There are far more examples of slaves being treated well, housed etc than there are of the horror stories. The horror stories are just more fun to vilify with.
Slaves weren’t cheap, and it made sense to treat your property well. While we’re on the topic, what about all the white slaves then? There were far more of them than there were black slaves.
Africa was a complete and total crap shoot (most of it still is). Their own tribes would capture and sell these people, and do other horrible things.
I’m not so certain that life in the southern US was so horrible as compared to that.
Would you want to be a slave on a big cotton plantation in Mississippi?
So would you be willing to be a slave if they treated you well, gave you a house, etc.?
I have heard of nothing but the horror stories for all of my life. It was only in the last few years if I began to wonder if these are the exception rather than the norm, and if this was "manufactured outrage" using a few real examples to create the illusion that this was rampant and the norm.
The more I thought about it, the more likely it seemed to me that abolitionists (that era's version of Liberal kooks) had cherry picked and highlighted these examples to push their agenda, and probably the norm was far more boring and less sensational.
Why would anyone beat or torture their slaves? At their peak value they were worth something like $100,000.00 in modern money equivalence.
It didn't smell right. It smelled like intentional hype. I've recently found a couple of sources on the subject that I am going to read further when I get a chance.
Africa was a complete and total crap shoot (most of it still is)... I’m not so certain that life in the southern US was so horrible as compared to that.
I'm not going to rationalize slavery, but I will point out that both Alex Haley (Author of "Roots") and Mohammad Ali made statements to the effect that they thank God that their ancestors got on that boat.
It's true that many slave-holders claimed their "property" was treated better than Northern wage-workers.
But everyone knows (because the epithet is thrown around even these days), the difference between "house slaves" and "field slaves".
"House slaves" comparatively treated quite well, but under threat that if they didn't behave they'd quickly become "field slaves".
And on a large plantation the percentages were what?
Maybe 10% house slaves, 90% field slaves.
Field slaves were not necessarily abused, but they were certainly treated no better than absolutely necessary to keep them healthy enough to work.
Such people were not better off than Northern wage-workers except to the degree warmer Southern weather suited them better.
But regardless of how well some slaves were treated, freed wage workers had the right to quit their jobs & seek a better life elsewhere.
And if you think the question might even be controversial, then answer this: how many freed Northern blacks ever voluntarily returned to Southern slavery?
Right: none, zero, nada.
End of argument.