this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
510 points (97.9% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7109 readers
544 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You're sniping, but I think the parent poster was accurate in what they said. I don't think it was an euphemism for slave. It was the 1800s. What would you do with a slave if you didn't own property? If they're not tilling and planting or harvesting, or keeping house, or cooking, what would they be doing? A horse would be far more effective at pulling a carriage, and keeping one as a sex slave - while it definitely happened - was strongly looked down upon by society at the time.
If you kept a slave and had no good reason to own one aside from sex, you might well disappear in the night one night - not out of protection for the slave(s) but racial purity.
Most property owners ie had a plot of land could not afford a slave... they worked that land themselves and then forced their 6 kids do it for them.
Sick part you “borrow slaves from what was called New York stock exchange. Then sell a slave or get collateral.
Yeah going down that rabbit whole really does expose how "white washed" even current understanding of slavery by the normie stream is... shit was whole different level vile that teevee won't really cover.
Right, but take the converse: if they didn't own land, they definitely couldn't afford a slave.
also true... wiki will explain it better: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency
owning a plantation is necessary to be a slaver but it is not sufficient since you actually have to own the slaves.