One of the other aspects that I always find pernicious and very difficult to overcome is that the public perception of slavery as an issue that is black-and-white (haha) is wrong. There is plenty of evidence to support a view of slavery that was in many instances benign and even beneficial to both parties, the enslaved and the masters.
Enslavement as practiced by indigenous peoples for instance was one of integration into the tribe.
Slavery is beneficial to the master, otherwise the master would get rid of the slave. The only time I think slavery might be good for the slave is when it is a punishment for a crime.
Enslavement as practiced by indigenous peoples for instance was one of integration into the tribe.
I don't consider the pre-Columbian Native American culture to be a good one. You might be integrated into the tribe, but you are integrated into the tribe as a slave. One rarely would be allowed to be fully integrated into a tribe and on the rare occasions it did happen, it happened because one was young enough to be adopted as a child. The only benefit one had is that one's children will not be considered slaves.
One of the criticisms that is often leveled at Jefferson and other slave owning founding fathers is that if they believed in the ideals of the French enlightenment, why did they not free their own slaves?
The Haitian revolt of 1791 was clearly in his mind. Any manumission by Jefferson was determined to be done only with the intent to deport them. He only gave up on this idea when he determined that it was infeasible. In fact, Thomas did consider the "black-skinned" people to be racially inferior.
This assumes of course that their slaves would have wished to be free.
I suppose some slaves might be ok with it. However, 40 of Thomas's slaves did try to escape.
