That's easy for you to say, living in the twenty first century. But, in 1850, Jefferson Davis pointed to many positive aspects of slavery as compared to any of the available alternatives to that institution at that time. How were blacks treated in the South? How were they treated in the North? Did the North really have any moral right to attack Southern traditions?
Well, I'll let then Senator Davis speak for himself:
And for what end, sir, is all this aggression? They see that the slaves in their present condition in the South are comfortable and happy; they see them advancing in intelligence; they see the kindest relations existing between them and their masters; they see them provided for in age and sickness, in infancy and in disability; they see them in useful employment, restrained from the vicious indulgences to which their inferior nature inclines them; they see our penitentiaries never filled, and our poor-houses usually empty. let them turn to the other hand, and they see the same race in a state of freedom in the North; but instead of the comfort and kindness they receive at the South, instead of being happy and useful, they are, with few exceptions, miserable, degraded, filling the penitentiaries and poor-houses, objects of scorn, excluded in some places from the schools, and deprived of many other privileges and benefits which attach to the white men among whom they live. And yet, they insist that elsewhere an institution which has proved beneficial to this race shall be abolished, that it may be substituted by a state of things which is fraught with so many evils to the race which they claim to be the object of the solicitude!
So, when you condemn slavery, please keep in mind that context is crucial, always.
Yes, Davis was so concerned about taking care of the poor negroes. He wanted to make sure they are comfortable and happy.
In any context that is condescending crap.
How about the context of one person “owning” another person is against natural law and should always be railed against.
You mean, like, freedom...?
The context is 150 years ago, NOT NOW.
Sure, probably half the whipping posts were put up so the slaves could whip the masters as much as the masters would whip the slaves.
And those female slaves kept sneaking into the big house to have good times with the master.
Those slave patrols were merely traveling the roads looking to turn back stray northern folks trying to sneak south so they could enjoy the happy times of being a slave. (/sarcasm)
So being sold “down” (Southward) the river should have been a joy?
The manner of dealing with slaves DID vary through territories that allowed it, of course. Some were essentially willing servants and would live off the grounds of the plantations where they served. Others were dealt with harshly as perpetually distrusted captives. And there was everything in between. I do remember of being at a farm where once they had slave stalls with chains for traveling parties... they were filled in at the end of the slave era, but it’s simply harrowing to contemplate. It was a spiritual abomination.