Why did America allow slavery?

[Diamond7]

People can be a slave to sin. But before the civil war, we had what they call chattel when one person owned another. How could anyone ever think something like this should be legal? They talk about slavery in the Bible, but that had to do with debt and you could only hold a person for 7 years. Then you had to set them free. If it was a prisoner of war the Jubilee was every 50 years. So no matter what, slavery could not go from generation to generation the way it did in Southern or Rebel America.

 

[HTacianas]

People can be a slave to sin. But before the civil war, we had what they call chattel when one person owned another. How could anyone ever think something like this should be legal? They talk about slavery in the Bible, but that had to do with debt and you could only hold a person for 7 years. Then you had to set them free. If it was a prisoner of war the Jubilee was every 50 years. So no matter what, slavery could not go from generation to generation the way it did in Southern or Rebel America.

Slavery has always been a condition of mankind. When the Babylonians invaded Israel they took thousands of Jews into captivity as slaves and held them for seventy years. It only ended when the Persians conquered the Babylonians and released the Jews from captivity. Most slavery mentioned in the new testament pertained to slaves kept by the Romans. It happened all over the world. The Muslim slave trade lasted for centuries during which raiding ships would attack European coastal cities and capture the inhabitants to keep as slaves. In colonial America some Indian tribes would ally with the colonists to attack the surrounding tribes. Prisoners who were caught and kept alive would be kept as slaves -either by the Indians themselves or the colonists would ship them off and sell them in the Caribbean. One account of the Pequot War has it that the Indians treated their slaves so poorly in Connecticut that the colonists confiscated them back. The African slave trade began as a source of cheap labor. Slaves were bought in the African nations and shipped like cattle to the Americas. In the Western world slavery continued as late as 1875 or so in Brazil.

It's bizarre to think of in modern times but from the beginning of mankind it was the norm.

 

[studentinprayer]

But before the civil war, we had what they call chattel when one person owned another. How could anyone ever think something like this should be legal? They talk about slavery in the Bible, but that had to do with debt and you could only hold a person for 7 years. Then you had to set them free. If it was a prisoner of war the Jubilee was every 50 years. So no matter what, slavery could not go from generation to generation the way it did in Southern or Rebel America.

A few key factors.
To give the overview: the culture, the industry/climate, and lastly the influence of the Spanish empire.

Let's start with the last. The debt based non-generational view of slavery was the norm of Europe from which America was born as well as the abolitionist movement. There was however a competing view of slavery brewing south of Europe in the Islamic world, where-in Slavery was far more normalized and often generational and racial. One particular future European colonial empire was influenced by this more than any other due to it's time as member of the Islamic world: Spain.

During the founding of America, keep in mind Spain was the richest most influential European power. The cultural leader.

Where-in northern Yankee colonies of northern Europeans were oft founded by those seeking to flee corrupt irreligious elitist European politics and all too willing to brave and toil the wild lands for freedom. Handwork a requirement of salvation. The harsh climates and cold winters made industrialization the only way to thrive and survive.

The southern Dixie colonies by contrast often attracted a different people more use to feast/famine and honour culture looking for opportunities in the cash crops of the new world. The climates they met required unbearable heat and all sorts of pests pushing these industrialist into social climb rather than remain in labour. Industrialization less necessary as cash crops sold well. In this low population environment and Spain thriving next door with it own flavour of an Islamic inspired slavery based economy. The choice was obvious, a uniquely American form of slavery — and it thrived although evolving differently especially as it ran against another southern founding group more inland uninterested in puritanism, opportunism or education.

 

[trophy33]

During the founding of America, keep in mind Spain was the richest most influential European power. The cultural leader.

Regarding colonies, maybe. Not in Europe itself,though. The largest and the most influential empire in Europe in the 18th century was The Holy Roman Empire. Russian empire was even larger, but not so influential.

https://www.secretmuseum.net/wp-content/uploads/thon/map-of-18th-century-europe-442referencemaps-maps-historical-maps-world-history-of-map-of-18th-century-europe-1024x600.jpg

 

[studentinprayer]

Regarding colonies, maybe. Not in Europe itself,though. The largest and the most influential empire in Europe in the 18th century was The Holy Roman Empire. Russian empire was even larger, but not so influential.

