Ten Reasons Not to Abolish Slavery
Slavery existed for thousands of years, in all sorts of societies and all parts of the world. To imagine human social life without it required an extraordinary effort. Yet, from time to time, eccentrics emerged to oppose it, most of them arguing that slavery is a moral monstrosity and therefore people should get rid of it. Such advocates generally elicited reactions ranging from gentle amusement to harsh scorn and even violent assault.
When people bothered to give reasons for opposing the proposed abolition, they advanced various ideas. Here are ten such ideas I have encountered in my reading.
1. Slavery is natural. People differ, and we must expect that those who are superior in a certain way—for example, in intelligence, morality, knowledge, technological prowess, or capacity for fighting—will make themselves the masters of those who are inferior in this regard. Abraham Lincoln expressed this idea in one of his famous 1858 debates with Senator Stephen Douglas: “[T]here is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
2. Slavery has always existed. This reason exemplifies the logical fallacy argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity or tradition). Nevertheless, it often persuaded people, especially those of conservative bent. Even nonconservatives might give it weight on the quasi-Hayekian ground that although we do not understand why a social institution persists, its persistence may nonetheless be well grounded in a logic we have yet to understand.
3. Every society on earth has slavery. The unspoken corollary is that every society must have slavery. The pervasiveness of an institution seems to many people to constitute compelling proof of its necessity. Perhaps, as one variant maintains, every society has slavery because certain kinds of work are so difficult or degrading that no free person will do them, and therefore unless we have slaves to do these jobs, they will not get done. Someone, as the saying went in the Old South, has to be the mud sill, and free people will not tolerate serving in this capacity.
4. The slaves are not capable of taking care of themselves. This idea was popular in the United States in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries among people, such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who regarded slavery as morally reprehensible yet continued to hold slaves and to obtain personal services from them and income from the products these “servants” (as they preferred to call them) were compelled to produce. It would be cruel to set free people who would then, at best, fall into destitution and suffering.
5. Without masters, the slaves will die off. This idea is the preceding one pushed to its extreme. Even after slavery was abolished in the United States in 1865, many people continued to voice this idea. Northern journalists traveling in the South immediately after the war reported that, indeed, the blacks were in the process of becoming extinct because of their high death rate, low birth rate, and miserable economic condition. Sad but true, some observers declared, the freed people really were too incompetent, lazy, or immoral to behave in ways consistent with their own group survival. (See my 1977 book Competition and Coercion: Blacks in the American Economy, 1865–1914.)
6. Where the common people are free, they are even worse off than slaves. This argument became popular in the South in the decades before the War Between the States. Its leading exponent was the proslavery writer George Fitzhugh, whose book titles speak for themselves: Sociology for the South, or, the Failure of Free Society (1854) and Cannibals All!, or, Slaves Without Masters (1857). Fitzhugh seems to have taken many of his ideas from the reactionary, racist, Scottish writer Thomas Carlyle. The expression “wage slave” still echoes this antebellum outlook. True to his sociological theories, Fitzhugh wanted to extend slavery in the United States to working-class white people, for their own good!
7. Getting rid of slavery would occasion great bloodshed and other evils. In the United States many people assumed that the slaveholders would never permit the termination of the slave system without an all-out fight to preserve it. Sure enough, when the Confederacy and the Union went to war—set aside that the immediate issue was not the abolition of slavery, but the secession of eleven Southern states—great bloodshed and other evils did ensue. These tragic events seemed, in many people’s minds, to validate the reason they had given for opposing abolition. (They evidently overlooked that, except in Haiti, slavery was abolished everywhere else in the Western Hemisphere without large-scale violence.)
8. Without slavery the former slaves would run amuck, stealing, raping, killing, and generally causing mayhem. Preservation of social order therefore rules out the abolition of slavery. Southerners lived in dread of slave uprisings. Northerners in the mid-nineteenth century found the situation in their own region already sufficiently intolerable, owing to the massive influx of drunken, brawling Irishmen into the country in the 1840s and 1850s. Throwing free blacks, whom the Irish generally disliked, into the mix would well-nigh guarantee social chaos.
9. Trying to get rid of slavery is foolishly utopian and impractical; only a fuzzy-headed dreamer would advance such a cockamamie proposal. Serious people cannot afford to waste their time considering such farfetched ideas.
10. Forget abolition. A far better plan is to keep the slaves sufficiently well fed, clothed, housed, and occasionally entertained and to take their minds off their exploitation by encouraging them to focus on the better life that awaits them in the hereafter. We cannot expect fairness or justice in this life, but all of us, including the slaves, can aspire to a life of ease and joy in Paradise.
At one time, countless people found one or more of the foregoing reasons adequate grounds on which to oppose the abolition of slavery. Yet in retrospect, these reasons seem shabby—more rationalizations than reasons.
Today these reasons or very similar ones are used by opponents of a different form of abolitionism: the proposal that government as we know it—monopolistic, individually nonconsensual rule by an armed group that demands obedience and payment of taxes—be abolished. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide whether the foregoing reasons are more compelling in this regard than they were in regard to the proposed abolition of slavery.
Comment by Brian C on 19 November 2009:
Mr. Higgs,
Outstanding article! I don’t usually comment on articles, but on this one I’m compelled to. I think your point is very sound, and similar to another that I like: That territorial government should be looked at like territorial religion of the past.
With your permission, I’d love to disseminate you article.
Brian
Comment by Peter on 19 November 2009:
The parallels to living in a society with government are unmistakeable. Well, on second thought, they are easily mistakeable because we have such a society.
