KingmanHighborn said:
(Fixed that for ya.
)
I should elaborate more, to be honest. Medical care back then was a complete and total joke. Thomas Jefferson, one of the richest people at the time, had six children, but only two of them survived, and only one of them lived past 25. I guess it was a nice gesture to send in a doctor, but it didn't do much, considering that the average slave lifespan was 21-22 years. In short, medical care was so bad that I'd say that it wasn't an advantage at all. Also, I find it hard to believe that indentured servants wouldn't have medical care if they were too sick to work. It find it much more likely that the medical care was an additional expense that the indentured servants had to pay for.
I find it extremely hard to believe that indentured servants had significantly worse housing conditions than slaves, and I haven't found anything that says that they do. It seems infinitely more likely that the owner charged money for the housing and added it as a additional expense that they have to pay for.
That's not necessarily true. In New Orleans*, children under 13 accounted for 9.3% of sold slaves. However, slaves between the age of 13-24 accounted for nearly 70% of the market. Even back then, someone between the age of 13-16 was still a child usually unmarried and closely tied to their parents (Though 16 was usually when independence started). So I'd say that about 20% or more of slaves sold in New Orleans were in between 1-16 years of age. That's a rather large amount, or at least not a rare amount. Regardless though, this is pointless because even 9.3% is higher than 0%, as children were never forcibly separated from indentured servants, since they had basic human rights, unlike slaves.
*- The only place I was able to find solid statistical evidence. Besides, I really doubt is slave trade differed that much from city to city or from state to state.
(Last I checked America didn't build arenas and pit thier slaves against each other like human rooster fighting. Or feed them to lions, or use thier bodies as fertilizer, or concubines, etc.etc.etc.)
You're mistaking Greek slaves for Roman slaves. While prostitutes and miners were treated badly (though they certainly weren't pitted in arenas or fed to lions), slaves in Greece that took up trade skills enjoyed relative freedom. Roman slaves, on the other hand, were treated as you described. However, Ancient Rome, in addition to treating their slaves badly, held public executions and crucified people as a means of torture, and was overall a pretty brutal nation.
Black slaves weren't used as concubines? I'm going to assume that this was an accident on your part. Unless you're going to ignore Sally Hemmings, the revision of the Magna Carta, the jezebel stereotype, and the countless slave brothels. Ask yourself, why are "African Americans" considerably lighter and much more varied in skin tone than Africans? (HINT: It's not because black men raped white women)
But like I said, I'm going to assume that that was a mistake, for the sake of my sanity.
(not nessecarily, they had no rights as indentured servants so the person they owed money too could take what they wanted.)
Maybe. But it was nowhere near as common as the rape, prostitution or sexual exploitation (I consider them all to be the same, since black slaves were forced to be prostitutes) of black slaves. One became a gigantic, defining cultural staple in American history (see above about concubines) and was extremely common, whereas the other was quite rare, with very little documentation on it, and mostly just theories and guesses.
(nope. Sorry wrong. 100% of thier wages went to the debt collecter. And they could only eat what the debt collector gave them, which was charged to thier debt.)
And after their debts were paid, they were free and they could carry as much money as they wanted. Slaves and freed blacks, could not in many states.
(to a limit. read and write if they could afford the schooling, but guess what no money, no school, so no reading or writing skills, and you could argue with a fellow servant but not the person you owed.)
Indentured servants could learn to read with what little spare time they had. Black slaves, if they were caught reading and writing were brutally whipped or even killed, depending on the social events at the time (like if an uprising had occurred). Indentured servants could read and write all they want, as long as they did it in their own read time. You don't need to go to school to learn how to read and write, even back then. Some (albeit few) members of the black slave population learned how to read and write in secret, and their schedules were just as stretched as indentured servants were.
The only person you couldn't argue with was the person that you owed and maybe his friends if you were an indentured servant. If you were a black slave, you couldn't argue with any white person. The commonest trash could condescend and insult you, and there wasn't anything you could do about it if you were a slave, unless you wanted to be brutally beaten. If you were an indentured servant, however, you could easily deal with people like that. That is what I mean when I say that slavery in America was complete social domination.
Over all, I find it harder to sympathize with indentured servants because;
A. The made the choice to become indentured. Granted, back then, there wasn't many options, but you can avoid being in debt by not making stupid decisions.
B. As I mentioned, as soon as their debts were paid, they were free. Most indentured servants usually worked for 10 years at the very most, unless they owed someone a massive amount of money, which, like I said, was their own fault. While I sympathize with indentured servants, if they owe massive amounts of money to someone, they made some financially bad decisions.
C. Disregarding all that, they were still treated better than slaves. They weren't branded (http://www.metmuseum.org/works_of_art/collection_database/photographs/emancipated_slaves_myron_h_kimball/objectview_zoom.aspx?page=1214&sort=0&sortdir=asc&keyword=&fp=1&dd1=19&dd2=0&vw=1&collID=19&OID=190036388&vT=1&hi=0&ov=0 in case you don't believe me), they didn't have to deal with the hatred that black slaves had to deal with, they weren't murdered as frequently per capita as black slaves, they weren't raped as frequently as black slaves, they weren't separated from one another, and they weren't mutilated if they tried to escape (many runaways were castrated, tortured or crippled for life by having their achilles tendon severed so they wouldn't run away), though they were punished.
