My girlfriend's white grandmother, who is from the north, seems to have a very harsh, preconceived notion on how many of the slaves were harshly beaten and how bad the severity of their treatment was.
Our AP History class taught us that beatings rarely occurred under less wealthy masters that owned only a few slaves. Also that a majority of the whipping and harsh treatment was only in the large plantations of 20+ slaves which made up only about 3% of the entire population.
We also learned that due to certain writings and plays, like Uncle Tom's Cabin, the north had a much more intense view on slavery than the south did... So which is a more correct look at the subject? Were more slaves beaten or were they actually treated better?How bad was it for slaves?
Depends on who owned them! - G
The life of a slave was to be owned by someone who told you every day what you can and can't do, no matter how old you are or how intelligent you are. Every day a slave faced the possibility of being sold. No slave was to receive an education, and the U.S. constitution said a slave was property not a human being. Furthermore, the Constitution said a slave was 3/5Th's of a person for census counts.How bad was it for slaves?
a picture is worth a thousand words, as they say.
It was not only black slaves that were beaten,there used to be indentured slaves in America,usually convicts from Britain sold to the settlers .
Veryy, They Were Treated horrible beaten, woked even if sick or injurrd hot sun no shoes;(
Not as bad as the treat whites today
No comments:
Post a Comment