Pingback by Kymmenen syytä olla lopettamatta orjuutta - Pasi J. Matilainen — Talouspasifisti on 19 November 2009:
[...] kirjoitus on vapaa käännös Robert Higgsin artikkelista Ten Reasons Not to Abolish Slavery, joka on julkaistu The Freeman -lehdessä joulukuussa 2009 [vol. 59, issue 10]. Kiitos linkistä [...]
Comment by negator on 20 November 2009:
“10. Forget abolition. A far better plan is to keep the slaves sufficiently well fed, clothed, housed, and occasionally entertained and to take their minds off their exploitation by encouraging them to focus on the better life that awaits them in the hereafter. We cannot expect fairness or justice in this life, but all of us, including the slaves, can aspire to a life of ease and joy in Paradise.”
. . . why does this make me feel . . . uncomfortable. . .
Comment by Jay Baker on 20 November 2009:
Mark it down,Slavery has only taken a temporary time out.It will be back sometime in the future.
Comment by ShayX on 20 November 2009:
racist bloogers … black people are in modern slavery … but guess what we have 7 1/2 oz of brain when you caucasian man has only 6 0z .. You made jail cells for black men . half pf ever jail or prison is filled up with people.. anywayss white people are money hungry , they don’t even believe in god. they try to use science and theolgy and any other kind of theory to make up and try to make people believe .. Now black people depend on you BECAUSE OWN EVERYTHING WHITE DEVIL .. yOU don’t own the heavens of the earth and god will take it from who ever and give it to whom he pleases .. so white man i wonder how many franklins will you bring to satan . he doesn’t love you … Black people don’t care about being integerated with you stuck up snooby nosed people only the kracker lovers will do so . because of you TRICKNOLOGY. this is a time of wisdom
Comment by Resa on 20 November 2009:
Sir, I believe that, not only is this article ridiculously well written and portrayed, but that it has truths deeper than most who read it will ever realize. I believe that the more people that are exposed to this, the better off every single one of them will be and encourage you to send it to those who can get it to the masses and would enjoy it themselves. Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Jason Lewis…the list goes on. Make your statement heard!
Comment by Resa on 20 November 2009:
Wow Shayx…I could spend a good bit of time picking apart how horrible your post was and ignorant you made yourself out to be, but I won’t. Instead I will just say that not only did you miss the ENTIRE point of Mr. Higg’s piece (you know, that the government is out of control and that our excuses for doing nothing about it are similar to those used by people afraid of abolition), but you discredited every remark you made by doing so. I am sorry for you.
Comment by rox24 on 24 November 2009:
This atrile i felt was very redundant…
Comment by Gene Baldassari on 25 November 2009:
This is a fantastic article.
I might add one more point.
You cannot change the nature of man. The electorate will not understand that they are being circled – until it is too late.
Comment by H.M. on 29 November 2009:
I’m not steeped in libertarian theory, but I think a truly “free market” would be conducive to highly exploitative institutions such as slavery. It is a fairly well settled historical fact that the expansion of federal power in the U.S. during Reconstruction and throughout the 20th century has been the means by which slavery, segregation, and continuing racism have been gradually eroded. Furthermore, physical or spatial liberty is fundamentally different from economic or financial liberty. It is simply inaccurate to analogize forced agricultural labor, or being whipped and in chains, to an average contemporary middle class family struggling under the burden of taxation.
Comment by Skye Stewart on 29 November 2009:
H.M,
Often apparent disagreements begin with real disparities in vocabulary. What you seem to mean by “free market” is any state of affairs without government intervention. Ultimately, this may be a necessary condition, but for the libertarian it is not a sufficient one. It is perfectly possible to have conditions more conducive to liberty and autonomy under a minarchy, or constitutional monarchy than in a state of anarchy (if such a term merely means an absence of the state), however, it logically does not follow that a state is thereby justified.
When Austro-Libertarians, or Market-Anarchists speak in support of a “free market” they are appealing to those mechanisms which are, or are the result of, consensual relations (and therefore ex ante mutually beneficial) ie., that real or potential state of affairs where persons and property are secure from aggression.
Libertarianism does not dismiss that there exists different kinds of freedom, liberty, or autonomy (what in india is called Swaraj, a term referring to the internal as well as external aspects) but it is a deontological theory of law, and therefore only can address property rights.
I think your objections have been honestly addressed in the available literature, for example;
Slavery, Profitability, and the Market Process, by Mark Thornton
~ http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE7_2_2.pdf
The Radical Libertarian Tradition in Antislavery Thought, by Carl Watner
~ http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_3/3_3_5.pdf
Comment by Andrew Humphries on 30 November 2009:
Dear Mr. Higgs,
I enjoyed your article very much. I just want to add that Lincoln, although he did think whites superior to blacks, he gives an argument suggesting that he would not agree with reason one that you gave and therefore would not be a good example. He writes:
“If A can prove, however conclusively, that he may, of right, enslave B, why may not B snatch the same argument, even prove equally, that he may enslave A? You say A is white and B is black–it is *color* then, the lighter having the right to enslave the darker? Take care–by this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own. You do not mean *color* exactly? You mean the whites are *intellectually* the superior of the blacks, and therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again–by this rule you are to be the slave of the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own” (Paul Johnson, pg. 439, A History of the American People).
So he may have thought whites superior to blacks as Jefferson did, but this quote would seem to suggest that he thought that that “fact” did not justify slavery or inequality before the law.
I believe Aristotle, however, defends reason one in his Politics. One might check there for what he says.
Comment by Skye Stewart on 1 December 2009:
H.M.,
Furthermore, on the issue of comparative inaccuracy between “forced agricultural labor, or being whipped and in chains, to an average contemporary middle class family struggling under the burden of taxation,” there is no dispute as it concerns degree, but the Libertarian in this and many similar cases is concerned with kind. Are rights being violated? How will restitution we sought?
