On Nov 12, 2008, at 11:31 PM, Anne Pemberton wrote:

> Elizabeth said:
>
>> Slavery was awful, but most people alive before 1900 lived in  
>> conditions that were at least as bad, if
>> not worse, wherever they lived.
>
> Elizabeth,
>
> I think there is more to it than living conditions.
You have missed her point completely. We all know that living  
conditions are not the primary issue, and as my post said, "if you  
take from it the legal basis for slavery with all that meant",  
Elizabeth's post was perfectly reasonable. Again, you are taking  
things out of context.

> Take, as one example, a slave named Ona Judge. She belonged to  
> Martha Washington, her personal maid. She was not treated badly.  
> But, when Washington was president, she slipped away and made it to  
> Connecticut. People who knew her as Martha's maid recognized her and  
> knew where she was living. When President Washington tried to get  
> her back, he tried to circumvent the law that required him to show  
> up in person to claim her. He sent a message to her, more than once,  
> asking her to come back. He even promised (with his fingers crossed)  
> to free her if she came back. For about two years he persisted, and  
> she repeatedly said no. During that time she married and had a  
> child. He definitely wanted her and the child back. Ona chose to  
> stay in Connecticut with her husband and child.
>
> Now, if, as you say, living conditions were so horrid for non- 
> slaves, why is it that slaves who obtained their freedom, including  
> ones like Ona Judge who had good masters, would prefer to remain  
> free rather than return to slavery.
Another "have you stopped abusing your husband yet?" set-up!! The  
point being made was about the general living conditions of the  
majority of people in the country and the simple fact that they had no  
system to help them if they couldn't do it themselves. The pro-slavery  
folks who argued that slaves were better off than Northern factory  
workers were absolutely correct in their narrow assertion, again  
absent the compelling legal system that did not allow for a choice, as  
if the poor ever had a choice except to do whatever it took to put  
food on the table.
>
>
> Somehow, Elizabeth, I don't think you are fully grasping the concept  
> of being a slave.
Your supercilious moralistic presentism really doesn't cover your lack  
of depth of knowledge either. Do you not see that totally amoral  
capitalism and those non-slave owning captains of industry in the  
North are merely the opposite end of the same exploitive spectrum as  
the paternalistic Southern slave owner? No sympathy seems to emanate  
from you regarding the poor Darwined out workers in the factories,  
coal mines and sweat shops. Why is that? After all, they were free to  
move about the country, were they not? (and the short answer is no,  
they were not free to move about in case you were wondering).

Lyle Browning
>
>
> Anne
>
>
> Anne Pemberton
> [log in to unmask]
> http://www.erols.com/apembert
> http://www.educationalsynthesis.org
>
> ______________________________________
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the  
> instructions at
> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html

______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html