I’m not sure how far back slavery goes or it’s history. Even in the US where I’m from.
Are there any recordings of anti-slave people who were part the privileged class at an early time? What about, later, in the United States? Was it common to find early sympathizers? Why was the North commonly more concerned about people’s wellfare than the South?
I understand the Bible talks about how to utilize and punish your slave.
Probably some of the earliest, recorded, and kept information comes from Aristotle: Natural slavery - Wikipedia
Basically, he believed some people were meant to be slaves, a topic some intellectual slave holders in the US really clamped onto: Drapetomania - Wikipedia
Anyway, according to Aristotle, if someone’s nature wasn’t to be a slave, and they were a slave, having been acquired though warfare or something, then that situation was bad for everybody. You know, as opposed to someone who wanted to be a slave, and was one, which was a win-win. :rolleyes:
Dunno how practical this was – “Seems to me, Theolonius, that you really don’t like slaving away in my goat fields. Kay. I’ll let you go, but try not to lose any wars against us next time, kay.”
Slavery existed for a long time before there was any general idea that it was wrong.
Slavery existed and was widespread in classical times. But it faded away in Medieval Europe. It was tied in with religion; Europeans didn’t think it was right for Christians to be enslaved, especially by non-Christians.
I’ve been reading a lot of history for a long time. From what I’ve seen in all cultures regardless of continent and through all time periods there has been slavery. Don’t know of any serious anti-slavery movements except for the last few hundred years. Obviously in the last two hundred years or so slavery has mostly gone away from most of the planet. I’m cynical so I wonder if it will stay that way.
Chinese emperors occasionally tried to abolish slavery, but never succeeded. It was not necessarily a moral stance. Aristocrats who owned large tracts of land and lots of slaves were often rivals for political power.
Thanks for all the answers so far!
Is that proven? I don’t know if a K-9 is capable of even recognizing a fellow dog in caged, and try to free it… But are you sure all mankind thought it was ok to own another ‘back in the day’?
I’m not saying your wrong
Not always in the same meaning of the term, AIUI.
As I don’t suppose there’s any way of telling when slavery started (in the most general sense of the term), I don’t suppose there’s any way of telling whether there was opposition to it at the time when it started, either. That’s got to be lost somewhere in prehistory. – I suspect the first slave was opposed to it at the time, though.
Or maybe not. There may well have been a blurry line between ‘I’ll do what you say for now if you’ll give me some food as otherwise I’m going to starve’ and/or ‘I’ll do what you say for now if you’ll let me live even though I lost the fight’ and ‘this person is rightfully owned by this other person(s).’ That shift may have been gradual, and over generations.
Even USA slavery had something resembling a moment of that sort. If the court had decided differently about John Punch in 1640, the line between indentured servants and slaves might have remained blurry, and might eventually have shifted in another direction.
Slavery probably goes back to some of the earliest agricultural societies. It’s rare among hunter gatherers since it depends on a high population density, although it was found among the Northwest Coast Indians of North America who lived in a particularly rich environment.
Slaves were very often individuals captured in war. However, such individuals might also be adopted into the tribe. The status of slaves varied greatly in different cultures.
The idea of “human rights” is a rather recent one. If you were captured and enslaved, or born into slavery, it was just your fate. No one had a right to be free, any more than they had a right to be rich. Whether it was your lot to be rich or to be a slave was largely a matter of happenstance.
A related, even essential underlying question would be “how do you distinguish between free and enslaved when contemporary western notions of individual rights did not exist, or at least were neither precisely defined nor widely held throughout most of humanity’s social development?”
Because in the much of Europe throughout the Middle Ages, for example, just being able to travel from one jurisdiction to another, even within the same kingdom, and not be taken along the road and forced into the service of some other local lord for lack of the proper papers was not a basic freedom, at least not for everyone. Even those not deemed “slaves” by the standards of the time might be considered slaves of a sort today. Perhaps they couldn’t be bought and sold as chattel, but then they weren’t exactly free to come and go as they pleased, either.
“I am Spartacus!”
Remember, a lot of early slavery wasnt race based chattel slavery like today.
After a war, the enemy soldiers would be sold into slavery - the alternative was killing them.
People in order not to starve would also sell themselves or their children into slavery. Some felons were sold into slavery- the alternative would be death.
Serfdom is very close to slavery, and so is being a indentured servant.
So, it wasnt quite as *obviously *evil as race based “Because they are inferior beings” chattel slavery.
What are you asking about? That slavery was widespread for a long time (although I’ll agree with Colibri that it was probably rare in pre-agricultural societies)? Or that there was a movement away from slavery in Medieval Europe?