Additionally, to illustrate that the principle involved is the same we could refer to the analogy of slavery in the United States and other territories – where it was largely assumed under the framework of private property – and that of the Soviet Union and similar territories where the institution of slavery is in fact public, and all citizens are treated as cattle. I would recommend economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s writings to this effect.
See,
Cultural Revolutions, Chronicles
http://www.hanshoppe.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/chronicles_letter_private_slaves.pdf
A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism,
http://mises.org/store/Theory-of-Socialism-and-Capitalism-A-P465.aspx
Comment by Matt on 2 December 2009:
H.M.,
We must never forget that it was the government that began to entrench racism in law.
Secondly, I think you’ll find that racist laws were often challenged by market actors, who realised that segregating whites and blacks proved to be economically inefficient.
For instance:
In Alabama, the Mobile Light and Railroad Company reacted to a Jim Crow ordinance by flatly refusing to enforce it. “Whites would not obey the law and were continually . . . refusing to sit where they were told,” the company’s manager told a reporter in 1902. In Memphis, the transit company defiantly pleaded guilty to violating a Tennessee segregation statute, explaining that it believed the law to be “against the wishes of the majority of its patrons.” In Savannah, the local black paper noted that streetcar officials “are not anxious to carry into effect the unjust laws. . . requiring separate cars for the races,” since it would put them “to extra trouble and expense.”
Source: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/02/15/the_enemies_of_jim_crow/
Comment by TheChaos on 2 December 2009:
Why am I not surprised that the people who believe slavery should be brought back think that the information should go to Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, etc…I guess crazies are attracted to other crazies. I will admit that I only read argument number 5, but I just have one thing to say. What the hell are you guys thinking? You say that they will die off without their masters? The main reason that they had a “miserable economic condition” was because they had no money because they were not getting paid for their work. Therefore if they had been getting paid for their work instead of just being exploited, they would not have economic issues. So without slavery, they wouldn’t die off, I mean look right now in America, are there any races that appear to be dieing off because they don’t have their masters to back them up? And where does it say that people have the right to slavery? I thought in the Declaration of Independence it said that all men are created equal? So if everyone is equal, then why are some people able to own others?
Comment by Joseph Eros on 2 December 2009:
Higgs writes: “They evidently overlooked that, except in Haiti, slavery was abolished everywhere else in the Western Hemisphere without large-scale violence.”
This is an oft-repeated statement, but it does not appear to be true. In Cuba, the Ten Years’ War (1868-78) played an integral role in ending slavery. A “free birth” law was passed during the war, weakening slavery significantly, and a gradual emancipation law followed in 1870. The destructiveness of the Ten Years’ War in Cuba seems to have been comparable to the devastation caused by the US Civil War was in the seceding states; something like 3-4% of the population of each area died as a result.
In any case, the idea that ending slavery in the USA’s slave states would be as easy as ending it in Latin America is highly dubious. The CSA-joining states had a much higher percentage of slaveowners and a much lower number of free blacks than did comparable Latin American slave societies. They also had laws against emancipation, which were being made more and more restrictive.
Comment by kla on 2 December 2009:
Slavery appears in many shades, and when right, perhaps both sides are more comfortable, e.g., “Out of Africa”.
What about the “Knecht/Herrschaft” arangement in Germany from the late middle ages until recently? The “Diener” belonged to an estate and there existence was based on a subsistence arrangement.
How much do we know about slavery in the pre-civil war US? After all, history is always written by the winner and the dumbed-down education received by the US citizen, always treats the US like the ultimate utopia.
Helps pump ‘em up for the next war.
Comment by George O'Macon on 5 December 2009:
In my opinion, the only thing wrong with slavery was that it was based on race instead of being based on just deserts.
Comment by George O'Macon on 6 December 2009:
Dear “TheChaos,”
The article was not about bringing back slavery but about all citizens now being slaves to big government; the article showed that the arguments for big government are just as ludricous as the arguments for slavery. Furthermore, you didn’t read No. 5 either; it does not say slaves had economic issues, rather, it says that the freed-men had economic issues. Slaves received food, clothing, shelter, and health care cradle to grave, in sickness and in health, through old age to death. Freed-men and northern white factory workers received such only so long as factory owners saw fit to employee them, which they did not do during sickness and old age; rather, they fired the sick and the elderly. The freed-men definitely had economic issues.
Comment by Dave on 7 December 2009:
Chaos,
Before you comment on the entirety of this article, might I suggest you READ it in its entirety?
You missed the entire point because you only partially read it.
Comment by DD on 8 December 2009:
TheChaos,
What an embarrassment for you! You completely misunderstood the point of the article. Read it again, this time from End to Start.
Comment by Clay Barham on 9 December 2009:
FROM FREEDOM TO SLAVERY
Lincoln reflected the Hamilton-Clay interventionist ideals, where the central government and the “superiors” will determine the extent of federal “assistance” to infrastructure and industry in America, certainly opposite the hands-off policies of the 19th century state’s rights Democrats. The 20th century Democrat is closer to Lincoln’s policies than Jefferson’s. Modern Democrats tend to follow the ideals of Rousseau and Marx, where almost everyone, regardless of race, is inferior to the very few superior elite who must rule. Jefferson’s democrats were libertarians, and as such, figured individual freedom and a free market would establish superior and inferior by works and not by government or chains. Claysamerica.com
Comment by David on 12 December 2009:
God is a Republican, no, maybe he is a Democrat. I don’t know, the Democrats come into office and tell everyone that “they” are going to take care of us from cradle to grave, then the Republicans come in and tell us that we all have to pay for all the wonderful gifts that the Democrats “gave” us and the rich are certainly not going to be expected to shoulder the whole burden…..I know, Good Cop, Bad Cop! Tag team. Both teams talk us into buying more then we should on credit (so that I can be entertained and fed well and drive a nice car because that is my status symbol and my home needs to have the correct address and on and on.) so that I don’t have time to think about who is enslaving me. I am fed, cared for and safe. Do I live in paradise?
