cell anemia being the most debilitating; but other milder forms warding off infection by the malarial disease agent as anemic cells buckled with attacks by the protozoa. These four degrees of anemia found throughout African populations will also cause a certain lassitude, the “laziness” attributed to Africans that is a symptom of anemia. Compared to the relatively slight-of-build Irish, the African towered over their slave masters. The other adaptation, larger surface area of male genitalia to release tropical heat probably made the proverbial “Southern man” more than a little psychologically as well as physically intimidated. Weenie envy may have played a large factor in violence towards African slaves. Did an earlier fear of the larger southern Africans feed Islam’s love of slavery? The smaller northern Africans hated their southern neighbors of darker skin color, and that may have included disdain for their habit of enthroning queens, with the Egyptian Queen Hatshepsut possibly being of Nubian descent, and reviled after her well-enshrined death.

We forget that the “Jim Crow” laws against Africans were rooted in that unique figure, the mythical Jim Crow who was, if not the creation of, was certainly popularized by a white music hall performer in blackface with clothing rented from an African longshoreman. The performer masked his political critique behind the stage character of Jim Crow, who was on the order of Paul Bunyan, a superman type. So Jim Crow started out as a super-hero and that also suggested a popular belief, however subliminal, of the superiority of the African to the diminutive–and recessive–Caucasians.

One may also be reminded of the northern riots with Africans protesting the widespread practice of Irish taking less than the slave wages of a dollar a day. This may be the first union labor movement in the United States. May the Holy Spirit grant us His perfect unity in Christ Jesus, Son of the Father, making of us all one family.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

That is not what the company store thinks and the owerns did not think that their ‘workers’ were underpayed and overworked. Also. a wage worker was easier and cheaper to replace then a slave was.

Of course the wage worker was easier and cheaper to replace than a slave was, they weren’t property. It’s disturbing how easily you seem to dismiss the fact that slaves weren’t considered to be people, but to be property.

 

[tabycat]

]

Of course the wage worker was easier and cheaper to replace than a slave was, they weren’t property. It’s disturbing how easily you seem to dismiss the fact that slaves weren’t considered to be people, but to be property.

Do you find it easy to dismiss the wage slave as a non-human? I do not dismiss owned slaves as people, but am considering that both worked under conditions that most of us in the first world would not accept.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

]

Do you find it easy to dismiss the wage slave as a non-human? I do not dismiss owned slaves as people, but am considering that both worked under conditions that most of us in the first world would not accept.

Yes, both worked under horrible conditions. The rather large difference is that one of these groups were viewed as property not as other human beings working under horrible conditions. The root evil of slavery isn’t the conditions under which a slave has to work, but the fundamental denial of their dignity as a human being which is what we see in the slavery practiced in the American South.

 

[tabycat]

Yes, both worked under horrible conditions. The rather large difference is that one of these groups were viewed as property not as other human beings working under horrible conditions. The root evil of slavery isn’t the conditions under which a slave has to work, but the fundamental denial of their dignity as a human being which is what we see in the slavery practiced in the American South.

You are forgeting that many slave owners work under their slaves did, because the ‘free person’ had five or fewer slaves. You are also forgeting that some slave owners were also Black.
Tell people working under horrible conditions and were not considered persons because they were not WASPs they had it made because they not legally ‘property’ but could be replaced easier and cheaper then a slave could be.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

You are forgeting that many slave owners work under their slaves did, because the ‘free person’ had five or fewer slaves. You are also forgeting that some slave owners were also Black.
Tell people working under horrible conditions and were not considered persons because they were not WASPs they had it made because they not legally ‘property’ but could be replaced easier and cheaper then a slave could be.

Slave owners working under the same condition of their slaves and black people owning other black people doesn’t actually change the fact that slaves were considered to be property, not people. In fact, slave owners working under the same conditions as their slaves kind of erodes support for your argument that the conditions of work is what really matters in this discussion.

 

[tabycat]

Slave owners working under the same condition of their slaves and black people owning other black people doesn’t actually change the fact that slaves were considered to be property, not people. In fact, slave owners working under the same conditions as their slaves kind of erodes support for your argument that the conditions of work is what really matters in this discussion.

The point is that there was people (slave and free0) who were not considered human beings because they were woman, children, disabled, and/or non-WASP (or non name your group). :tiphat: Threre are people today who think I am not a human being because I am female, disabled, and a non-WASP.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

The point is that there was people (slave and free0) who were not considered human beings because they were woman, children, disabled, and/or non-WASP (or non name your group). :tiphat: Threre are people today who think I am not a human being because I am female, disabled, and a non-WASP.

So we’re dropping the whole “wage slave” and actual slave are the same comparison?

 

[teeboy]

No. God does not “punish” us while here on Earth. (although Jewish people believe that He does)

Whatever “punishment” we deserve is reserved for the afterlife. Remember at the last second…anyone can be saved.

You should read the story about Adam and Eve in Genesis or maybe Cain and Abel. Punishment on Earth does exist.

Being saved at the last second and punishment are concepts which have hardly anything to do with one another.

 

[teeboy]

The “new economic opportunities” for blacks (and whites) were in the North, notwithstanding that segregation in the North was perhaps even more rigid than it was in the South.

Sharecropping has no relationship to slavery, though it must be admitted that sharecropping requires less capital investment than did southern slavery. The South lost massive capital from the loss of slaves, oftentimes the loss of land to carpetbaggers, the insolvency of banks, the destruction of infrastructure, and the worthlessness of Confederate money and bonds. It lost a great deal of income from the decreasing prices of its cash crop mainstays. The price of cotton in 1876 was about 1/5 what it was in 1863.

The economy most definitely did change due to the destruction of wealth and loss of income. It probably affected subsistence food producers least of all.

It didn’t take long, either, for cotton to crash. First of all, England’s alternative (and cheaper) source, Egypt, produced the higher quality long-staple cotton. If you look at most of the old cotton land today, it’s either ranchland or woodland. Vast swaths of the cotton producing south was exhausted by just a few years of raising upland cotton.

Certainly, many tried to make cotton work anyway, but it just kept spiraling downward for years, and that’s why so much of the south is now grassland or woodland. Cotton is still raised in very fertile places, (as are corn and soybeans) but the widespread planting of upland cotton is gone.

Nevertheless, agricultural products are still big in the south, though they’re somewhat different and much more “agribusiness” than they were even during the antebellum plantation era.

Yes, deer populations in states like Mississippi have exploded since the Civil War. This is because the cotton farms quickly turned into woodlands. The soils in those places weren’t even complementary to farming, which is evidence of the profitability of the old system.

 

[teeboy]

Let’s not forget world history at the expense of American History. Many Christians in Europe were enslaved by invaders from Africa. Most notably, Spaniards were enslaved by Muslim invaders from North Africa. These Spaniards were not allowed to practice Christianity by the invaders. It took centuries and generations for the affected areas to regain their independence.