Honestly, I don’t get the value of the OP or the rational.
What if everyone put their name in a hat, half were picked, and those picked had to give all their money to those not picked. What value would that be to the participants? What would it prove?
What if those picked got to execute those that weren’t picked? Again what’s the value? What’s the point?
It does sound like the other conversationalists in the OP were cretins.
–Okay, who would volunteer? The people in the most horrible economic condition with nothing to lose would make up the vast majority of volunteers.
We know what happens to you if you lose. What makes this attractive to win? You’ll need to come up with some pretty good grease!
Will I get a plantation with some good cotton land to put my slave to work? Will my slave stay a slave if owned by others so I can sell him for a good capital return?
“Not prohibiting” is the same thing as “allowing” in my book. And besides, haven’t you ever seen those movies where crooks are sentenced to “10 years of hard labor”? If that isn’t involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime, I don’t know what is.
In the 17th century North American British Colonies (the ones that eventually became the United States), slavery was first instituted simply as indentured servitude. That is to say, you either signed a contract (an “indenture”) for money, or were forced into the indenture as punishment for a crime, under the terms of which you were required to do everything thus-and-such person(s) ordered you to do for seven years. Even the first black slaves imported from Africa started out in this system of indentured servitude. The notion of being a slave for life didn’t evolve in the South until later.
Ryan: WTF? You can’t seriously be as illiterate as you’re making yourself out to be at the moment.
The 13th amendment was specifically adopted to limit the practice of slavery, which was a legal and current issue at the time. The Emancipation Proclamation did not address the issue of slavery in the non-Confederate states.