Take it (this discussion) all the way back to the Garden of Eden.
Paradise! Nothing that you can’t do. Pet all the animals, look and enjoy everything around you. Don’t go hungry, always a safe place to sleep, never get sick, never get old, no having to worry about anything.
How long were Adam and Eve in the Garden? When did they start asking the question, “What is knowledge”? “Why can’t I have knowledge”?
The only thing that they didn’t have was knowledge. Why did they know that didn’t have something? God showed them and told them. He told them that they could have EVERYTHING, but knowledge. He wanted to show them that they were under him; they didn’t have all that he had. He held them in “slavery” for his entertainment.
How many years did it take to become bored with paradise? Knowledge must have been a very tempting fruit, maybe it would show the way to “freedom”. If you “knew”, then you would be free.
I suppose that Adam knowing that he was enslaved and accepting his slavery, was knowledge.
Poor Eve probably didn’t like knowledge.
TITLE: Find the Cost of Freedom
ARTIST: Stephen Stills
Find the cost of freedom buried in the ground
Mother Earth will swallow you, lay your body down
Find the cost of freedom buried in the ground
Mother Earth will swallow you, lay your body down
Pingback by Hoping for anarchy « A Little Lower Than the Angels on 8 January 2010:
[...] don’t think so, not so long ago, most folks believed that slavery was a necessary, inevitable, and/or acceptable part of society. One day the State will go the way of [...]
Comment by leslie on 28 January 2010:
this is the best article i ever read in my life
Comment by Christine on 1 March 2010:
come be my slave since you are fancinated by it .
Comment by leslie on 19 March 2010:
If it wasnt for our people, people of color, the people that You Crackers be friend for us to teach you simple minded muth)*^)^s the way of life, living and hunting you barbaric sky demons wouldnt have survived here on earth. Slavery will come back when you dead blonde head non melanin european devils go extinct B&^%$
thinkingpennies@gmail.com
Pingback by 10 Reasons Not to Abolish Slavery « Trying Liberty on 21 April 2010:
[...] PDRTJS_settings_32730_post_2079 = { "id" : "32730", "unique_id" : "wp-post-2079", "title" : "10+Reasons+Not+to+Abolish+Slavery", "item_id" : "_post_2079", "permalink" : "http%3A%2F%2Ftryingliberty.com%2F2010%2F04%2F21%2F10-reasons-not-to-abolish-slavery%2F" } This outstanding article was provided by FEE. Click here for entire article. [...]
Pingback by Why is Slavery Bad? « Upset Patterns on 22 April 2010:
[...] so engrained in our heads that rarely do we question why the institution is horrendous. FEE posted this list giving ten reasons with which one could defend slavery; ten reasons a lot of people gave a couple [...]
Comment by wow... on 26 April 2010:
This is hands down, the most disgusting piece of crap I have ever read in my life.
1. Slavery is NOT natural… social hierarchy, ok… but slavery? Slavery is the result of exploitation.
2. Slavery has not always existed, it is reoccurring in history through various human societies, but it has not always existed… but let’s pretend it did. why should complacency be a reason to accept something??? hmmm… ok, murder has always existed, should we decriminalize that?
3. Every society on earth has not had slavery… yes, many have, but not all have. this argument is based on the same concept as your second… complacency…
4. “slaves are not capable of taking care of themselves”… fucking really? how do you think they lived before being enslaved??? maybe fully grown men and women just appeared into shackles before countless societies. I mean, theres no way that those could have been real people that started as children and lived to adulthood… right??? or maybe there was a flying spaghetti monster that fed them and wiped their ass for their whole life until they were at optimum levels for working…
5. what??? without “masters” they would never have been removed from their homes in the first place… but your right, they would probably just die if they hadn’t been enslaved anyways… it just never ceases to amaze me where all these people keep coming from… because we have already determined in argument 4 they can’t do anything for themselves, especially not live.. (in case you didn’t catch that… it was sarcasm)
6. you made absolutely no point there…
7. abolition results in violence because lazy assholes don’t want to lose they’re free labor…
8. This is definitely your stupidest argument of all. Why would slaves revolt in return for freedom??? people feared slave revolts because they gave the slaves a reason to revolt. I don’t understand why you wouldn’t be worried that people would revolt when they are beaten, raped, over worked and under paid.
9. Is this seriously part of your argument??? I can just as easily say “Trying to uphold slavery is foolishly barbaric and impractical; only a red-neck fuckbag would advance such a cockamamie proposal. Serious people cannot afford to waste their time considering such inhumane ideas.”
10. rot in hell you piece of shit
Comment by James Madison Fan on 26 April 2010:
And so Wow proves that irony is not a word with which he is familiar. I do not doubt he would read Swift and think the man was serious when he suggested the Irish should eat their children if they were so hungry. >>Heavy Sigh<<
While you are all thinking about taxation and slavery and the government keeping you entertained while they exploit you I think a similar analogy could be drawn between substandard wages, outsourcing jobs, and the influx of cheap foreign goods when the average worker can't afford a home. Isn't that a lovely PS3, TV, DVD, CD, BRD, iPod, etc. you're playing with that was imported from China, Guatemala, Vietnam, Ecuador, or some other such location.. Terrible shame you had to buy it with a welfare check. I'm sorry we couldn't hire you but we found a guy in India that will do your job for 10 cents a week.
