this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
515 points (98.0% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7153 readers
336 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Property? That's a bit broad...
It was beneficial to slave owners, specifically.
And their families should be paying reparations for the ill gotten gains.
You're sniping, but I think the parent poster was accurate in what they said. I don't think it was an euphemism for slave. It was the 1800s. What would you do with a slave if you didn't own property? If they're not tilling and planting or harvesting, or keeping house, or cooking, what would they be doing? A horse would be far more effective at pulling a carriage, and keeping one as a sex slave - while it definitely happened - was strongly looked down upon by society at the time.
If you kept a slave and had no good reason to own one aside from sex, you might well disappear in the night one night - not out of protection for the slave(s) but racial purity.
Most property owners ie had a plot of land could not afford a slave... they worked that land themselves and then forced their 6 kids do it for them.
Right, but take the converse: if they didn't own land, they definitely couldn't afford a slave.
also true... wiki will explain it better: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency
owning a plantation is necessary to be a slaver but it is not sufficient since you actually have to own the slaves.