What do you think about this slavery question?

Question

So, the other day, I was in my History 129 lecture, and we were discussing the Confederate South during the Civil War.

We were talking about the issue of slavery when I thought about this:

Don't you think it would cost the plantation owner more money to physically harm his slaves? If his slaves didn't work well or fast enough and he has his slave drivers whip the slaves, the physical pain would cause them to be weaker and slower, thus causing them to be even worse in the fields or wherever they were working.

Over time, the physical abuse could kill them or cause them to run away. Because of the lost labor, the plantation owner, would lose money because he doesn't have as many people working for him, and to make up for that, he would buy another slave, which would cost him money.

Do you agree with that?

Answer 1

Physical abuse of a single slave served as an object lesson for all the others. Running away was NOT an option for most slaves. There was no place to run to. Try to think in terms of animals instead of humans. For that is the way slaves were treated.

Answer 2

There were some slave owners who looked at things that way but there is no denying that many slaves were abused terribly.  Even though the slave was viewed by the owner as property and perhaps even useful property that didn't stop some of them from beating their slaves.

Look at it this way, slave owners saw the slaves as nothing more than property.  Some people need their cars to get to work and make a living but still are very hard on them causing the life of the car to be shortened and more money to be spent on them for repairs.

It's terrible to compare a human being to a car but essentially the slave owners saw them that way, just property.

Answer 3

i think that slavery is wrong period but you have a very good point and one that is historically valid. slaves were valued as property, expensive property, and these folks didn't sit around necessarily waiting to damage them. but on the other hand, because they considered them property and second rate citizens, they were damaged more severely than beatings ever could by how southern society viewed them as sub-humans. they were treated as animals. so even if an owner was pushed to the point of abuse, i'm not sure if the thought that he might harm his property would stop him.

what's even worse to think about is the fact that first slave trades where made with their very own african people. the different tribes in africa would frequently take captives when the would enter into battle with other tribes. when the spainards first started trading with the africans, the africans would trade these captives from other villages...essentially their own people.  

Answer 4

As a re-enactor I have read a lot of books on the time you are asking about  and let me say this would someone go and buy a new car and take it out and drive it into a lake?  The ones that did own slaves would try to take care of them but there were some who did not I know of 5 brothers who got 3 family's and set them free were they were shear croppers on there place when the war broke out 2 of the 3 men went with the 5 brothers into the war one is burred in Chattanooga TN. I know this for it was my grate grate grand father who was one of the 5 brothers and when I do living history's or school days at the events I do I tell the kids the facts.

Answer 5

This is a very, very intelligent question.  

When considering physical punishment, the slaveowner had to balance the extra 'discipline' achieved with the amount that he damaged his property; and property damage meant less income for him.  (Remember that scene in the Ten Commandments, when Charlton Heston is still prince of Egypt and while putting bricks in a balance notes, 'The sick produce few.  And the dead produce none.')  Being too harsh or too lenient would be disastrous.

So, a smart slaveowner might use other methods to control his slaves, such as PHSYCHOLOGICAL punishment.  Or - this was rare - a slaveowner might come to think of his slaves as 'my people', in which case the slaves would, besides fear him, also look up to him...an even subtler, but more effective, means of control.

Answer 6

But of course you are right in theory, but look at it this way.  The slave to the owner was nothing more than a machine, or animal that did the work.  For instance, say someone was stuck in the mud with their modern vehicle (worth quite a bit of money) and they have been trying to rock it out, push it out, etc etc and they are losing it..so what do they do...they sit there with their foot on the gas pedal and spin, and spin the tires till the rubber is gone and they have ruined a tire, and probably did the engine no favours either....there you have it, the same mentality, Ruin a perfectly good tire, or engine for what, They could have calmed down, called for a tow truck and even with the expense of the tow truck  would be further ahead financially...it is human nature I guess to lose it and do stupid things