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?
Full employment.
Food provided.
Clothing provided.
Medical care provided.
Housing provided.
Little or no pay, but who needed it?
The person said "Isn't that Communism?"
I said, "Close, it is slavery."
I then outlined the benefits for the owner in providing adequate nutrition, clothing, housing, and medical care in order to safeguard their investment and, of course, full employment meant a ROI.
While that was not intended to be a defense of the institution of slavery (i have no desire to own anyone nor be owned by anyone), my intent was to pull aside the veil of 170 years of abolitionist hyperbole (Uncle Tom's Cabin was a novel) and get the person to think.
I suppose, if one looked hard enough, you could find those who bought agricultural implements (tractors, harvesters, etc.) and immediately set out to damage and destroy them, but those would be in the minority. When the owner's prosperity depends on the ability of the field hands, it makes no sense to treat them like crap. Doing so in an employer-employee relationship doesn't work well either, even now.
Up to 75% of slaves stayed on their farms over 10 years after the war. Why would you beat your slave if they were your property? Just as you wouldn’t beat your horse or cattle if you want them to perform.
Washington’s slaves never left after he freed them.
Pray America is waking
A war of subjugation which killed 600,000 people must be justified after the fact. Otherwise the descendents of those who waged it would have to admit their Ancestors fought for an evil cause. That ain't gonna happen.