aalan94 said:

---

Reading this right now:

Rebel Yell: The Violence, Passion, and Redemption of Stonewall Jackson

Just finished a section on Jackson and slavery. It's very interesting and shows the wide varieties of slave ownership, that don't fit the traditional Uncle Tom's Cabin Narrative.

Jackson owned six slaves, three that he got on his own and three given to him as a wedding gift when he married his second wife. The three he had were slaves who belonged to other owners who were facing bankruptcy and the slaves themselves came to Jackson to ask him to buy them. Jackson was well-loved in the African-American community because he had started a bible study program for blacks, and when a lawyer told him he was violating a Virginia law against educating slaves, he basically said that it was his Christian duty to save the souls of blacks as well as whites and that if the lawyer had a problem with that, then he had a problem with Christianity, so shut up.

The first slave who asked Jackson to buy him did so with the agreement that Jackson, who had no real need for a slave, would let him work for cash and buy his freedom, which Jackson did, although he had to wait longer than the original plan because the slave got sick. Another slave was a young girl that he bought because a friend couldn't take care of her. She got sick and he moved her into his house and took care of her, until ultimately she died. He lost money on her.

The slaves that came with his wife were a mother and her two sons. The mother stayed in their house as a cook and his wife referred to her as "my treasure" or something. The two boys drove his carriage for him.

This is a very different kind of mentality towards slavery than we're generally exposed to. I won't make the argument that it was very common, but as in all cases, the types of slavery would have been as varied as the owners themselves.

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

Actually made perfect economic sense unless you were involved in selling slaves to the Deep South. Once in the Deep South, field slaves were commodities to be used until worthless. The average lifespan was much shorter than the average white lifespan and the average infant mortality rate was significantly higher.

---

option short side said:

---

Who argued slaves were not abused or brutalized? I argued that slaves were rarely brutalized just for the sake of being brutalized ala Simon Legree. Slaves were usually at a higher risk of being brutalized on larger plantations. The majority of slave owners held under 5 slaves and faced relative higher economic consequences for the loss of a slave than the large plantation owners.

---

option short side said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

Actually made perfect economic sense unless you were involved in selling slaves to the Deep South. Once in the Deep South, field slaves were commodities to be used until worthless. The average lifespan was much shorter than the average white lifespan and the average infant mortality rate was significantly higher.

---

The practice of selling and loaning slaves out did not end once they reached the Depe South. Slaves were frequently sold, traded, and loaned out in the Deep South among large and small slave owners alike

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

option short side said:

---

Who argued slaves were not abused or brutalized? I argued that slaves were rarely brutalized just for the sake of being brutalized ala Simon Legree. Slaves were usually at a higher risk of being brutalized on larger plantations. The majority of slave owners held under 5 slaves and faced relative higher economic consequences for the loss of a slave than the large plantation owners.

---

There is no such thing as a pure economically rational actor. Furthermore, given the poor state of medical care and the nature of the work, owners had little guarantees about how long their slaves would be productive. And, the very nature of slavery and the concepts of race and class as developed in the South encouraged violence. If you want to say Simon Legree is a caricature you would be correct. The violence was typically more restrained on a day-to-day basis but just as soul-crushing and sadistic.

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

option short side said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

Actually made perfect economic sense unless you were involved in selling slaves to the Deep South. Once in the Deep South, field slaves were commodities to be used until worthless. The average lifespan was much shorter than the average white lifespan and the average infant mortality rate was significantly higher.

---

The practice of selling and loaning slaves out did not end once they reached the Depe South. Slaves were frequently sold, traded, and loaned out in the Deep South among large and small slave owners alike

---

It depended on their job and skill level. Child mortality was absurdly high in Deep South plantations.

---

option short side said:

---

Sure in large commercial farms, but most slave owners did not own more than a handful of slaves. The price of a slave was continually rising and small land owners could not afford to mistreat slaves for the sake of mistreating them ala Simon Legree, which I believe was what the op was refering to.

---

wesag said:

---

option short side said:

---

Sure in large commercial farms, but most slave owners did not own more than a handful of slaves. The price of a slave was continually rising and small land owners could not afford to mistreat slaves for the sake of mistreating them ala Simon Legree, which I believe was what the op was refering to.

