I have read numerous books BY nineteenth century writers, as well as books ABOUT the nineteenth century. What I've found, which many people don't realize, is that slavery was a lifestyle more than it was a "peculiar institution". We all recoil today at the idea of ownership of a person, but many don't understand it. I wouldn't suggest that there is any way to justify slavery, but people should still understand what it was. It is not unlike saying that nobody should support Hitler's Nazi party, but we should still understand what it was. For our own sakes, we should recognize the symptoms.
All of that is preamble to saying that slaves and masters largely had reasonably cordial relationships. ONE MORE TIME, I am not justifying anything, I am stating a reality. Many slaves worked extra hours to earn the money to buy their freedom. It was not uncommon. Free blacks were sometimes married to slaves, and likewise found ways to buy the freedom of their spouse. BTW, some blacks were themselves slaveowners, as were some Indians. Recoil at this if you will, but do not blame me for stating fundamental truths. To think that it all comes down to "Whites be the bad guys, blacks be the victims" is absurdly simplistic and barely touches the truth.
And yes, while southern plantation slavery took slave trading to previously unknown levels, they did not invent the system. The system predates the existence of White men in the Americas. And don't forget South America, where the practice was even more prevalent.
Robert mentioned "chattel". Chattel means ownership or control of living beings. In the parlance of the time, that would include, slaves, horses, wives and children. Typically, a woman gave up her rights to ownership of anything, when she married. Her property, if she had any, automatically came under control of the husband. Horses and other livestock, same thing of course. And the husband/owner was justified in whipping any of them, although that does not appear to have been commonplace. Again, this was a lifestyle that embodied more than just slave ownership.
The good news, such as it is, is that the man/owner was expected to use good judgment on behalf of all his chattel. Those men who were cruel or abused their power were shunned, even by their fellow White men. A "gentleman" was kind and considerate, even of his slaves and other chattel.
Have I defended any of this? No. I have defended nothing. I have merely explained. The nineteenth century was a time when people were trying to find their way from aristocratic control of the community to entire freedom with rule from no man. That is where the expression, "We are nation of laws, not of men" derives. Europeans were among the first to try to make this happen on a large scale. It's been ugly, it is still ugly. But there is no excuse for not comprehending what's really going on.
It was no more white supremist than when blacks in Africa held slaves or when Muslims held slaves or when Chinese held slaves or when Slavs were slaves. It has been a regrettable part of the human condition since the beginning. The path forward does not lie through victimhood.
Yes, it was so much better to be castrated, forced to march hundreds of miles to the coasts of East Africa or across the Sahara to be sold as a eunuch to some prince in the Islamic world in the Middle Ages. Or to be one of the black slaves working the salt marshes in what is today southern Iraq during the time of the great Zanj uprising there in the 800s. Put down after 13 years of resistance - but not by a single "white person" I might add.
Really, give it up with the neo-racist lingo of the day "White" this "White" that. It is truly ridiculous.
Lost Cause revisionist nonsense. Slavery in the United States was based on a white superiority ideal that still reverberates today. Chattel slavery was essentially a European creation when considered on a worldwide basis. From an economic standpoint a castrated enslaved Black male would have less monetary value because he could not reproduce free labor. The enslaved would not have to pay an external source for a laborer.
Was the Zanj uprising the "Lost Cause" you had in mind here? Or is that just an uncontrollable tic of yours you have to give out just to get rev'd up? I notice you use the term almost every time. As to those castrated boys, that was often done on the way to the slave markets. A large percentage of the boys to whom it was done died. Yet the eunuchs who survived were still valuable enough to make the trade worth it to someone. I guess "monetary value" was in the eye of the beholder.
I read the article you cite and found much to agree with. I'm old enough to remember the last years of Jim Crow and the civil rights movement of the early 1960's. In my view, many people (especially blacks) made a tragic mistake when they embraced Black Power and various neo-Marxist ideas beginning in the mid-1960's. Aside from a few leaders, the Black community continues to pay a terrible price for that mistake, along with the nation as a whole.
I just read this post yesterday, and it was "Deja Vue all over again." It contains an immense amount of rational observation. I see it as pretty much a roadmap of how we got from the 60s to where we are now.
I have read numerous books BY nineteenth century writers, as well as books ABOUT the nineteenth century. What I've found, which many people don't realize, is that slavery was a lifestyle more than it was a "peculiar institution". We all recoil today at the idea of ownership of a person, but many don't understand it. I wouldn't suggest that there is any way to justify slavery, but people should still understand what it was. It is not unlike saying that nobody should support Hitler's Nazi party, but we should still understand what it was. For our own sakes, we should recognize the symptoms.
