I'm not surprised to see everybody reacting against this idea, which I agree is sheer putrescence. I'm a little surprised to see that so few have articulated the reason why it is so detestable.
Certainly, there were masters that treated their slaves relatively well. There was an economic incentive to do so, after all. Slavery was the largest form of property in the United States before the Civil War. Just as there is an economic incentive in modern times to take care of your car, your home, and your other forms of property, so too would a rational slaveholder provide for the needs of his slaves (though not all did). The harrowing stories we can read about in, for example, Uncle Tom's cabin probably were exceptions to the general rule.
So the tragedy of the argument that this guy made isn't one of factual accuracy. The tragedy is that this guy misses the point: human beings were being treated the same way we treat our cars, homes, and other forms of property. It really doesn't matter how well a slave is treated when you have already committed the greatest offense imaginable against him. Slavery takes away a person's liberty and deprives him of his humanity, striking the most severe blows well before the whip cracks and the shackles bind.
Ours is a society built on the premise that liberty is so great a prize that life itself is not too great a price to pay for it. As such, we ought to recognize that the best-off slave fares more poorly than the worst-off free man. I would hope that we recognize arguments to the contrary for what they really are.
Certainly, there were masters that treated their slaves relatively well. There was an economic incentive to do so, after all. Slavery was the largest form of property in the United States before the Civil War. Just as there is an economic incentive in modern times to take care of your car, your home, and your other forms of property, so too would a rational slaveholder provide for the needs of his slaves (though not all did). The harrowing stories we can read about in, for example, Uncle Tom's cabin probably were exceptions to the general rule.
So the tragedy of the argument that this guy made isn't one of factual accuracy. The tragedy is that this guy misses the point: human beings were being treated the same way we treat our cars, homes, and other forms of property. It really doesn't matter how well a slave is treated when you have already committed the greatest offense imaginable against him. Slavery takes away a person's liberty and deprives him of his humanity, striking the most severe blows well before the whip cracks and the shackles bind.
Ours is a society built on the premise that liberty is so great a prize that life itself is not too great a price to pay for it. As such, we ought to recognize that the best-off slave fares more poorly than the worst-off free man. I would hope that we recognize arguments to the contrary for what they really are.
Comment