857
858

Slave family on a plantation (Beaufort, South Carolina - c. 1862) [500x610] (i.imgur.com)

KazCarpent[🍰] が 投稿

全 113 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]AuRevoirBaron 27ポイント28ポイント  (0子コメント)

Man, as someone whose family is from that area, I see this and think "they could very well be family". I really need to research my family history.

[–]StairheidCritic 24ポイント25ポイント  (2子コメント)

Grandad's trousers are in a hell of a state.

[–]ashplowe 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

They didn't exactly get new pants with the changing of the seasons

[–]Its_Porsch-ah 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Their master didn't have Amazon Primetm and regular shipping took months.

[–]Justmetalking 29ポイント30ポイント  (88子コメント)

Every time I see pictures like that I cringe. How the hell did these plantation owners ever justify importing slaves from Africa? I realize only 1.4% of Americans owned slaves but that wealthy minority caused suffering and anguish that still reverberates through our country today.

[–]citoloco 29ポイント30ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think that cultures that did not justify slavery in some form are in the extreme, extreme minority in human history.

[–]Carcharodon_literati 44ポイント45ポイント  (32子コメント)

How the hell did these plantation owners ever justify importing slaves from Africa?

$$$$$$$. Plantation crops require a lot of labor, paying your workers cuts into your margins, and free Europeans weren't going to emigrate to a new continent just literally work themselves to death.

First they tried forcing the Indians do the work, but the Indians died of disease, exhaustion, or were really good at running away (because America was like, their home.) Then they tried the indentured servant system, where Europeans (and some Africans) were temporary slaves working off their passage costs as debt.

But the Europeans had trouble adjusting to the new climate, and the indenture system created constant turnover. So they started importing Africans as chattel slaves, because they were used to a humid, subtropical climate and because they were considered primitive and subhuman, so keeping them in chains didn't seem as cruel.

As for moral justification, the Bible is 100% in favor of slavery, as long as slaves come from "foreigners", according to Leviticus.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

Passages like these were used to defend slavery up to the Civil War.

[–]dooley1988 12ポイント13ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yeah, I really don't like that book.

[–]franticaerobics 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Me neither. It's overrated.

[–]Justmetalking 14ポイント15ポイント  (25子コメント)

But over 90% of Europeans did in fact emigrate and worked themselves to death building a new society without owning slaves. I do understand however that owning slaves was not only a ubiquitous phenomenon in the America's but in fact world wide. I always wonder what we see as normal today that will be viewed as equally abhorrent by future generations.

[–]GrabSomePineMeat 22ポイント23ポイント  (6子コメント)

The answer is simple: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[–]SassyMoron 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

It actually was much more fucked up than that. Slavery didn't actually make economic sense until the cotton gin (some people even argue it didn't make sense after it). It was founded on this whole awful paternalistic white supremacist ethos. They actually believed what they were doing was right - like nazis or Isis etc.

[–]Ihaveamuffin 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

Surely the cotton gin made growing cotton economically feasible, not slavery. There were still crops like tobacco, indigo, and rice that yielded large profits even with an ever increasing slave population.

[–]SassyMoron 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Here's the landmark paper on the subject. Tobacco and sugar were ok but it was the profitability of cotton that kept the system going. In areas where they didn't grow cotton, it was the prospect of producing slaves for sale to the cotton regions that kept it going (economically).

[–]Ihaveamuffin 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thanks for linking that. Your original post made it sound as if the institution of slavery was, even at its inception, motivated only by racism rather than profit. I thought that was kind of misleading given how important of an export tobacco became for the Southern colonies.

[–]GrabSomePineMeat 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

This is not meant as an attack, but pretty much everything you said is incorrect. This is false history that was created after the end of slavery in the attempt to humanize slave owners. Slavery began in North America with white people (Scott/Irish) mainly, along with some Africans and Native Americans. Remember, African slavery was illegal in England. The Scots/Irish were technically indentured servants, but rarely did they ever break their bondage. It wasn't about white supremacy as much as keeping the white elites economically on top. Additionally, slavery was hugely profitable prior to the cotton gin. Tobacco was originally the major cash crop in America and tobacco is hugely labor intensive. The cotton gin only prolonged slavery once other British colonies began to cultivate tobacco also, thus increasing the supply. Slavery is all about money. The racism was used as a justification for it, but it was about the economics.

I suggest you read American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America by Colin Woodard if you want a quick shot of how slavery grew in each of the regions of the South and the reasons behind it.

[–]SassyMoron 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

When people talk about slavery in America, they're generally talking about "the peculiar institution" of black slavery in the south. There were other forms of slavery in colonial America, I wasn't addressing them though.

As to the economics of slavery (black slavery) pre and post cotton gin, the most straightforward data point I would mention is how the growth rate of the slave population inflected so sharply once the gin was invented. If you want more evidence on the subject see the article I linked in a different comment.

[–]groovyinutah 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Well in fact part of the way they jived themselves about it was by taking the tack that they were in fact doing these poor a souls a favor because if not for slavery they would have died without ever hearing about Jesus and would be condemned to eternal damnation.

[–]Justmetalking -5ポイント-4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well who knows, maybe they were right.

[–]bluntmasterflash 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Cheap labor, that's how they justified it.

[–]yoyoyo_its_me 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I thought you were going to say how did they justify spending money taking photos of their slaves.

[–]thatvoicewasreal 5ポイント6ポイント  (8子コメント)

You're judging them by 2015 standards. Slavery was a legal institution all over the world at that time. Why shouldn't slave owners have imported slaves from Africa? Other cultures were enslaving still other cultures at the very same time. Are you outraged that slavery was not abolished in Korea until 15 years after it was in the US? Did you even know they had slavery that late? Do you know first nations tribes enslaved Africans, and former African slaves enslaved other Africans, right here in America?