It is the subtle despot rather than the obvious tyrant that terrifies me.
Comment by slap da bass on 28 April 2010:
james madison fan 2 wow
nice
Comment by wow fan on 8 May 2010:
This is hands down, the most disgusting piece of crap I have ever read in my life. [2]
Comment by Ann on 14 May 2010:
i dont know if u are racist or if u just forgot to put in quote marks around the ideas. if u had placed said quote marks where they might be properly placed, you might have been able to pass this off as it not being ur ideas and u not being a complete and utter rasicst cock-head. i don’t know how other people find you to be “correct” or “in the right” but i know that u have something wrong with what goes on in ur head to even consider saying half of the things that you just explained and published here on the internet.
♥Smoochies!!!♥
Comment by Bob on 23 May 2010:
Oooh… the irony.
While we’re on the topic of slavery, let me ask you this: Do you believe that the free market would ever have brought about the end of slavery?
Comment by Eric Wells on 23 May 2010:
Can you come be my slave?
Comment by James Madison Fan on 24 May 2010:
Ann joins Wow in demonstrating that irony and her are not acquainted. I do hope they look it up at some point.
Slavery was on its way out. It probably would have been replaced by sharecropping naturally in a couple decades. It might have held out in some areas longer but it was already proving difficult economically. Essentially it would have become the Capitalist version of Feudalism. It is cheaper and easier to own property and rent it to a freeman to work than it is to stable slaves in good condition. Contrary to popular belief it was in the owner’s best interest to keep his slaves well fed, reasonably happy, and healthy. Replacing a slave was expensive. If you beat a slave and the wounds get infected you had to pay to have them treated or risk loosing the slave. Malnourished slaves can’t work as hard or as long. Poor shelter and sanitation meant disease spread like wild fire which could end a plantation literally overnight.
On the other hand if a family moved into a shack they had to provide for themselves and pay the landlord rent. If they got sick it didn’t change anything. If they roof got a leak they had to fix it. If they died they could be replaced for free. The West was an option but people were ending up very dead on the way out and those that made it had to deal with the “savages” that were killing settlers by the bushel. It wasn’t quite so bad as it has been portrayed in movies but they draw from a cottage industry of fiction from the period revolving around western lore in much the same way we enjoy science fiction today except their “aliens” were real.
I know that the Civil War went down as the “War Against Slavery” but Lincoln didn’t issue the Emancipation Proclamation until 1862 and it didn’t free all the slaves, only slaves in the Confederacy. There were four boarder states that were exempted entirely because they didn’t cede. It was hoped the slaves would rebel and put a quick end to the war but that didn’t happen. Depending on which authors you read the reasons range from most slaves being content with their condition to being too afraid of the consequences if they failed. I suspect as in most things it depended on the slave and the plantation.
The thing to remember is that it was a centuries old institution so many slaves had been owned for generations by that time so they were no more comfortable with the concept of freedom than people are in today’s market with the concept of quitting their job. Where will I go if I quit? What if my next boss is worse than this one? What happens if they decide to downsize and I’m low man on the seniority list? I’m getting older, what if I can’t find a job? Where will I live? How will I eat? Same things you and I worry about. We like to pretend that the world has changed but the concerns going on between our ears are the same today as 5,000 years before Christ walked the Earth only our technology is better. Truth is we’re all slaves unless we win the lottery and can tell our boss and bill collectors to shove it. Freedom is an illusion. Look at your paycheck and your mortgage and you will learn the name of your masters.
In truth the Proclamation backfired on Lincoln. Many of his troops were there for reasons besides the Abolitionist movement and felt usurping their particular reason for a single cause they didn’t believe in cheapened their sacrifice. I’m not sure of the exact numbers that left services but it was large enough that it warrants mention.
Comment by Mihai Martoiu Ticu on 8 June 2010:
==Trying to get rid of slavery is foolishly utopian and impractical; only a fuzzy-headed dreamer would advance such a cockamamie proposal. Serious people cannot afford to waste their time considering such farfetched ideas.==
Hi, nice arguments. I would be very greatfull for some references to who said that abolishing slavery would be utopian?
Comment by Jerome on 9 June 2010:
Sorry but who would disagree that we have to get rid of all sort of domination? I am wondering who you are trying to fight here. Oh I get it! Probably for you some people love a strong governement just for the sake of it. Let me guess. Keynesian? Hmmmm… worse… socialist? Or even… no don’t tell me… communist?
Unfortunately that’s all very common ideas. Marx stated it clearly. As Wikipedia explains ‘In the schema of historical materialism, communism is the idea of a free society with no division or alienation, where mankind is free from oppression and scarcity. A communist society would have no governments, countries, or class divisions.’
You see the question is not about slavery or not. As ironically you showed it yourself, who could seriously argue that it is a good thing? No on the contrary, the only debate is about the path to follow to reach freedom. And that’s where the fight is taking place. You are only late by 200 years!
Comment by Whatif on 19 August 2010:
If people were not made slaves to begin with, they would have lived just fine. The Africans for example. They had their own society and civilizations where generations upon generations of people happily thrived and flourished. If it weren’t for slaves, the Europeans would have died out right? Is that your point? If slavery, which you so ignorantly approve of, was not to happen at all, there would be no fear of these “uncivilized beasts” causing havoc. Let’s see you be a slave and still right this article.
Comment by James Madison Fan on 19 August 2010:
Okay let me spell it out for the slow of mind.
Look up the word: IRONY.
