The following is a conversation I had over a friends facebook status, and looking back on it, gave me some curiosity on this subject. I am Tim, and the friend is Timothy.
Timothy: people who say the confederacy (civil war) was racist are stupid and uneducated, and make me thoroughly angry
Tim: The south believed in slavery, didn't they?
Timothy: while technically there really isn't anything inherently wrong with slavery, they actually didn't. but the southern economy was built on slavery at the time, so instead of total abolition they wanted to phase it out, which is actually the plan the constitution was written with if you look. also, total abolition didn't work out well for the slaves, the only people who really benefited were northern factory owners who wanted cheap labor they could pay a less than livable wage. the slaves' quality of life went down and the south had an economic crash
John: 1. why isn't slavery inherently wrong? 2. but the south wanted to secede, so even though the constitution talked about slowly phasing it out, and they were leaving the jurisdiction of the constitution, isn't it possible they would have ke...pt it going?
I don't like it when people say the South was racist either. Especially since an awesome and Godly man like Robert E. Lee fought for the south.
Tim: treating another race as if they were subhuman doesn't seem right
Timothy: slavery has nothing to do with another race at it's core. at it's core slavery is simply someone working in exchange for food and shelter, and part of the agreement is that they become property. sure, sometimes it's forced, but there isn't anything inherently wrong with it. for christians, all the bible says about slavery is to treat your slaves well
John: see above, and the south wanted to secede because the north was trying to work around the constitutional form of government for their own benefit. the general consensus of people in the south was that slavery needed to end. so it would have been phased out
John: but aren't we supposed to treat others as we want to be treated? i'm pretty sure no one wants to be a slave.
Timothy: that's actually not true. at one time, the largest source of slavery in the US was indentured servitude, which was a mutual agreement. and being a slave doesn't mean you get treated badly. a lot of slaves were treated very well. instead of money they got food and shelter
Tim: Aha, the definition problem. The world at large today seems to think of slavery as the forced kind, and never of the voluntary kind. And I am pretty sure that being it isn't being property as opposed to just being the master of someone while you are providing them with food and clothing. If you become property, can't they just keep you as a slave for the rest of your life?
Timothy: yes they can, or they can sell you. but it's a modern idea for being "property" to be so awful. there's nothing so wrong with it. the only issue with slavery is if the slaves aren't treated well, which in the US a few hundred years ago, almost never happened by the actual owners. almost all of the slaves that were treated badly were treated that way by other supervising slaves when the masters weren't around
Tim: is that modern idea invalid? If become property, I wound second John, who would want to be a slave if you couldn't make a desicion to not be one for the rest of your life?
Timothy: see, the way you phrase it, it sounds terrible. but think about it this way, in exchange for a little less freedom, you never have to worry about food, shelter, or a job again
Tim: aha, but the way you phrase it makes it wonderful, is it really just 'a little less freedom'? seems like a lot to me.
Timothy: depends on the master. the only real restriction on the freedom of a slave would be how much the master trusted them
Tim: but shouldn't the amount of freedom be part of the agreement in the first place? and if the master disobeyed the agreement, who would be their to defend you if you were just a piece of property?
Timothy: no one. you have to understand though, it's not in the best interest of the master to mistreat a slave. say you bought a $100,000 car, would you smash the window just because you could? same principle, and price back then in today's money
Tim: so your saying the slave would revolt if his master mistreated him?
Timothy: or depending on the treatment not be able to work as well. it's been proven that the best workers are happy ones.
Tim: and what would happen if the slave was slothful and didn't get work done, but was still happy? just thinking this stuff through
Timothy: well then they aren't fulfilling their end. i'm not saying it's a perfect system, but it's not as bad as it's made out to be
Tim: yes, I do agree with that statement, but I think the thing that most people disagree about with the 1850-1950ish era is the racist thinking that accompanied many of the slavery in that period. For example, you have blacks in many cases denied simple rights just because of the color of their skin. Most of the black slaves were taken right out of Africa without any say and were forced to be slaves, which is a different thing than voluntarily working for someone in exchange for food and shelter.
Timothy: actually, when they were picked up from africa they were already slaves. the other africans had enslaved them, then sold them to traders
Tim: hmmm... no one's ever told me that before, so I don't know what to say, but regardless, there was still nothing voluntary about it, no matter who's fault it was.
Timothy: this is true. like i said, not a perfect system, but still not as bad as made out to be
Tim: ok, (I'm enjoying this interesting conversation :) So even though there are things that weren't that bad, isn't it ok to be angry about the not so perfect parts of it? I mean, even if mistreatment by masters was uncommon as you stated, shouldn't we speak out about the injstices of it?
Tim: When there was injustices?
§ Timothy: is there any point? will it change anything to complain about the past? also, if you're referring to black people today and the complaints they have against slavery of the past, they honestly have no claim. their ancestors hundreds of years... of years... were slaves, and a few of them were mistreated. in fact, american slaves were lucky, because 90% of african slaves went to south america, where they died almost faster than they could be brought in. so in exchange for some labor and sparce mistreatment, they were brought to a country where they now enjoy more freedom for less tax than anywhere in the world last i checked. so what claim is there to complain about the past? in the end, no group was worse off for it.
Tim: I guess I was talking about speaking out of slavery in the past when it was still around. And, just to be clear, was the racism around that period wrong?
Timothy: you mean is it wrong to be racist? yeah, in a way it is. at least that's my opinion.
Tim: in which way? please elaborate
Timothy: judging someone by their genetics is silly, especially if it makes no practical difference. then again, racial profiling, which is often referred to as racist, is absolutely right, and a very useful tool, because different groups behave differently
Tim: by racist I meant treating one race as less than human. there we go again with our definitions, racial profiling is not racist, it is using someones physical characteristics to lower crime or to catch a criminal
Timothy: exactly. but yeah, racism is pretty wrong.
Tim: then, back to before, the racism back in that time was more the problem than anything
Timothy: yeah, quite possibly. but it really is a non-issue when talking about slavery
Tim: yea, but racism was the reason for the enslavement oftentimes, that's the wrong part, not slavery (system of voluntary servitude) itself
Timothy: what makes you say racism was the reason? that's crazy. economic practicality was the reason
Tim: sorry, I guess what I mean is, no matter if it was economically practical or not, that doesn't change the fact that slaves were made so involuntarily, which was the wrong part. Greed is not any better than racism. Sorry, I have to go now, but good and interesting stuff
Timothy: right. good talking to you. think about the fact that the slaves were enslaved by their own people though, not by the end consumers
