The English, Dutch, and Spanish were the true miscreants in slavery, not the southern American plantation owner, even though those were mainly the only ones who could afford to buy and keep a slave in the US. The African tribesmen rounded up their enemies and shipped them off for a profit, instead of simply killing them or enslaving them for their own use, as was the custom there for thousands of years before that, and in fact, continue there today.
Ever hear of Rawanda? Too many Tutsis to enslave, so the Hutus just chopped them all up, turning 800,000 souls into so much dog food, and all while the lefty heroes of the UN stood around with their, "thumbs up their butts and big smile on their face:", to paraphrase an Ernest Borgnine line from the movie, "The Wild Bunch".
One has to keep in mind that prevalent attitudes of Antebellum America were much worse then than even the early 20th century, mostly because much of the racial animousity was truly started by the Cival War Reconstruction behavior of the carpetbaggers, and only came to a head 60-80 years later, when institutionalised elements were attacked more directly.
Some of our more ignorant citizenry are laboring under the pitiful misconception that Lincoln freed all the slaves by passing legislation known as the Emancipation Proclamation.
Balderdash, I say, complete and utter poppycock! For the proof, one only need read the document to see that it did not free any slave living in any state not in rebellion against the central government., and in fact, even went so far as to name specific parishes (like counties in other states) in the state of Louisiana where the slaves were NOT freed, because the plantation owners there were not joining the rebellion.
Some of the more famous of the all-black army units who fought for the North were from Louisiana.
Also one should be aware of another, similar legislation that Lincoln passed 9 mos
before the EP, called the
The District of Columbia Emancipation Act.
A most cursory examination of the document reveals several interesting differences between the law passed for the elitist pricks around the 'Beltway' and that designed primarily for the facilitation of the rape of their southern neighbors.
1. Each slaveowner was paid $300 for each slave freed. (slaves cost about $2000 ea, but that money would likely buy a nice luxury car today)
2. Each slave was given up to $100 to emigrate to either Haiti or Liberia. (My god, Myrtle, you mean Lincoln was tryin' to send 'em back to Africa???)
Now, one may think briefly that this information is irrellevant, until it is pointed out that Southern slaveowners were never offered a penny as recompense for the huge outlay of capital required to set up the efficient agricultural machine that was the then modern plantation.
Basically an agricultural enterprise of the day had two choices, one cheaper, but less efficient and not really viable as a large scale enterprise and the other was slavery, which worked very well, especially when run by people who cared about its success enough to treat their workers humanely, just as it behooves some modern, third world farmers to take very good care of their labor force, whether it be their own children or the sturdy water buffalo.
It made no sense then, just as it makes none now, for a man to abuse those people OR animals who do his work and feed his family. To suggest otherwise, generalizing from a few outrageous anecdotal accounts, is not only stupid, it is insulting to one's innate common sense.
But I am used to such foolishness, living in 'liberal' America as I do.
As you were.