[olezip]

A federal judge in New Orleans has thrown out a lawsuit filed against the New York Times by a Loyola University economics professor who had accused the newspaper of libel.

Is it not true that some slaveowners treated their slaves as family? That is, they kept them together, called the doctor when they were sick, encouraged them to go to church, rested on Sundays, etc. How many slaves stayed on the plantation, earning a wage after the end of the civil war?

Or, is it that actual facts and statistics that portray the institution [slavery] other than vicious, depraved and monstrous, are unacceptable? Is this where we are today?

[Sooth2222]

"Walter Block, an economics professor at Loyola University in New Orleans who described slavery as “not so bad,” is also highly critical of the Civil Rights Act. “Woolworth’s had lunchroom counters, and no blacks were allowed,” he said in a telephone interview. “Did they have a right to do that? Yes, they did. No one is compelled to associate with people against their will.”

That sounds fairly mild compared to what we have been hearing from the left recently.

[2banana]

Slaves were certainly better off than the irish working the canals...

[untenured]

Here, according to Prof. Block's own reply, are the remarks that contain the NYT quotation:

"Free association is a very important aspect of liberty. It is crucial. Indeed, its lack was the major problem with slavery. The slaves could not quit. They were forced to ‘associate’ with their masters when they would have vastly preferred not to do so. Otherwise, slavery wasn’t so bad. You could pick cotton, sing songs, be fed nice gruel, etc. The only real problem was that this relationship was compulsory. It violated the law of free association, and that of the slaves’ private property rights in their own persons. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, then, to a much smaller degree of course, made partial slaves of the owners of establishments like Woolworths.”

Later on he describes slavery as "vicious, depraved and monstrous," and gives his reasons for thinking so, which are not reasons peculiar to the peculiar institution. Freepers can decide whether the NYT's characterization, that the prof. "described slavery as 'not so bad,'" is false.