Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Non-Sequitur
Heck, I never said they didn't, what I said was at the time of the CW they didn't. But it was also legal under the US Constitution. And yes, I can find ancestors that had slaves, but the few I can find were circa 1760 - 1820. The vast majority were farmers that employed their families or a hired hand. Slaves were way too expensive.

Most Northerners believe that all slaves were mistreated in the South. Propoganda & revisionist history. Why would the ex-slaves refuse to flee up north, and serve instead with their former owners? Why, when given the choice to leave, would the majority choose to sharecrop beside their former owner?

88 posted on 11/10/2001 7:34:16 PM PST by 4CJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies ]


To: 4ConservativeJustices
I have no doubt that the overwhelming majority of slave owners did not physically mistreak their slaves. The slaves were a valuable asset and formed a large part of the owners net worth. One would not intentionally harm something of that value. On the other hand, I wouldn't want that kind of life for myself and I doubt that anyone else would, either.
97 posted on 11/11/2001 1:54:40 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson