“Black slaves not only supported themselves, but also their putative owners.”
Wouldn’t you agree that that would depend on their knowledge and occupational duties? That is one can just group them all as field hands or house workers or held by large plantations v. small holdings?
This whole discussion is WAY off subject which was intervention in Syria.
I say nugatory.
Actually the title of this (two year old) blog entry is “Civilian Deaths in the US Civil War”. What does that have to do with Syria?
I would agree that some (say infants) were unable to take care of themselves. I would also agree that white infants were unable to provide any management of the putative slaves.
The comment to which I responded asserted that the black slaves required care from the putative ownters for their livelihood. My point that the reality was the opposite stands.
Subject was civilian deaths in civil war.
Application of that to Syria is nugatory.
Most military deaths in civil war were due to disease, in an age of little ability to sterilize water (bad water leads to dysentary) and no antibiotics.
Malnutrition as an issue in a time with no internal combustion engines is not applicable to current times.
Civilian deaths in Syria are often due to terrorists who do not use a uniform recognizable at a distance, and do not separate themselves from the noncombatant population, and do not follow the laws of war. When such illegal combatants are targeted, the civilian deaths are the fault of the illegal combatants.
At this time, rather than intervene I would pray that evil Assad regime would damage and be damaged by the evil Al Queda terrorists. After one wins is the time to intervene and destroy the evil that won.