All of that is preamble to saying that slaves and masters largely had reasonably cordial relationships. ONE MORE TIME, I am not justifying anything, I am stating a reality. Many slaves worked extra hours to earn the money to buy their freedom. It was not uncommon. Free blacks were sometimes married to slaves, and likewise found ways to buy the freedom of their spouse. BTW, some blacks were themselves slaveowners, as were some Indians. Recoil at this if you will, but do not blame me for stating fundamental truths. To think that it all comes down to "Whites be the bad guys, blacks be the victims" is absurdly simplistic and barely touches the truth.
And yes, while southern plantation slavery took slave trading to previously unknown levels, they did not invent the system. The system predates the existence of White men in the Americas. And don't forget South America, where the practice was even more prevalent.
Robert mentioned "chattel". Chattel means ownership or control of living beings. In the parlance of the time, that would include, slaves, horses, wives and children. Typically, a woman gave up her rights to ownership of anything, when she married. Her property, if she had any, automatically came under control of the husband. Horses and other livestock, same thing of course. And the husband/owner was justified in whipping any of them, although that does not appear to have been commonplace. Again, this was a lifestyle that embodied more than just slave ownership.
The good news, such as it is, is that the man/owner was expected to use good judgment on behalf of all his chattel. Those men who were cruel or abused their power were shunned, even by their fellow White men. A "gentleman" was kind and considerate, even of his slaves and other chattel.
Have I defended any of this? No. I have defended nothing. I have merely explained. The nineteenth century was a time when people were trying to find their way from aristocratic control of the community to entire freedom with rule from no man. That is where the expression, "We are nation of laws, not of men" derives. Europeans were among the first to try to make this happen on a large scale. It's been ugly, it is still ugly. But there is no excuse for not comprehending what's really going on.
To think that it all comes down to "Whites be the bad guys, blacks be the victims" is absurdly simplistic and barely touches the truth.
Blacks were operating in a white supremacy system. As you noted, some Blacks bought family members. Have you read Black Slaveowners by Larry Kroger?
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Black_Slaveowners/v3KNAwAAQBAJ?hl=en
It was no more white supremist than when blacks in Africa held slaves or when Muslims held slaves or when Chinese held slaves or when Slavs were slaves. It has been a regrettable part of the human condition since the beginning. The path forward does not lie through victimhood.
Chattel slavery exploded in the Age of Colonialism. It was a white supremacy thing.
Yes, it was so much better to be castrated, forced to march hundreds of miles to the coasts of East Africa or across the Sahara to be sold as a eunuch to some prince in the Islamic world in the Middle Ages. Or to be one of the black slaves working the salt marshes in what is today southern Iraq during the time of the great Zanj uprising there in the 800s. Put down after 13 years of resistance - but not by a single "white person" I might add.
Really, give it up with the neo-racist lingo of the day "White" this "White" that. It is truly ridiculous.
Lost Cause revisionist nonsense. Slavery in the United States was based on a white superiority ideal that still reverberates today. Chattel slavery was essentially a European creation when considered on a worldwide basis. From an economic standpoint a castrated enslaved Black male would have less monetary value because he could not reproduce free labor. The enslaved would not have to pay an external source for a laborer.
Was the Zanj uprising the "Lost Cause" you had in mind here? Or is that just an uncontrollable tic of yours you have to give out just to get rev'd up? I notice you use the term almost every time. As to those castrated boys, that was often done on the way to the slave markets. A large percentage of the boys to whom it was done died. Yet the eunuchs who survived were still valuable enough to make the trade worth it to someone. I guess "monetary value" was in the eye of the beholder.
Have you read this?
https://youngtorless.substack.com/p/bearing-witness-to-black-sanctity
I read the article you cite and found much to agree with. I'm old enough to remember the last years of Jim Crow and the civil rights movement of the early 1960's. In my view, many people (especially blacks) made a tragic mistake when they embraced Black Power and various neo-Marxist ideas beginning in the mid-1960's. Aside from a few leaders, the Black community continues to pay a terrible price for that mistake, along with the nation as a whole.
Thanks for the affirmation.
I just read this post yesterday, and it was "Deja Vue all over again." It contains an immense amount of rational observation. I see it as pretty much a roadmap of how we got from the 60s to where we are now.
https://youngtorless.substack.com/p/bearing-witness-to-black-sanctity
I’ll take a look tonight
Quick question
SCOTUS order the white Republican legislators in Alabama to draw a second district for Black voters.
Is the argument being made that Alabama districts should not factor in race