The Romans had the concept of public slaves, owned by the city, who lived in slave barracks, and were essentially expendable, as they were public property and so no one had a vested interest in their continued health.
There was slavery among the pre-columbian bunter-gatherers in America, though it wasn’t hereditary in some of the tribes, and slaves could even assimilate into the tribe in certain cases.
Slavery also meant something different for different societies. The Romans, for example, had the concept of slave like many of those societies - but a slave was not a piece of furniture or a sub-human, they were in fact more like indentured servants. They could own property, accumulate wealth, and buy their own freedom. Many were smart and did advanced work - a Greek slave to tutor your children was one example of a fairly educated person being a slave. They simply had to work for your household, and beyond having to feed them, were due no wages. (I vaguely recall there were rules against freeing your slaves when they became too old to work, too; you couldn’t just dump them on the street to starve).
In the days before welfare states, this was a convenient arrangement all around. If a person had no land to live off, they were a liability if they were desperately wandering the land. it was simpler to have an arrangement where someone had the responsibility to feed and house them, and in return could expect work from them. Anyone who advocated “a slave should be able to wander away whenever he felt like it” would have to answer - “to where?” After all, without a skill, what would they do?
No it didn’t, it just got rebranded as feudalism.
My emphasis:
Are you writing from the 1850s South?
Slavery goes back to before the US was a country. Abolitionists go back to before the US was a country as well.
Yes, it was common to find early abolitionists. The Quakers and Mennonites in general were very much opposed to slavery on the grounds that it was very un-Christian.
Most northern states passed laws against slavery shortly after the US became a country. In many states, emancipation was gradual. For example, a state might forbid any new slaves from being created, but would continue to allow existing slaves to remain as slaves. Or they might be converted to indentured servants, where theoretically they might be able to buy their freedom some day, though in practice many would never be able to afford it. Some states prohibited the sale of any slave, so if you could no longer afford your slave, you couldn’t sell him. You had to set him free. Most northern states passed laws abolishing slavery somewhere between 1780 and 1810, though since the actual emancipation was often gradual, slavery continued to exist in some form after that, in slowly dwindling numbers.
There was also more opposition to slavery in the south than you might realize. When Georgia was a colony (early 1700s) they actually passed a law abolishing slavery.
That is a very complex question.
This is going to gloss over a lot of things in a huge way, but the North was not as unified against slavery as you have probably been led to believe. The abolitionist movement in the North had been growing all through the 1800s, but even at their strongest, the abolitionists did not have anywhere near enough wealth and power to counter the southern plantation owners. But, the northern industrialists and the southern plantation owners hated each other. The industrialists wanted protective tariffs, so that northern factories could produce goods cheaper than European imports. But if the industrialists got their tariffs, then European countries would counter with tariffs on things like tobacco and cotton, which hurt the plantations. If you don’t have the tariffs, though, then the plantations get to sell more tobacco and cotton, but the northern factories can’t produce goods cheaper than European imports, and the factories suffer. So economically, the two groups were very much opposed to each other.
In the mid 1800s, the industrialists and the abolitionists kinda got the idea that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, so they basically banded together and formed the Republican Party. While the abolitionists in general didn’t give two hoots about the economics of factories, and the industrialists in general didn’t give two hoots about slavery, by banding together, they were able to defeat the South politically.
Since anti-slavery was a core part of the Republican platform, this may give you the idea that the entire North was unified against slavery. It wasn’t. There weren’t a whole lot of pro-slavery attitudes in the North, but there were a lot of folks who were fairly apathetic towards it.
In the South, what you had was a combination of the wealth and political power being mostly in the hands of the plantations, which could not survive economically if they had to free their slaves and start paying them wages. The small southern farmers typically didn’t have slaves. They couldn’t afford them. But slavery wasn’t just about unpaid labor for the plantations. It was also a way for the entire South to keep blacks under control, with no power to vote, and no political power whatsoever. The small southern farmers did not own slaves, but they very much believed that blacks were inferior to whites, and were absolutely certain that blacks would completely destroy the South if they were set free and allowed to make their own decisions. So basically, it was blatant racism, treating blacks as if they were some sort of sub-human and violent animal.
Northern attitudes towards blacks were better, but even then blacks were not considered to be the equal of whites, even by most abolitionists. Lincoln himself thought that blacks were not as intelligent as whites, though his views did evolve a bit over his lifetime. There were some abolitionists back then that thought blacks were equal to whites, but they were a definite minority. Most abolitionists thought that blacks were inferior to whites, but also thought that it was cruel to treat them as slaves.
This is an overly simplistic statement about a period of time that lasted roughly seven centuries across many different cultures. Depending on the country and time period, peasants living under manorialism had legal rights and could petition the court for relief.