Comment by Joe Schmoe on 27 August 2010:
“It is a fairly well settled historical fact that the expansion of federal power in the U.S. during Reconstruction and throughout the 20th century has been the means by which slavery, segregation, and continuing racism have been gradually eroded.”
Racism, segregation, slavery and bigotry don’t go away when there’s a law against them, same with any other crime. The fact that a law was put into place reflects a change in the general opinions of the populace, not the other way around.
Your history class would tell you that every problem can and has been solved thanks to a law or intervention by the government. Slavery was abolished through communication, segregation through non-violent protest, bigotry through socialization.
In fact, segregation was actually forced by law (state rather than federal, however) in most cases, so this myth that expanding government power led to a decrease in racism is largely false.
Comment by Anonymous on 31 October 2010:
Let’s not forget slavery still exists 27 million people are in slavery today. Let’s not just think about how people should have behaved and thought, but behave and think in ways that will free people now.
Comment by ProudGal on 21 November 2010:
WOW, all my life my parents have told me “dont choose the path that is easy or popular or well known, choose the one you think is right. Say and share your thoughts and ideas out loud for the world and your haters to see”. Today as a yound adult I read this article. The article written by citizenz much older then me and i even disagree with it. I will not state names of those i disaree with or curse because that is no way to settle anything but for adults to think that this is the correct way is truly a disgrace and a shame. America as we know it is better then this. We have dignity and we are fair. we treat humans like Humans regardless of race, ethnicity, sex, religon, culure,language, ect. For people to think that the tragic eveant that happened in the past, the one even history is ashamed of to come back and become daily life is…………is not something that can be described.
Comment by Aquila on 21 November 2010:
ProudGal,
Like several previous posters, you severely misinterpreted this article. Bob Higgs is showing how ridiculous the arguments in favor of slavery were and how many of them are similar if not exactly the same to arguments in favor of the state. I have met him personally and know him to be an ardent opponent of human ownership/slavery/oppression/exploitation.
Bob, I don’t know if the title is deliberately meant to mislead readers in an attempt to grab their attention, but it seems to have deeply confused many readers. Not many people are familiar with the neo-abolitionist spirit of voluntaryism.
Comment by Tommy Hawkings on 22 November 2010:
Slavery is bad. Because it is bad it should be abolsihed. I will abolish it with a cybertronic army of minions who will destroy anyone who opposes my campagin. HAIL HITLER lol jk hitler is dumb
Comment by Jo Jo on 22 November 2010:
To Tommy Hawkings
Your post is retarded. Why are you mentioning hitler, who is a local pimp. I enjoy strolling through gumdrop forests with my slaves who love me.
Comment by Steph on 2 December 2010:
Anyone who agrees with this article is absolutely disgusting. I am a Caucasian individual who literally wanted to throw up after reading this. The only difference is skin color, get over yourself, and whoever wrote this article & all that agreed should probably go to therapy. You have a problem.
Comment by Forest ww on 3 December 2010:
I think it is sick and disgusting that you are even considering the reasons for keeping slavery. Slavery is a cruel thing that NOBODY in any country should have to deal with. Other humans should never beat, kill, or torment other humans.
Comment by Cari on 3 December 2010:
All of you who say that this article is about defending slavery have all proven with 100 percent certainty you have not read the artcile, the whole article especially the last paragraph.
If you had read the last paragraph, you would have seen the real reason for this article. It is in opposition to slavery, both of the past and of the slavery we all experience today–government.
It goes to show just how much people’s emotions can affect them..they will not finish reading it, and unfortunately miss the punchline.
It is good to see most people abhor slavery based upon race. Let’s see if these same folks oppose slavery based upon government.
Please re-read the article, this time the entire article and then think about it for a bit before you post again.
BTW…excellent article!
Comment by Eastwood on 10 December 2010:
ShayX ;you poor fellow are a big goofball. give me a break you blame everyone else for your problems. i do not have time right this minute but i will be back to explain how dumb you are in further detail. Eastwood…
Comment by General Lee on 10 December 2010:
wow thier are some really racist black people here.
Comment by Lindsay Lohan on 3 January 2011:
“Freedom is an illusion”. –Very good statement. I don’t think we in the USA know what freedom is: we’re slaves in school, where we’re brainwashed and taught to stand in lines, which makes us good slave workers for the American economy. This is not the USA, it is the USA, Inc. We’re all serfs working for some rich billionaires who exploit our labor. And we actually still have “old time slavery” in the USA–we’ve just moved it offshore, all those people in third world countries working for 25 cents an hour. Out of sight, out of mind. Next time you kick a soccer ball made by slave labor, or wear shoes or clothing or buy stero equipment made by slave labor, you’re supporting slavery. When will I be free? By the way, the human adult brain weighs three pounds.
Comment by Anonymous on 6 January 2011:
You are crazy!!!!
Comment by J. Philmore on 16 January 2011:
For a sophisticated defense of slavery that a right-libertarian would not consider to be ironic, see: http://www.ellerman.org/Davids-Stuff/Econ&Pol-Econ/Philmore-1982.scan.pdf
Comment by Anonymous on 17 January 2011:
Oh good grief people, READ the whole damn article and not just the headline.
Comment by Anoymous on 19 January 2011:
Thanks! this really helped me a lot with my history project! i am only doing 4 reasons though :L
Comment by Frank on 30 January 2011:
The comments here are absolutely hilarious. I would pay money to see the referer logs and find out what website was linking to this article, telling their readers it was promoting slavery (obviously knowing their readers are so dense they wouldn’t actually read it).