I can certainly see why you'd want to contextualize my overly broad statement which could easily be taken as incorrect. I'd be referencing an earlier time-period and the cultural power of Hapsburg Spain as it relates to an American colonial experience from 1600-1776 and 'richest' being a poor choice of words as it more relates to the international use of the Spanish peso than the wealth of the Spanish herself, which agreed was a deteriorating player in the time period in question.

 

[eleos1954]

People can be a slave to sin. But before the civil war, we had what they call chattel when one person owned another. How could anyone ever think something like this should be legal? They talk about slavery in the Bible, but that had to do with debt and you could only hold a person for 7 years. Then you had to set them free. If it was a prisoner of war the Jubilee was every 50 years. So no matter what, slavery could not go from generation to generation the way it did in Southern or Rebel America

,,,

God knew forced slavery would happen and put limits on it ... mankind don't follow what God says ... started with Adam and Eve (not following what God says) unfortunately. How could anyone think of it?

Jeremiah 17:9-10
King James Version
​

9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

 

[coffee4u]

People can be a slave to sin. But before the civil war, we had what they call chattel when one person owned another. How could anyone ever think something like this should be legal? They talk about slavery in the Bible, but that had to do with debt and you could only hold a person for 7 years. Then you had to set them free. If it was a prisoner of war the Jubilee was every 50 years. So no matter what, slavery could not go from generation to generation the way it did in Southern or Rebel America.

You do know that slavery existed all over the world in every race and tribe? Slavery was as normal as breathing. The strong enslaved the weak. Businesses were made profitable from selling people among all the other regular goods. The slave trade was very lucrative for African kings. For the Colonists coming over to the new land slaves were plentiful and cheap to buy on the African coasts.

Why slaves? The question was why not? Why would they not use slaves when it was viewd as normal and made them gretaer profits? The same reason why later they moved to machines, because machinery worked even better than humans. It made them greater profits and like most things profit was the end goal. It was machinery that made much of slavery obsolete. Did some people cry out against slavery? Of course, but nobody listened to them, why would they? Does anyone listen to us as we cry out that society is rife with immorality, nope. They laugh and tell us to 'get with it'.

Now if you don't know history and think that slavery was something unique to the Americas, unique to Africans, then this how false narratives and hate begins. This is how an us vs them mentality is brewed. When you understand that Europeans enslaved other Europeans, Asians enslaved other Asians, Africans enslaved other Africans and Native people enslaved other Native peoples. That it was later due to the ease of buying slaves in markets and the advancement of large ships that allowed for cross race slavery; then you understand what slavery really was and how cultures can find sin not only normal but good.

Today people are slaves to immorality and think debauchery is completely normal, that books on inappropriate contentography are fine in school libraries without the harm being seen or understood. Hopefully in a hundred years this will all be a bad dream and people can point back and talk about horrible it was and why was it allowed?

 

[Diamond7]

Europeans enslaved other Europeans, Asians enslaved other Asians, Africans enslaved other Africans and Native people enslaved other Native peoples.

In the book: "They were her property" a significant number of women would buy and sell slaves. Women were expected to have four or five kids by the time they were 20. Then they would go from being the "sissy" to the Mammy, where they would cook and clean and take care of children for the rest of their life. We still see this stereotype in products today with Aunt Jemima and Mrs. Buttersworth and products like that.

 

[Diamond7]

It's bizarre to think of in modern times but from the beginning of mankind it was the norm.

So does that mean God would judge people based on how good they treated their slaves? In the same way that a good man takes good care of his animals rather than to abuse them?

 

[HTacianas]

So does that mean God would judge people based on how good they treated their slaves? In the same way that a good man takes good care of his animals rather than to abuse them?

That may well be one of the things people will be judged by. I don't know.

