There were other "advantages," or at least they were advantages from a special point of view, to slavery. Whatever else they had to carry, responsibility was something they did not. Since all they did was follow simple orders, nothing important was ever their fault. They did not have to think, they did not have to understand the greater complexities of decision making. There was no point in them joining any debate. If the cotton got picked at the wrong time, it couldn't be their fault if they picked only when they were told.
Many in the South considered slavery a very safe and secure condition that their slaves would choose for themselves if they only knew enough about the riskier choices out there. In the North, if you didn't build your house right and it fell down, you had no one to blame but yourself.
The truth can get complicated. There probably were at least some slaves who enjoyed the safety and security of their condition. There probably were at least some owners of other slaves, which owners did not treat their property well, human or material, much as we know some people today are very careless about their materials.
Statue of Abraham Lincoln in the Lincoln Memorial
Photo by Arlon Staywell
There is one serious and glaring flaw in the argument that slavery in the southern United States was such a wonderful thing for blacks. If it was such a wonderful thing, why were there no white slaves? If all the slaves are black, isn't that the subjugation of an entire race? Wasn't their condition of slavery as permanent and inescapable as the color of their skin? So it appeared and so it was abolished at great cost in lives and property.
Do not forget though that there are those people, white and black, who would choose slavery if they could. They would prefer the security and safety of slavery. They would prefer having no responsibility except to follow simple orders. They would prefer that if anything goes wrong it's never their fault. They don't want freedom because they see too much responsibility and risk. With no masters left they turn to government to be their master, to ensure they never miss a meal, to ensure they never sleep in the open cold, to make every important decision for them, and never blame them when things go wrong.
Many forget how those people lost the Civil War. Government at the time was not designed to take the place of their masters. The freedom it granted slaves meant they had to develop personal responsibility, make their own decisions, and take the blame if anything went wrong.
As late as the 1960s and even later many people never considered a government that would take the place of their masters. It had never been seen as an appropriate thing for government to handle.
Times have definitely changed. That should be obvious. The candidates all begin their speeches with the promise that under their administration there will be more and better jobs. The Democrats make the claim on the basis that their administration will direct it. The Republicans make the claim on the basis that the economy will direct itself better when their administration reduces the burden of government. The Republican Party is not however well organized and often what you hear is merely rhetoric from people who actually prefer slavery under the government just like most other people. Their concept of the "military" is one that can take the place of the masters.
Just as other articles in this section have indicated, they have become the majority. They really don't have the knowledge of science they believe they have, but because they are the majority it doesn't matter to them, To them whatever the majority says is right by definition. Nothing can be their fault, just as under slavery. They really don't want to repeal the health care law because they don't understand how wasteful it is. All they know is that they don't have to take responsibility for any medical decisions. They don't want to return marriage to its original meaning because they don't understand that either. The government takes the place of parents now, so it doesn't matter if marriage no longer means who are the real parents of anyone.
It will be particularly difficult to persuade them they are making terrible mistakes. We might have to wait till things crash. Things might have to get as bad as in Greece before they realize they don't know what they're doing.
People sometimes debate whether a fetus is a human being. They often don't realize the more significant issue in abortion law is whether a woman should be held responsible for anything. Human being or not, how could it be the responsibility of a woman it got there? Don't the "men folks" always take responsibility for everything? Some slaves enjoyed not having responsibility. It's not the same thing, but some women enjoyed not having responsibility before women's rights came along. While rights usually come with responsibilities, we don't see women taking responsibility for the fetus at times perhaps they should.
If the election were held today Hillary Clinton would win. Women will never take responsibility for having to have an abortion, just as they haven't for decades. No one will take the blame for medical decisions, especially the one that makes people have to work so hard to pay their insurance they'll probably be in worse health for that. Marriage will not have anything to do with real parents, and that won't be missed because the government will be everyone's parents, ensuring they never have to miss a meal, or sleep in the open cold, or think about anything, or take responsibility for anything.
The Republicans are not likely to stop her unless they genuinely make a case for personal responsibility that the majority will understand and take. The Republicans might have to recognize that the military is not the appropriate means to increase personal responsibility. It might give fish and it might take away fish, but it isn't teaching the vast majority how to fish. Rush Limbaugh has said that the purpose of the military is to kill people and break things. The purpose of the military is not to teach the vast majority personal responsibility. The purpose of the military is not to kill people and break things. The purpose of the military is to stop others from killing people and breaking things when, and only when, nothing else can stop them.
Perhaps this article has made it clear how freedom comes from God, not government, that is not government lately anyway. Freedom comes from people minding their own business. In order to mind their own business they need to know how, to take personal responsibility, including blame when things go wrong. Private property and strict marriage rules ensure people really mind their own business. Government was supposed to help with that a little, but getting too big and taking the place of the former masters, it destroys private property and strict marriage, becoming yet another slave driver.