Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Arts & HumanitiesHistory · 10 years ago

Was there such a thing as "nice" slave owners?

would nice slave owners make slavery morally justified?

10 Answers

Relevance
  • Willie
    Lv 4
    10 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    SHHHH let me tell you a secret. Your liberal history teachers don't want you to know this but slave owners came in many different types. Some were very nice trying to keep families together and even giving Slaves a way to earn money so they could buy their freedom. Not all slaves worked on plantations and not all slave owners were bad white men. Here is a small list of slave owners. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, U.S. Grant, and William Travis. Washington and Jefferson were rich plantation owners, but could hardly be considered "evil". Grant and Travis were never rich and never owned a plantation yet both owned a slave. Slavery itself was not only for white people as American Indians bought african slaves and there were even some freeman of color who owned slaves. Yes black people owned other black people, wonder if they will be asked to pay reparations.

    Source(s): History major
    • No Thanks!4 years agoReport

      Now, in all seriousness you know that slave owners actually advocated slaves to have families so that they could 1. Increase their stock and 2. So they could provide their human property with a distraction from the harsh misery of being human property.

  • 10 years ago

    Well, that was certainly the propaganda by slave owners at the time. However, there are at least two lines of argument that make it pretty likely that "nice" slave owners were few and far between.

    The first is that in the thirties anthropologists interviewed a large number of former slaves, using both a white interviewer and then a black one. While the former slaves tended to make the best of it with the white interviewer, and there's no doubt that whites did indeed occasionally show kindness towards slaves ... their stories of slavery as revealed to another black painted a pretty grim picture of slavery.

    Secondly, and more scientifically, starting with he Stanford Experiments and much research since ... when you put people in master/slave relationship ... the masters will pretty quickly start abusing their slaves. We see the same things in prisons all the time, unless very carefully monitored, the guards will start abusing the prisoners, it appears to simply be human nature.

    Yes, there were probably some nice slave owners, but really, a truly nice slave owner would free their slaves now, wouldn't they? Some did I expect, and some left wills where their slaves were freed when the master died, but for the most part, no, masters abuse their slaves.

  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    I guess but it depends on ur deffinition of "nice" I mean I don't kno much but there were slave owners ( not many) that didn't beat there slaves all the time or overwork them or underfeed them. As in they were still slaves but they wernt treat them like dogs. But if there is no discipline then the slaves wouldn't work and would try to escape which wild b bad. Also sometimes nice owners wild actually let slaves b free after several years of work or if they were too old. Srry I'm not an expert bu I've learned a few things and technically yes there were so called "nice" slave owners.

  • Denys
    Lv 5
    6 years ago

    I don't know HOW Willie got "best answer" for that line of crap. He conveniently failed to answered the second, important, part of the questions which is "Would nice slave owners make slavery morally justified?"

    The answer to that is NO, and it doesn't matter who was kind to whom. Owning another human is unacceptable, and a moral abomination, but Willie's obvious right-wing agenda pretends that "liberals" have painted too bleak a picture with regard to slavery. He points out the exceptions (and even those are still cruelly wrong in a supposedly free society), rather than the norms.

    Slavery was cruel. Owning slaves for any reason, regardless of treatment was and is immoral, no matter how much guys like Willie try to justify it.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 10 years ago

    Well, it depends on the time in history and where you are on earth. Because, in medieval times in Africa, being a slave wasn't a bad thing. You got to be part of the family you were working with, not FOR. You could buy your freedom, or even marry into it. Well it was like that until the Portuguese came and took over. Then they changed the whole meaning of slavery. Their idea of slavery is what we know today. But I hope I helped a little.

  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    There may have been slave owner that didn't whip and beat their slaves, but that doesn't make them "nice". Buying a human being and making them work without pay is never "nice" nor morally justified, now matter how often you abstain from beating them.

    To make slavery morally justifiable you'd have to pay them (as well as not whip them), but if you paid them then they wouldn't be slaves anymore.

  • Jim L
    Lv 7
    10 years ago

    There were 'nicer' slave owners, but that doesn't make slavery morally justified. Read Uncle Tom's Cabin - Stowe is quite clear on this point.

  • tuffy
    Lv 7
    10 years ago

    There is no such thing as a "nice" slave owner. Bringing humans packed on ships like sardines with little food or water, chained together, and shipped 3000 miles, to be sold in open markets like livestock, and separated families never to be reunited, with education of them being punishable by death can hardly make anything about it - nice.

  • 4 years ago

    I 100% agree owning a person is wrong. But there are quite a few ranches that all the land And livestock was givin to the slaves and there families after death. It's few and far between that these acts of kindness and morality happend. But it's good to look at all sides of the spectrum, instead of the history books.

  • 3 years ago

    i've got heard of herd mentality yet slave mentality hmmm.....this seems new to me. even in spite of the undeniable fact that, when I see your definition i'm able to work out some circumstances of herd mentality. turning out to be a member of the army and turning out to be nuns or priests are bodily limiting circumstances. The stress cooker circumstances of those 'total' institutions forces people who willingly connect it (paradoxically) to undertake new norms and values without thinking it, living in complication or perhaps putting their lives on the line. this would probable be with the aid of custom they are pronounced under and the values they have been taught from youthful or what impacts them. After 9/11 many joined the army and undertake 'slave' mentality in basic terms for the certainty that they decide for to do something to help their united states of america. Nuns like mom Teresa, stay in financially restrictive circumstances with the intention to attain a extra robust non secular applications in existence and likewise to furnish the money to those that mandatory it extra advantageous than them. i don't comprehend if this helps even in spite of the undeniable fact that it is the main suitable clarification i'm able to arise with.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.