How exactly would that work? Would there be a minimum amount of land required to vote? What about a mortgage? Would you have to own the land free and clear? And what about the business ownership requirement? Would there be a minimum size for the business? Would it have to be turning a profit? And why do you think that the military should have a major influence in civil government while anyone who lives in an apartment should be disenfranchised?
I think that, at that time, there were people who were just looking to undermine the social order. Just like now. If you look at the facts regarding what happened when Black people were freed &/or went north, it’s clear that the abolitionists weren’t their “benefactors” at all.
And yet slaves continued to attempt to escape to the north, and I've never heard of one deciding that things were better in the south where they had "their needs provided for" and voluntarily returning to slavery. Instead I read numerous accounts of runaway slaves being aided by anti-slavery northerners to evade the slave catchers attempting to hunt them down. Why is that?
That said, I don’t “support” slavery, but it had been in practice for hundreds- even more than a thousand years. It wasn’t confined to Blacks. My father’s American ancestors were indentured Irish.
Maybe you don't see the difference between a system where an indentured servant served a limited time, protected by law, and was granted land and money at the end of that time, and a system that kept one in servitude for life, along with one's children, grandchildren and so on.
With mechanization, it was coming to an end anyway.
Cotton farming wasn't mechanized until the 1940s. Is that when slavery would have ended?
Slavery continues to this day- in Africa & elsewhere. Where is the outrage for that, I wonder? And why is it only such an issue for America, when it was widespread?
Plenty of people are outraged about slavery around the world and are working to end it. But maybe they're only trying to "undermine the social order" as you put it. As for why it's an issue in America, I'm guessing it's because it's our country, built on the principles laid out in the Declaration and the Constitution, but maybe I'm wrong there. Maybe there's no reason at all to try to hold the US to a higher standard than an African backwater.
To your first paragraph, you’re picking nits. So you think that professional welfare recipients & illegals should be able to vote? Home owners & business owners have a stake in our country, whereas the others may have only a personal motivation. Our military takes an oath to serve & protect our country. Do you trust them to have our country’s best interests at heart?
No offense, but you’re sounding like a democrat.
More than a few slaves fought valiantly & died for the Confederacy. Do you think they did this under duress? How could any of the slaves share loyalty, affection, & trust with their “owners” if it was so bad? Why didn’t the ones who stayed behind & protected their “master’s” family while he & the older sons were away at war- just leave? They could have. They could have taken the gun left for that purpose & run off. Maybe some did, but some stayed- & they would have died protecting their charges, if that’s what it came to. All you’re seeing is “racism” & subjugation, but it isn’t that simple. Many of these slaves- maybe even a majority, were practically extended family; second mothers, “aunts & uncles”. How often do you think someone said (or even thought) I *own* you? I don’t think they did. I think it was assumed that the person would do what they were asked or told to do & the “owner” could be relied on to feed them & take care of them when they were sick & intervene for them if they had trouble. It was more patriarchal than “ownership” in most cases.
You “read accounts”. Maybe you should read some more.
I don’t know about anyone voluntarily returning to slavery. Do we know that none did? I do know that there were some slaves who remained in their former “owners” employment- right here in Texas. I also know of someone who refused to hire any of the former slaves who had once belonged to his new wife’s family. He was stabbed to death by one of his wetbacks & at least 2 of his daughters said it served him right because if he’d have hired them, that never would have happened.
This just isn’t as black & white (no pun meant) as some people try to portray it.
I see a difference between a rotten sob & a decent human being. Decent people did not mistreat their slaves. Rotten people exist- in every race & every social strata. I haven’t looked into my dad’s family that much yet, nor the circumstances of “indentured servitude”. Neither that nor slavery sounds good to me. You are correct that the children & grandchildren became “property” of the “owners”. Was that a bad thing or was it a guarantee that they would have housing, food, & medical care? Should they have been turned out- ripped from their mothers & fathers who loved them?
I don’t think it was common practice to “sell” them. A decent person certainly wouldn’t.
I am speaking from not-recent memory (re slavery ending) There is a fairly good discussion here
My point is that slavery still exists & existed in quite a few civilized countries & their holdings (England, for example)- yet America is the only country hounded a full 150 years *after* it ended. You don’t find that curious?
Many of our country’s founders held (or “owned”) slaves. It was accepted practice at that time. That doesn’t make it right. That’s just the way things were back then. It’s a good thing that it ended, certainly. But it wasn’t necessary to have that kind of death & destruction to do it.
How “moral” is it to embellish & sensationalize this to achieve a goal, at any cost?
The South will never “pay” enough to satisfy people like you, will we? Only when we are erased from the face of the earth. (Where have we heard that before?)
That won’t end it, either. Revenge endures forever & harms the vengeful far more than the object.
jmho
I wasn't going to get involved in this side issue, but for a seemingly intelligent man, you really don't seem to want to think too hard on the questions you ask.
Well apart from the fact that no man wants someone else telling him what to do, the Social Justice Warriors of the North were making a big deal over them. When they were coming in the 10s or 100s, they were providing help, and would integrate them into the societies where they settled.
When the numbers are millions, (after the Social Justice Warriors won) they no longer felt a compelling interest to see to their needs or provide the same degree of assistance. After all, they already established themselves as Morally superior to those evil philistines over there, so they no longer needed these people to fuel their righteous indignation.
Besides, the practicality of it was simply impossible. There were just too many people to give large quantities of help to all of them.
Once more, Liberals wanting "Change" found themselves being hammered by the law of unintended consequences.