 

[coffee4u]

In the book: "They were her property" a significant number of women would buy and sell slaves. Women were expected to have four or five kids by the time they were 20. Then they would go from being the "sissy" to the Mammy, where they would cook and clean and take care of children for the rest of their life. We still see this stereotype in products today with Aunt Jemima and Mrs. Buttersworth and products like that.

Not sure what that has to do with my comment, but okay. Some people in the US owned slaves including woman and black people. Most people did not.

From what I know of these products (very little not being American) is that some of these products are being changed. Now if this is a good thing or not is a matter for debate. I can see two sides to this. One thing I do know is the separating and segregating is not how a county achieves racial harmony.

 

[coffee4u]

So does that mean God would judge people based on how good they treated their slaves? In the same way that a good man takes good care of his animals rather than to abuse them?

Quite likely.

 

[Diamond7]

Most people did not.

Depends on the state. Also usually only one person in a family actually "owned" the "slaves". According to the Census of 1860, 30.8 percent of the free families in the confederacy owned slaves. That means that every third white person in those states had a direct commitment to slavery.

Even if it were only one percent, all the more I wonder why the other 99% was not doing something about it. Even if the slaves were considered to be a part of the family. They do a lot now to make sure that there is no abuse like that going on in a family. People can get up to 12 years in jail.

 

[studentinprayer]

Even if it were only one percent, all the more I wonder why the other 99% was not doing something about it. Even if the slaves were considered to be a part of the family. They do a lot now to make sure that there is no abuse like that going on in a family. People can get up to 12 years in jail.

I am curious you came to that conclusion. Your saying if your friends parents legally owned(fed,clothed and housed) a person to take care of them as well as say another 10 to make their estate profitable. This fact alone would motivate you to confront them? I am truly curious how you see that going. I am not advocating slavery in any form, but I can certainly understand the perspective where living in a society in which it's normalized only advocating humane treatment verses abolition. I am very curious what to you makes abolition so obvious.

 

[Diamond7]

I am curious you came to that conclusion.

I guess I am assuming that young girls were raped and today people get serious time in jail for that. Of course I understand the Stockholm syndrome and people that make the best of a bad situation are far better off.

Today, people are still having to deal with the trauma their ancestors went through. I have been told that they can still feel it in their blood. I was talking to a black girl once and it was as if I had a vision where I could see shackles on her ankles. I did not say anything to her. So I am not aware of if she noticed anything or not.

God can go back in time and bring about the healing that people want and need. These are the sort of things that people need to work out because there is no unforgiveness in Heaven. We all abide in love for one another in Heaven and we need to prepare ourself for that now here in this life.

God works all things together for God. So there must be something in all of this that He will cause good to come out of it. That is His promise to us.

 

[Ana the Ist]

People can be a slave to sin. But before the civil war, we had what they call chattel when one person owned another. How could anyone ever think something like this should be legal? They talk about slavery in the Bible, but that had to do with debt and you could only hold a person for 7 years. Then you had to set them free. If it was a prisoner of war the Jubilee was every 50 years. So no matter what, slavery could not go from generation to generation the way it did in Southern or Rebel America.

Do you really think that's how it went?

I know a hassid...lots of rules. I don't remember much of them, but I remember he had this device that would dial the phone for him on the day he isn't supposed to use the phone.

I imagine that there were likely jubilee's that occurred and when Hezekiah was asked if he still had his slaves....he explained they loved working for him so much they all decided to stay, and it would break his heart to not accommodate them.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I guess I am assuming that young girls were raped and today people get serious time in jail for that. Of course I understand the Stockholm syndrome and people that make the best of a bad situation are far better off.

Today, people are still having to deal with the trauma their ancestors went through. I have been told that they can still feel it in their blood. I was talking to a black girl once and it was as if I had a vision where I could see shackles on her ankles. I did not say anything to her. So I am not aware of if she noticed anything or not.