History is messy--which is what makes cut-and-dried moral proclamations so attractive.

[–]Justmetalking 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

You're judging them by 2015 standards.

Yea, I probably am. It's pretty hard to step outside my own culture and understand how others experienced the world.

[–]thatvoicewasreal 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

I maintain it's important to try. You probably know someone, even if you don't realize it, who thinks the supreme court just made a huge mistake on gay marriage. In 150 years these people will likely be vilified in the same terms we reserve for slave owners today. But they are your neighbors, perhaps your favorite uncle, perhaps the corner store owner with whom you agree on pretty much everything else. And it may be you for all we know.

[–]jMyles -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

You're judging them by 2015 standards. Slavery was a legal institution all over the world at that time.

And it still is. In the United States even. From the 13th Amendment:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

(emphasis mine)

[–]thatvoicewasreal 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

Not quite sure where you're headed with that. Do you mean to point out the current state of the penal system as a modern-day extension of slavery proper, or is that a legal argument about cruel and unusual punishment in general?

[–]Jessiesmind 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Owning another person and or slavery is never justified regardless of where that human being was / is from.

[–]ravenshadow2013 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

one thing you should remember, the slave were sold to plantatain owners by ither Africans most often time by the victors in tribal disputes

[–]ColdSnickersBar 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Who cares? Everyone comes from somewhere, and it would follow that slaves would be the underprivileged people from wherever they came. How is that relevant or why is that so important to keep in mind?

This "argument" is the most common, and also the most stupid, slavery apologetics argument.

[–]markovich04 -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's the only thing you remember? Seems like a waste.

[–]AAandE 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

It wasn't just here. This was a global practise that affected all cultures. Even white Europeans where enslaved... by black African people no less. But you never hear that condemned in history book/discussion.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade

[–]BeastAP23 0ポイント1ポイント  (11子コメント)

Ive heard that 30% of southern households owned slaves which is a slightly more horrifying number.

[–]Justmetalking 4ポイント5ポイント  (8子コメント)

That's highly unlikely. A slave cost about $1,162 in 1862, adjusted for inflation that would be $27,023.26 today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#Prices_of_slaves

http://www.davemanuel.com/inflation-calculator.php

[–]itsmyotherface 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

That's for a fit male (roughly between the ages of 19-30), which skews the figure. The average price of a slave peaked just before the outbreak of the war, and was $800 or roughly 22K today. Location played a role too--if the slave was from certain states they'd fetch significantly more. Certain trades also fetched more than your average field hand.

So, in short, the price varied drastically depending on any number of factors.

[–]Justmetalking 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Which was the cost of an average prairie style house at the time. Believe me, only the very wealthy could afford to buy slaves.

[–]itsmyotherface -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes. Only 20% of free southern males owned slaves. Even among those who did own slaves, the largest class of ownership is the 1-4 slaves category. Those giant plantations that we all imagine in the south accounted for less than .6% of slave owners (owning more than 50 slaves).

The average estate value of the slaves among those 1-4 slave owners was roughly $3670, or $104K today. So well off? Yes. Super rich? Not really.

Those in the 1-4 category outnumbered all other slave owners combined.

[–]mikelj 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

Plenty of people own cars that cost $27k.

[–]untaken-username 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

They do. Today. Because we are living in the richest time in human history.

If you look at GDP per capita of the US you'll see that the average American is about 8 times richer in 2009 than in 1870.

So owning a slave back in the mid 19th century would be akin to owning a ~$215,000 car today.

[–]mikelj -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

In fairness, the 8 times number comes after the most devastating war in United States history.

And a new semi truck can cost $150k. We're talking about something that gives you a return. So I'm not sure comparing a slave to a Ferrari is really fair.

[–]untaken-username 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sure, but look at that graph, even 30 or 40 years later, the GDP per capita is still about 1/8th of what it is today.

As far as comparing it to buying a semi, that is a better thought experiment. But I wager the credit market back then was not nearly as efficient and accessible as it today. Moreover, I imagine the upkeep of a slave was significantly more expensive than the upkeep of a semi.

No matter how you look at it, we are fucking rich today compared to historical standards. Yes, poverty still exists, but it's amazing that today's or would still be richer than most people 100 or 200 years ago.

[–]Its_Porsch-ah 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Plus if you own two cars they can reproduce 12 cars and then you can sell them and retire to Florida.

[–]southernfacingslope 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Without knowing where that statistic came from, to me they are basing households on a per-capita slave ownership. Seems to me fewer families had many slaves.

[–]L8sho -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

It is also said that 25% of freemen in the US at that point owned slaves.

[–]untaken-username 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

How the hell did these plantation owners ever justify importing slaves from Africa?

Well they didn't, not after 1807, at least.

The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that stated that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_Prohibiting_Importation_of_Slaves

[–]RzK 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Why exactly was this picture taken? makes you wonder, maybe these particular slaves were closer to their owners and the owners treated them with a picture, and wanted them remembered. Or to identify them if they run off?

[–]Energy_Turtle 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is exactly what I was wondering. Photography was expensive. Why would someone take pictures of their slaves? Maybe looking to advertise them in a sale? Even that doesn't seem likely.

[–]Dohada 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

When you think about it, 1862 isn't really that long ago.

[–]bigstink1 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

A recent supreme court quote on dignity comes to mind here.

[–]jgilley23 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Look at all those "rebel" flags flying in the wind keeping them down and making them slaves!