I have been here a while, I make a point of clicking on threads concerning the South, and I have never seen anyone on FR defend slavery in any way, shape or form.”
Really?
OK, then, for a recent example of how “slavery wasn’t all that bad” check out post #12 on this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1521640/posts
The writer says,
“Sorry, but slaves weren’t all beaten and treated badly. The farmers couldn’t afford to have them injured or sickly. If the slaves weren’t able to work, there was no harvest and the owners would be broke. My great-grandmother was glad when the slaves were freed because they were too much trouble to care for.”
I’ve heard it all before, way too often. Slavery wasn’t all that bad, they were taken care of, they were worse off with emancipation, etc., etc., etc.
Personally, I find it tiresome. And it happens here more than I care to recall.
To claim that some particular instance of slavery was in some ways less heinous than some other particular description of slavery is not necessarily a defense of the institution of slavery. It might simply be an honest attempt at historical accuracy.
Are you sure you aren't simply enjoying a ride on a moralistic high-horse on this subject? Do you really believe that your moral sense of the institution of slavery itself is somehow more refined than that of the other poster you quoted?
Whatever your opinion, dude, there is some truth in that statement. Slaves were very valuable property, and it behooved slave owners to take care of them out of economic self-interest. I mean, if you owned a fine expensive tractor, you wouldn't run it into a tree if you got mad at it, would you? With that said, slavery wasn't exactly all sugar and sweetness either, and SOME slaveowners, NOT all, abused their slaves.
>> “Sorry, but slaves weren’t all beaten and treated badly. The farmers couldn’t afford to have them injured or sickly. If the slaves weren’t able to work, there was no harvest and the owners would be broke. My great-grandmother was glad when the slaves were freed because they were too much trouble to care for.”
>>
>> Personally, I find it tiresome. And it happens here more than I care to recall.
The quote you referenced in no way defends slavery as moral. It’s a simple historical fact. Not all plantations were the same. Rice plantations for example required more skill than brawn to run, and it was the slaves who had the skills. Even one angry slave could wipe out an entire year’s crops by flooding the fields at the wrong time; hence the slaves were typically not abused nor mistreated. Research the Middleton Place plantation for an example. History is always a bit more complex than the bumper-sticker slogans taught in the public schools.
I have said so before, and will say so again, slavery was wrong by today’s standards. It wasn’t by the standards of 1860, and it was perfectly LEGAL.