Comment by Leaf on 2 February 2011:
I came here looking for some info on a piece for history homework that required me to put down 10 reasons people at the time might have supported slavery, and ten reasons for aboloshing it. Falling short on my last two reasons, i googled ‘reasons for/against slavery’ and lo and behold, this article came up. The title caught my eye immediatley, and though i am half black and half white and have lived in a country that only outlawed segregation a year after i was born, i have to say, i was more intrigued than anything else, because in the throthing cesspool that is the internet, such an article was bound to be pinatad beyond recognition. So, i read the article–getting my remaining two reasons as i did, so thank you for that–and then find out its really not about slavery at all. But then i read the comments and i can’t help but facepalm. Really, people have such knee-jerk reactions that can’t even read an article that’s one bloody page long properly. And worse, so many posters are rascist themselves. What in the world? Honestly, such stupidity i have never seen. It’s probably because of people like that, who just jump to the easiest conclusion without using an ounce of brain power, that the world is so prone to screw ups. Oh well, whatever, at least they weren’t in the majority. Thanks for this.
Comment by frank Jeffries on 5 February 2011:
dude you’re one sick F get some psychiatric help.
Comment by CARMEN RICHARDSON on 23 February 2011:
WHAT UP MY PEOPLES!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FOR THE BLACKS
Comment by CARMEN RICHARDSON on 23 February 2011:
OLAH CHIKAHS
Comment by lauren corrine & lauren on 9 March 2011:
your one sick person , how would you like it if you were a slave?? get a life!
Comment by negator on 10 March 2011:
i come for the comments section.
delicious!
Comment by birrru! on 11 March 2011:
I just came to say hello to negator. Hello, negator.
Also, I just happened to read the comments. I weep that so many people seem to be unable to read (or even write!) English. I sincerely hope that you are from some foreign country. Like Canada.
Comment by negator on 12 March 2011:
birru! call me!
Comment by Emily on 24 March 2011:
Although I believe that this article is very well-written and has some very valid points, I think it is harsh to think that slavery should still exist. It is true that at some points in history slaves were treated with dignity and respect, but the truth is is that slaves were brutally treated and degraded, forced to work long hours with no pay. I am sure I am not alone when I hear of the horrible conditions aboard ships and the whippings they had to endure. They received only enough food to keep them alive. Additionally, slaves heightened the hate between races (if it were not by race, but by talent alone, there are still fundamentally two groups.) When one group establishes themselves as obviously more superior than the other, it is only natural that the other will rebel against them. These rebellions will eventually be successful, no matter how long it takes, because they will not be satisfied with being second best. That, my friends, is human nature. Also, it is very easy contemplating ideas such as slavery from the comfort of a chair in a warm room. But when you consider the horrible conditions they would have to endure, think again. When you consider that YOU might have to be a slave, you might think yet again. I am not saying that slavery is against human nature, nor economically unstable, I am saying that I believe it is morally wrong in all ways. That of course is my own opinion and I am sure people will disagree. In any case, I hope you all have a good day. Cheers(:
Comment by Sheldon Richman on 25 March 2011:
Please re-read the article. Robert Higgs does not think slavery should exist. He does not think it should ever have existed.
Comment by JJ POO on 6 April 2011:
your mom!!
Comment by sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss on 13 April 2011:
ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss bamf
Comment by Anonymous on 3 May 2011:
Please read the article properly or else you will misinterpret it.
Comment by jacob t on 4 May 2011:
Very Good keep it up
Comment by okay on 9 May 2011:
This is stupid…people? Dont get mad, this article is just trying to make you get mad…Jus ignore it
Comment by Outrage on 5 June 2011:
You guys cannot be serious..
Comment by India on 6 June 2011:
this is bullshit. and who ever created this has not 1 reasonable answer as to why slavery is acceptable well if slavery always existed why did the majority of Caucasians have to nominate african americans to be enslaved.
Comment by Beth on 11 June 2011:
Again,
It is amazing how the human mind can ignore what is actually being said because the heart is offended by something they assumed and jumped to conclusions without giving the article a fair reading.
No where in the beginning of the article did Mr Higgs say he agreed with the rationalizations of slavery. This is the first point. For those of you who say the author of this article defends slavery, you are dead wrong. Mr Higgs only gives a dispassionate accounting of the reasons why many people opposed the abolition of slavery.
Second, one MUST read through the entire article and then comprehend it. The fact that the punch line – that Mr Higgs does not side with slavery both historical and today – is reasoned at the end of the article.
The fact that a lot of you get mad at the idea that there are supposedly people who still support slavery is good. Mr Higgs is trying to get you to make the connection: you hate the slavery of the past, now take notice of the slavery of today.
These are very important and good things for ethical people to think about. I for one do not pick and choose which kinds of slavery I don’t like. I hated the slavery of the past and I hate the slavery of today – that of supposedly “free” people being forced to do things by government.
It is all about consistency!
Comment by christopher on 9 July 2011:
good read , though you do ignore the private interests and more complex economic reality behind the actions of government . i believe a more free society with less government is possible if we abolish the corporate business model of monopoly as well as the government that protects it . many corporate entities(as well as speculators) have vast control over our daily lives through the manipulation of markets and prices while at the same time contributing very little value/wealth to society . IBM for example makes aprox 1billiion a year for producing nothing by simply charging licensing fees for the use of its patents . the original innovators that came up with most of these patents are long gone, yet IBM is still allowed to hold on to them . thus the argument that these restrictive patent laws encourage innovation is bs imho (the us has been gradually losing it’s innovation edge over the last couple of decades due to the more restrictive patent rights that started in the early 80′s)another example is that after the dot.com bust companies simply bought up patents from bankrupt internet enterprises and held on to them and now profit off of them without ever producing a single good or service . this and speculation (which is not investment but rather gambling by those that can manipulate the playing field to there advantage) is really the root cause of our economic slavery . we need reform of anti-trust law, patent and copyright law and finical regulation by a government that is unmoved by special interests . then and only then can a the truly free and competitive market that adam smith envisioned actually exist and benefit society . a speculative economy centrally planed by the corporations and government is not a free market economy .
