Punisment for slave rape

Nov 2016
116
Niceville
This brings to mind the issue of prostitution, and when it becomes a form of slavery. This leads to notions of whether people have the right to leave their job. or the right to reject their clients. There's another ethical side to this, whether gift exchanges are taxable. It calls into question philanthropy. There's also the question of what may or may not be considered philanthropy. Philanthropy, properly construed is a used or surplus item market. I say "surplus" because the new items selling at retail on ebay appear to be things that didn't see retail.
 
Last edited:

Jax Historian

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
4,379
Here
It is misleading to exclude free blacks in the north. According to the Census of 1860, there were about 250,000 free blacks in the south and 225,000 in the north. Probably most of those in the north or their ancestors had moved north after being freed or run away from slavery in the south. 118,000 of the slaves in the south were in border states, mainly Maryland. Only 17,000 were in the original Confederate states excepting Louisiana.

Most of the free blacks were probably not a result of benevolent manumission, unless you consider that masters freeing their children, which was probably the largest category. Some became free by running away. Some bought their freedom, particularly if they were skilled workers who could keep some of their pay. Others had their freedom bought by free black relatives who became relatively wealthy.
First, "probably" isn't evidence. And I think you missed the fact that in 1860 many freed blacks would have been the children of earlier manumitted blacks who had multiple children and grandchildren who had been free born. So they were not free by any direct act of benevolence.

But how about we go with that in 1860 there were 300,000 - 350,000? free blacks of the free blacks North and South (out of 475,000), who had been directly manumitted. That still doesn't show much benevolence compared to 3.8 million blacks still in slavery. I don't think you have put much of a dent in my point.

And you didn't address my point that the pro-slavery southerners increasingly outlawed manumission. So there was a strong movement against such benevolence as you get into the 19th century. Less and less "slave owner benevolence," higher and higher production demands, and more and more violence as cotton grew more profitable.

And selling about a million slaves "down the river" during the second middle passage into the hellhole that was the deep south that split up thousands of slave families doesn't show any benevolence as far as I can see. :eek:

The small number of slave owners that manumitted their slaves were, in fact, benevolent. But for the slave owners who did not free their slaves "benevolent slave owner" is an oxymoron.

"Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VIII, "Speech to One Hundred Fortieth Indiana Regiment" (March 17, 1865), p. 361.
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,496
You implied there were 200,000 free blacks in 1860 when in fact there were 475,000. I don't see any reason to think that most of the slaves freed were freed due to owner's benevolence.

Also, it is likely that 70% or more of free blacks at that time were born free. There were 310,000 free blacks in 1830, so likely a small number became free between 1830 and 1860. In addition to laws, the price of slaves went up, and not many would free slaves when they could profitably sell them down the river.
 

Jax Historian

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
4,379
Here
You implied there were 200,000 free blacks in 1860 when in fact there were 475,000. I don't see any reason to think that most of the slaves freed were freed due to owner's benevolence.

Also, it is likely that 70% or more of free blacks at that time were born free. There were 310,000 free blacks in 1830, so likely a small number became free between 1830 and 1860.
I don't know how to read this other than you seem to be saying that there were even less than 200,000 manumitted slaves in 1860 I probably overly gave credit for. (30% of 475,000 is 142,000, 58,000 less then the 200,000 number I gave).

So thank you for strengthening my original point that there was little slave owner benevolence.
 

History Chick

Ad Honorem
Jun 2010
3,336
Colorado Springs (PA at heart)
There are problems with this.

1) Comparing treatment of slaves to animals isn't a valid point.
Is it when that's how they were viewed and treated at the time.

Animals don't refuse to work or plot to run away.
Animals will indeed refuse to work if they are pushed to their limits. If you ride a horse without resting it for too long, it will indeed stop and refuse to move until it's rested and given food.

I can't say how much animals "plot" to run away, but they do indeed run away sometimes.

While most slave owners wouldn't beat slaves that were compliant, they would certainly beat those that weren't and make an example of them to ensure the others stayed compliant. Slavery cannot exist without being backed by violence. Pretending there was "benevolence" in such a sick institution is absurd. Being nice to people only when they do your bidding is hardly benevolence.
Complete and utter nonsense. I have a headache right now and don't have to energy to rather evidence, but there is plenty of it that shows some slave owners treated their slaves well.

2. If you know the history of slavery, you know that as you moved from the 18th to the 19th century, laws were made against manumitting slaves. That some slave owners were changing their opinions about slavery, the majority were putting a stop to such acts that were truly benevolent. In 1860 there was 200,000 free blacks in the South and 3.8 million slaves. That does show a large amount of benevolent manumission. Such benevolence was the exception, not the rule.
I never said it was the "rule". :suspicious:
 

Jax Historian

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
4,379
Here
Is it when that's how they were viewed and treated at the time.
False argument. How they "were seen at the time" is not the grounds we evaluate slavery today. And how you can claim that slaves were treated like animals and that these who treated them like animals were "kind" and "benevolent" is pretty strange. That some slave owners generally treated slaves better and were less violent than other slave owners does not show any slave owners were benevolent when they kept humans in captivity backed by the constant threat of violence.

Complete and utter nonsense. I have a headache right now and don't have to energy to rather evidence, but there is plenty of it that shows some slave owners treated their slaves well.
When you get over your headache, I'll certainly be looking forward to reading your evidence that there were slave owners who never beat their slaves when they refused to work or when they tried to escape.

How did they handle that, did they send those slaves to bed without dessert after dinner?

I never said it was the "rule". :suspicious:
Then I guess we are in agreement that manumission was very rare in the 19th century?
 
Jul 2017
842
Crete
Slave owners were Christians and the bible as no commandments that forbid rape
and thus the children of the slave owners were all raped and abused , it's in their nature.
 

Jax Historian

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
4,379
Here
Slave owners were Christians and the bible as no commandments that forbid rape
and thus the children of the slave owners were all raped and abused , it's in their nature.
That's ridiculous. That basically says that all Christians rape their children. Slave owners did not rape their children and some of them didn't even rape their slaves.
 
Jul 2017
842
Crete
That's ridiculous. That basically says that all Christians rape their children. Slave owners did not rape their children and some of them didn't even rape their slaves.
How do you know who was raped and not raped, Christianity as being covering rape and paedophilia crimes for centuries.
 

Jax Historian

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
4,379
Here
How do you know who was raped and not raped, Christianity as being covering rape and paedophilia crimes for centuries.
More ridiculous nonsense. Since you are the one claiming slave owners raped their children, it is up to you to show evidence that it is so. Do you have any evidence?