[ClearCase_guy]

I'm certainly not defending slavery, but I think the commonly held view of slavery is grossly inaccurate. Prior to 1805, if they died, you'd just ship more over from Africa. After 1805, they were a rather scarce and valuable commodity.

Of course, people ought not to be a "commodity", but the point is that slaveowners had to care about the welfare of their slaves. In the industrial northeast, the factory workers cared far less about their workers -- after all: immigrant labor was arriving every day from Europe, so industrial workers were easily replaced. Unlike slaves.

[FunkyZero]

Of course it is not meant to defend slavery, but... for accuracy, it needs to be said. Slaves were real expensive and considered a rare "commodity". for that reason alone, they were generally treated well. Unfortunately, not for considering the human aspect of it, but because it was a significant investment.

In fact, in more accurate materials I have read, it was told that in general only the extremely wealthy usually owned slaves because they were a headache... they had to be housed, fed, medical care, they could run off, etc. that kind of money would be much better spent on farm machinery in most cases.

[Moonman62]

I’m certainly not defending slavery, but I think the commonly held view of slavery is grossly inaccurate. Prior to 1805, if they died, you’d just ship more over from Africa. After 1805, they were a rather scarce and valuable commodity.

...

Perhaps that’s one of the reasons the Slave Power wanted to break off as a separate country, they could start importing slaves again.