(all of which wasn't even changed until the 70's in textbooks so what's your point?)
You do realize that that strengthens my argument rather than weaken it, right?
Besides, the truth was freely available long before the 70s. Whites at the time decided to deluded themselves with lies and to view the world through their own twisted lens.
(Really? Check again. Top ten: Only two southern cities in the top ten Memphis and St. Louis. Not counting California. North cities: Detriot, Baltimore, Buffalo, Cleveland, Washington D.C. Go into the Top 15: South: Miami, Atlanta North: Philadelphia, Indianapolis, and Cincy)
I said states. Not cities. States.
If you want to discuss homicides by city that's fine, but I specifically said states.
(yeah a whole 4 out of 11)
Louisiana, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas, Georgia and Flordia all ranked in the top fifteen. That's 8 out of 11, most of the ex-Confederate states.
(Sparta get a hell of a lot praise and respect, we still respect Britain even though America did to the British, what the Confed did to the Union, expect without the use of terrorism and guierilla tactics. We respect ALOT of people who in the end lost out to a superior force either by numbers, technology, or other advantage. The Confederacy was not traitors, unlike Lincoln who pretty much took a dump on the consitituion, enslave immigrants coming into this country under the term 'conscription' ad 'draft' and again don't talk to me about blood shed, considering what Grant did. The South didn't use blacks as human shields either unlike the Union or force them to fight.)
Sparta doesn't get that much respect at all. They are REMEMBERED because they refined the tactics that would later define modern warfare. However, they are not respected because they lost. In fact, most history lessons and textbooks that I've encountered have referred to the Spartans in a negative sense.
No American respects Britain for the Revolutionary War. Not a single one. We came to respect Britain because, over time, they eventually became our greatest allies, both militaristically and economically (they aided us in almost every war we fought, and, in terms of resources, we are good trade partners). We also respect them because we have historic and blood ties to them, as well as economic ties.
Enlighten me as to how Lincoln "took a dump on the Constitution." He did not suspend the U.S Constitution, but rather he suspended Habeas Corpus. Many of the "Peace Democrats" that Lincoln arrested and tried posed actual dangers to the Union. John Merryman (one of the people arrested), for instance, was a Maryland Secessionist. I do not see how immigrants were "enslaved." They were made into citizens so they could be drafted, which was callous, but hardly egregious compared to other recruitment tactics in other wars, and not really a violation of the Constitution. Also, what did Grant do? Kill Confederate soldiers? Please, it was a war. Did he attack farms or civilians? No, it was the Union general Sherman was the one who developed the brilliant strategy of attacking Southern farms and houses to cause more economical damage to the South. I don't really get what Grant did that was so horrific.
The South refused to use blacks because they were afraid that black soldiers would turn against them, especially since thousands of black slaves were abandoning the South as fast as they could. The Confederacy also thought that blacks were natural-born cowards, unable to fight, which is a stereotype that dates a long way back. Several Confederate generals also thought that the white troops would revolt if they used blacks. Blacks on the Union side were hardly human shields. They fought in difficult battles, but they did it with aggression, courage, and a lack of hesitation. They were inadequately equipped, but the vast majority of Union and Confederate soldiers were due to a lack of supplies and a large number of inexperienced recruits. Also, the entire Union was not indifferent to blacks. Whites in that era had as varied beliefs about blacks as they do now. And the South hardly treated blacks with respect or even decency at that time. Aside from slavery, there were several morally-corrupt generals like Nathan Bedford Forrest, who oversaw the execution of a squad of black Union soldiers who had surrendered.
(Would you if just had your home ripped away, bankrupted, everything you owned burned into the ground, and forced into a system you don't believe in? And we didn't take anything out on the black population, especially compared to thier treatment in the North.)
Why didn't they take it out on the northern whites who did that to them, rather than the people who had lived, coexisted, shared the same culture, cared for their children and elderly, worked in their homes, and interbred with them for decades? To answer my own question, it was because they were too beaten to fight back, and cowardly enough to take it out on the defenseless, powerless blacks who were left to their own resources after the compromise on Reconstruction.
Didn't take anything out on the black population? I guess the KKK, Jim Crow, rabid lynch mobs, biased justice system, lack of jobs, and resistance to Civil Rights (as well as John Edgar Hoover and George Wallace) are just delusions in my head. I mean, the North wasn't perfect, but the South was far, far worse. How can you ignore the hundred years between the end of the Civil War and the Civil Rights Act?
(It's a banner of heroes NOT traitors. Get your facts straight.)
Read the definition of traitor, betray, and treachery. The Confederacy was disloyal to the principles of the United States of America and they abandoned them to act in their own self-interest. A textbook definition on treachery.