---

This sounds like fantasy. What happens when you make a person completely subservient to another and allow them little education and no bargaining power ?

---

aalan94 said:

---

Reading this right now:

Rebel Yell: The Violence, Passion, and Redemption of Stonewall Jackson

Just finished a section on Jackson and slavery. It's very interesting and shows the wide varieties of slave ownership, that don't fit the traditional Uncle Tom's Cabin Narrative.

Jackson owned six slaves, three that he got on his own and three given to him as a wedding gift when he married his second wife. The three he had were slaves who belonged to other owners who were facing bankruptcy and the slaves themselves came to Jackson to ask him to buy them. Jackson was well-loved in the African-American community because he had started a bible study program for blacks, and when a lawyer told him he was violating a Virginia law against educating slaves, he basically said that it was his Christian duty to save the souls of blacks as well as whites and that if the lawyer had a problem with that, then he had a problem with Christianity, so shut up.

The first slave who asked Jackson to buy him did so with the agreement that Jackson, who had no real need for a slave, would let him work for cash and buy his freedom, which Jackson did, although he had to wait longer than the original plan because the slave got sick. Another slave was a young girl that he bought because a friend couldn't take care of her. She got sick and he moved her into his house and took care of her, until ultimately she died. He lost money on her.

The slaves that came with his wife were a mother and her two sons. The mother stayed in their house as a cook and his wife referred to her as "my treasure" or something. The two boys drove his carriage for him.

This is a very different kind of mentality towards slavery than we're generally exposed to. I won't make the argument that it was very common, but as in all cases, the types of slavery would have been as varied as the owners themselves.

---

wesag said:

---

aalan94 said:

---

Reading this right now:

Rebel Yell: The Violence, Passion, and Redemption of Stonewall Jackson

Just finished a section on Jackson and slavery. It's very interesting and shows the wide varieties of slave ownership, that don't fit the traditional Uncle Tom's Cabin Narrative.

Jackson owned six slaves, three that he got on his own and three given to him as a wedding gift when he married his second wife. The three he had were slaves who belonged to other owners who were facing bankruptcy and the slaves themselves came to Jackson to ask him to buy them. Jackson was well-loved in the African-American community because he had started a bible study program for blacks, and when a lawyer told him he was violating a Virginia law against educating slaves, he basically said that it was his Christian duty to save the souls of blacks as well as whites and that if the lawyer had a problem with that, then he had a problem with Christianity, so shut up.

The first slave who asked Jackson to buy him did so with the agreement that Jackson, who had no real need for a slave, would let him work for cash and buy his freedom, which Jackson did, although he had to wait longer than the original plan because the slave got sick. Another slave was a young girl that he bought because a friend couldn't take care of her. She got sick and he moved her into his house and took care of her, until ultimately she died. He lost money on her.

The slaves that came with his wife were a mother and her two sons. The mother stayed in their house as a cook and his wife referred to her as "my treasure" or something. The two boys drove his carriage for him.

This is a very different kind of mentality towards slavery than we're generally exposed to. I won't make the argument that it was very common, but as in all cases, the types of slavery would have been as varied as the owners themselves.

---

Man the description of the book on Amazon was just gushing. I had thought about reading it, but the title of Rebel Yell is pandering to the crowd in and of itself . Then I read the description and thought, there must certainly be better ways to spend my time than a book intimatimg that slavery wasn't always that bad.

Listen, the arena of history is littered with this sort of book about the CW. The sexy area right now is Reconstruction. As a matter of fact, there is now a good deal of evidence that earlier schools of thought on Reconstruction were another form of Lost Cause, and that Reconstruction wasn't half bad.

---

jickyjack1 said:

---

Slavery was seen as economically necessary, but rarely -- if ever -- as noble. It is probably fair to say most Southerners privately considered it an unfortunate necessity; some considered it shameful.

---

tallgrant said:

---

jickyjack1 said:

---

Slavery was seen as economically necessary, but rarely -- if ever -- as noble. It is probably fair to say most Southerners privately considered it an unfortunate necessity; some considered it shameful.

---

I disagree. If I may quote:

"That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations..."

---