Join the Debate!
All comments and users are subject to Townhall's new comments policy.
Login in to Post Your Comments
ken5213 Wrote: Oct 25, 2012 5:49 PM
Your ancesters were indentured servants for 7 or so years to pay for their passage to the new world. On the other hand, black slaves were slaves for life. Indentured servants and black slaves were worlds apart. The death rate for indentured servants was far far less than the death rate for slaves. Your ancesters were not chained to their berths like the black slaves were and they did not have to wallow in their offal as did the black slaves. And I'll bet your ancesters had better food, even scheduled meals.
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
Post Comment
Charles3662 Wrote: Oct 29, 2012 2:22 PM
ken5213; you got it wrong. A slave was a valuable piece of property, more valuable than a horse or a cow. They were fed, clothed and treated like an asset that could deteriorate from neglect. In Maryland blacks owned blacks as indentured servants. Today if you want a nanny from Mexico it is all a matter of money and paperwork. Indentured servants had a tough time and were not an asset beyond their term of indenture--except through negotiation! You are creating a story that simply doesn't make sense! The one who had it rough was the farmer's wife!!!
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
Post Comment
Jon Hubbard, a Republican member of the Arkansas House of Representatives, has a book, titled "Letters to the Editor: Confessions of a Frustrated Conservative." Among its statements for which Hubbard has been criticized and disavowed by the Republican Party is, "The institution of slavery that the black race has long believed to be an abomination upon its people may actually have been a blessing in disguise. The blacks who could endure those conditions and circumstances would someday be rewarded with citizenship in the greatest nation ever established upon the face of the Earth."
Hubbard's observation reminded me of my 1972 job interview...
What You Can't Say