Posted on 05/13/2015 12:22:19 AM PDT by Oliviaforever
A federal judge in New Orleans has thrown out a lawsuit filed against the New York Times by a Loyola University economics professor who had accused the newspaper of libel.
(Excerpt) Read more at nola.com ...
Is it not true that some slaveowners treated their slaves as family? That is, they kept them together, called the doctor when they were sick, encouraged them to go to church, rested on Sundays, etc. How many slaves stayed on the plantation, earning a wage after the end of the civil war?
Or, is it that actual facts and statistics that portray the institution [slavery] other than vicious, depraved and monstrous, are unacceptable? Is this where we are today?
That sounds fairly mild compared to what we have been hearing from the left recently.
Full employment.
Food provided.
Clothing provided.
Medical care provided.
Housing provided.
Little or no pay, but who needed it?
The person said "Isn't that Communism?"
I said, "Close, it is slavery."
I then outlined the benefits for the owner in providing adequate nutrition, clothing, housing, and medical care in order to safeguard their investment and, of course, full employment meant a ROI.
While that was not intended to be a defense of the institution of slavery (i have no desire to own anyone nor be owned by anyone), my intent was to pull aside the veil of 170 years of abolitionist hyperbole (Uncle Tom's Cabin was a novel) and get the person to think.
I suppose, if one looked hard enough, you could find those who bought agricultural implements (tractors, harvesters, etc.) and immediately set out to damage and destroy them, but those would be in the minority. When the owner's prosperity depends on the ability of the field hands, it makes no sense to treat them like crap. Doing so in an employer-employee relationship doesn't work well either, even now.
Slaves were certainly better off than the irish working the canals...
Even in our crony capitalistic society are we really free? I propose a test, can you quit your job and move anywhere and not loss everything in a few years, if not you are truly free, otherwise you are at best an endured servant or at worse a slave. Modern western society is structured so that only if you build a nest egg of money, that you can live off of only the interest, can you even get close to becoming a free man. And this is the best system there is.
Up to 75% of slaves stayed on their farms over 10 years after the war. Why would you beat your slave if they were your property? Just as you wouldn’t beat your horse or cattle if you want them to perform.
Washington’s slaves never left after he freed them.
Pray America is waking
A war of subjugation which killed 600,000 people must be justified after the fact. Otherwise the descendents of those who waged it would have to admit their Ancestors fought for an evil cause. That ain't gonna happen.
“Slaves were certainly better off than the irish working the canals...”
I know that the Irish in America who dug canals and built other infrastructure in pre Civil War America were treated harshly and paid low wages, but I don’t recall reading about the Irish being held in captivity, hunted down if they escaped or having their children sold off the highest bidder and never seen again.
Maybe you never read about the thousands of Irish who died building just the Erie Canal. Now multiple by the thousands of canal projects going on in America pre-Civil War.
Slaves were property and were valuable asset to a slave owner. The owners took decent care of slaves as a dead slave was worth nothing and too many dead slaves would lead to bankruptcy.
The Irish? Let them die. There are thousands of more desperate for a job. The canal owners could care less if they died by the thousands - which they did - over and over.
And then the Irish (unlike slaves) were then drafted and died by the thousands in the Civil War.
All in all - who had it better????
thank you! that "freedom-loving" people would defend slavery in any context is disgusting... how can we on FR fight against the limits the government places on us citizens and yet, defend slavery--because some owners were "nice..."????????????
all in all, both situations sucked... who had it better? the one who had freedom had it better, yes? recall these words, "give me liberty or give me death?" (Patrick Henry)
"Free association is a very important aspect of liberty. It is crucial. Indeed, its lack was the major problem with slavery. The slaves could not quit. They were forced to ‘associate’ with their masters when they would have vastly preferred not to do so. Otherwise, slavery wasn’t so bad. You could pick cotton, sing songs, be fed nice gruel, etc. The only real problem was that this relationship was compulsory. It violated the law of free association, and that of the slaves’ private property rights in their own persons. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, then, to a much smaller degree of course, made partial slaves of the owners of establishments like Woolworths.”
Later on he describes slavery as "vicious, depraved and monstrous," and gives his reasons for thinking so, which are not reasons peculiar to the peculiar institution. Freepers can decide whether the NYT's characterization, that the prof. "described slavery as 'not so bad,'" is false.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.