God can go back in time and bring about the healing that people want and need. These are the sort of things that people need to work out because there is no unforgiveness in Heaven. We all abide in love for one another in Heaven and we need to prepare ourself for that now here in this life.

God works all things together for God. So there must be something in all of this that He will cause good to come out of it. That is His promise to us.

You're imagining the worst end of the spectrum. We might consider that on the other end, a slave is taught a trade, helps in building a business, awarded his freedom, hired for a wage, starts his own business, buys his own slaves. This happened as well.

 

[coffee4u]

Depends on the state. Also usually only one person in a family actually "owned" the "slaves". According to the Census of 1860, 30.8 percent of the free families in the confederacy owned slaves. That means that every third white person in those states had a direct commitment to slavery.

Even if it were only one percent, all the more I wonder why the other 99% was not doing something about it. Even if the slaves were considered to be a part of the family. They do a lot now to make sure that there is no abuse like that going on in a family. People can get up to 12 years in jail.

Because it was a different world. Slavery was viewed as normal. Most would have been for it, some would have not cared either way and others would have been against it. It doesn't just take numbers, it requires people in certain positions of power to bring about change, for good or for ill. Regular people often have little say in the day to day running of their country. In the 1800's I am sure people had others things on their minds.

Nowadays you can get many people riled up quickly by TV or the internet and people have the luxury and privilege to be able to get in their car and drive to a protest or sign an online petition or donate to Go Fund me or call the media and create a big stink and make whatever it is go viral. What do you think a housewife or average Joe in 1810 could do? Her thoughts were most likely to be on cooking and cleaning and tending to her children and his on his long day at the factory. Most didn't have the time or luxury to sit around brooding over slavery or any other injustice that didn't affect themselves. An article in the newspaper might create some talk for a few days and that would probably be it. Even if they wanted to do something and wrote a letter and sent that off by pony express, what impact do you think that would have had?

Brittan was the power behind stopping slavery. Africa had no wish to stop it. Slavery in Iran was abolished in 1929. In the Gulf, Saudi Arabia and Yemen abolished it in 1962, while Oman followed in 1970. Mauritania became the last state to abolish slavery, in 1981. In 1990 the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam declared that "no one has the right to enslave" another human being. The fact that the US abolished slavery in 1865, shows they were early in outlawing it.

 

[coffee4u]

People can be a slave to sin. But before the civil war, we had what they call chattel when one person owned another. How could anyone ever think something like this should be legal? They talk about slavery in the Bible, but that had to do with debt and you could only hold a person for 7 years. Then you had to set them free. If it was a prisoner of war the Jubilee was every 50 years. So no matter what, slavery could not go from generation to generation the way it did in Southern or Rebel America.

How can anyone think what is going on in the world right now is fine? They really think its fine for kids to be slipping dollar bills into some drag queens thong or for a book to be in a school library about two 11 year old boys experimenting with sex.

American slavery was but a drop in the bucket and far better then how it went down in the middle east which saw not only million more slaves then the US ever did but they castrated all the men and boys.
How about the North Korean defector who spoke recently of being sold from North Korea to China who watched her mother being raped at 13 and then became sold as a sex slave herself.

The human mind can be a depraved, vile and wicked thing.

 

[jayem]

It's pretty far-fetched, but an argument can be made that slavery in the antebellum South was enabled by a New England Yankee. It was known that cotton grew well in the soil and warm, humid climate of southern states. But raw cotton bolls were loaded with seeds that were difficult to remove. Enter Eli Whitney, a Mass. native, educated at Yale College. He realized that a mechanical device to extract cotton seeds quickly would make both the inventor, and the cotton growers rich. Supposedly, he came up with the cotton gin in only 2 weeks. He patented it in the 1790s. But patents weren't strictly enforced back then. His device was easily copied, and it made cotton growing a major industry in the south. Whitney never made big money on it. But labor was still needed for planting and harvesting. And slavery was an economical way to obtain plantation workers.

Slavery would have still existed in agricultural states. But maybe not to the same extent if the cotton gin didn't make southern states so dependent on King Cotton.