Comment by Mike Kirby on 24 July 2011:
You had me right up until the very end. Your logic is utterly specious except perhaps to those who simply gloss over it because they already agree with your opinion. A similarity between the arguments of the opposing side, if it exists, may arise if the institutions being opposed are similar. Such similarity does not, however, simply by its existence, in any way suggest that the institutions being opposed are in any way comparable.
This is the great problem in our country today: even many of our more intelligent citizens are no longer capable of logic or reason, merely rationalizations expressed with a formidable vocabulary and a superficial sheen of logic… “truthiness”, as it’s been called.
Very disappointing, since the analysis up to the final point had been very good.
Your comparison is fail.* Slaves were not free to vote out their masters and vote in ones more favorable to their views. Slaves were not free to improve their situation by their own efforts. Slaves were not in a position where, if they rose up and overthrew their masters, larger corporate masters whom they could not see, could not vote out, could not make appeal to, and sometimes even could find out the identity of, and from whom they did not have the constitutional protections that they had from their current masters were waiting to simply step in and take control of them.
(*That is not a grammatical error. English is a constantly changing language, the rules of grammar weren’t carved in stone when you happened to be in elementary school. Vernacular is the cauldron within which this happens. Get over it.)
Comment by Beth on 27 July 2011:
Mike Kirby,
I’m sorry but you are mistaken. The slavery of the past and the “slavery” to government today through forced taxation is the same on grounds of principle.
The argument is of principle. It does differ in degree.
The fact that we have the freedom to try to vote ourselves out of this type of slavery does not negate the fact that we are currently compulsed to obey and if we do not obey, we will have our property and possibly our lives confiscated.
The point is, as of NOW, our labor and the fruits of our labor that we pay for in taxes is not taken voluntarily, it is forced from us. If we are not entitled to all the fruits of our labor, how can we say we are not slaves in principle? We are experiencing slavery through government-the difference from the racial slavery of the past being only in degree. The principle still stands valid.
Comment by EFish on 28 October 2011:
So, I did not read the last paragraph and was merely doing some online research. I must admit I flipped out when I first started reading the article but then I read some the comments and decided to read the last paragraph. It is so much better when you read the last paragraph!
Comment by JacobPorter on 7 November 2011:
Your all mad freaks, get som tuffy.
Comment by JacobPorter on 7 November 2011:
My names Jacob Porter and I wish I was a slave so I could get raped by big black cock
Comment by JacobzPorter on 7 November 2011:
My names Jacob Porter and I want to be a slave so I can get raped by big black hard cock!!!
Comment by MehrMehrMehr on 7 November 2011:
My names Jacob Porter and I want to be a slave so I can get raped by big black hard cock!!!
Comment by JackBeal on 7 November 2011:
My names Jacob Porter and I want to be a slave so I can get raped by big black hard cock!!!
Comment by CarolineHelewell on 7 November 2011:
Im one fat bitch, bone mw so hard!
Comment by Joe Schmoe on 7 November 2011:
Sarcasm, learn it.
Comment by Jasmine Liberty on 27 November 2011:
To whom it may concer,
Comment by Jasmine Liberty on 27 November 2011:
To whom it may concern,
George Washington DID NOT own slaves while in presidency! He lived in Virginia for god’s sake. The most obvious reason, slavery was illegal in his state! He employed (not owned) his servants, but did not own slaves of unwilling servitude.
Comment by Jasmine Liberty on 27 November 2011:
And also, a majority of modern day slaves are not “sufficiently well fed, clothed, [and] housed.” or even come close to such luxuries.
Comment by Beth on 5 January 2012:
Jasmine,
Your assessment is very true concerning most non-Western countries where poverty is quite rampant and the norm.
I assume here that you are speaking of the current physical slavery as practiced in some countries. I would say that slaveholders generally provide adequate enough clothing and food for their slaves in order to keep them healthy enough to perform the slave work that they require. It would not be in the general interest of a slaveholder to deprive most of their slaves of necessities as it would affect the slaveholder’s bottom line. This is relative to the general conditions in which they live in.
Of course not all slaveholders are rational that way, but in general, it makes sense that they would in order to benefit from having slaves. It is of no benefit if you continually kill off your slaves considering the hardships needed to obtain replacement slaves in today’s modern world.
Comment by Star on 17 January 2012:
now, i have read some of the first few comments given here. and i must say i am dissappointed in most of you. that shayx did miss the point somewhat and i agree with resa a little. HOWEVER! Shayx to touch a point that people cannot have so much supperiority over another. Because the lasst time I checked God loves all his creatures! if there were white, black, yellow, brown, etc.. and for someone to say that there should still be slavery in our world that proves ignoance !!! we all have fought for our ights even white people, and that is also how we ALL made it through the great depressiom. Most people came to america to have better lives INCLUDING THE “SUPERIOR”. from rags to riches that also goes for slavery and for you to also mention that slaves could not live without masters that is an arogant comment. In fact most of the inventions today were made by people whose anscestorsz were slave. a black man created the air conditioning! A black man created the elevator that carries those fat ignorant people who think they are better than others. i am only 17 and i apparently know more than most of you! God Bless!
Comment by seo on 31 January 2012:
Hi! This post couldn’t be written any better! Reading this post reminds me of my old room mate! He always kept chatting about this. I will forward this page to him. Pretty sure he will have a good read. Many thanks for sharing!