American Slavery was not the Vast Evil it is Portrayed as

SourcesI asked Pro to single out which Wikipedia claims he wanted sources for. He failed to do so. He also failed to defend my criticism of his sources (like the link to the place where you could buy the Amazon book...) FallaciesPro also failed to single out the fallacies I've used. I have not used any fallacies, and he simply name dropped them without making a connection to my arugments at all whatsoever. Talk about a waste of space; the audience should disregard this. Rebuttals- The Middle Passage was very much a part of American slavery and should be considered in the scope of this debate. See last round connection.- Pro writes, "The point was that American slavery elevated the African slave, thus American slavery was beneficial to the African slave." Even if American slavery benefitted the African slave, it doesn't mean that American slavery wasn't the evil it is portrayed as (it would just mean that African slavery was even more evil) so this is not an arugment in Pro's favor at all. - On runaway slaves, Pro notes that many slaves did not run away or regretted running away. Once again, that just proves that some slaves preferred the provisions and safety of being instituionalized. They had little to no opportunites or rights as freed black people, so of course some would prefer to get beaten, raped, etc. as slaves while still having food/shelter/family -- as opposed to dying or being completely oppressed as freed people. But that doesn't mean that getting beaten, raped and being considered property isn't evil. It simply means it's better than a possible alternative. This is the same bad, fallacious argument as the previous one on African slavery. Just because some slaves may have preferred being American slaves to freed or African slaves doesn't mean American slavery wasn't evil. - Pro repeats that slaves (allegedly) had legal rights. I've proven with quotes and citations in previous rounds that the slave's legal protections were pretty much ignored, and that because slaves were considered property, masters pretty much were never prosecuted. Rape wasn't even a legal possibility which Pro does not contest. Laws punishing whites for punishing their slaves were weakly enforced or easily avoided. In Smith v. Hancock, the defendant justified punishing his slave to a white jury; the slave was attending an unlawful meeting, discussed rebellion, refused to surrender and resisted the arresting officer by force. The rare cases in which penalties were enforced occurred when a white person harmed ANOTHER person's slave. - Pro then talks about how slaves supposedly weren't allowed to be beaten to death. Yet it happened. Please refer to previous round citations. - My opponent says historians have backed some of his claims. I've pointed out how he cited historians from 100+ years ago when they were notoriously repeating the same rhetoric as those who were pro-slavery in general (since it was still very close to the legal existence of slavery time-wise, and racism was incredibly rampant -- it was decades before the Civil Rights movement). Indeed slave narratives were believed to be largely watered down and edited by early historians (like the one Pro quotes). Because of the participation of abolitionist editors, influential historians suggested that "their authenticity was doubtful" [1].- "The treatment of slaves was harsh and inhumane. During work and outside of it, slaves suffered physical abuse, since the government allowed it. Treatment was usually harsher on large plantations, which were often managed by overseers and owned by absentee slaveholders. Small slaveholders worked together with their slaves and sometimes treated them more humanely. Besides slaves' being vastly overworked, they suffered brandings, shootings, and floggings. Flogging was a term often used to describe the average lashing or whipping a slave would receive for misbehaving. Many times a slave would also simply be put through "wanton cruelties" or unprovoked violent beatings or punishments" [2]. - On slaves, "They were punished with knives, guns, field tools and nearby objects. The whip was the most common instrument used against a slave... he knew several who were beaten to death for offenses such as 'sassing' a white person, hitting another negro, 'fussing' or fighting in quarters" [3]. In other words, they were often punished for frivolous offenses. - "The branding of slaves for identification was common during the colonial era; however, by the nineteenth century it was used primarily as punishment. Mutilation (such as castration, or amputating ears) was a relatively common punishment during the colonial era and still used in 1830. Any punishment was permitted for runaway slaves, and many bore wounds from shotgun blasts or dog bites used by their captors" [4]. Conclusion Pro has said that none of my claims on the treatment of slaves have merit because they did not come from slaves themselves. As promised, I will present quotes from slaves themselves here. I have repeatedly acknowledged that not all slaves were treated the same. The labor was different depending on the type of slave you were, and surely some masters were harsher than others. But it is true that slaves were universally considered property; that they universally had their legal protections ignored; that they were routinely raped; and that they had poor lives that were only worth as much as they could produce. If beatings weren't frequent, it's only because they served as successful deterrenets for suppression and oppression -- not because the slave owners were "friends" with the slaves. I have successfully refuted Pro's claims that slaves did not want to run away or did not try to rebel which they did (see: Underground Railroad). My opponent has never denied that the awful things I've claimed happened, included being hanged, etc. he simply says that it was on balance less likely to occur. Yet even if some of the harsher things were less likely to occur (such as being mutilated) for lack of economic convenience, it doesn't change some of the other universally EVIL aspects of slavery such as being void of rights, and perpetual rape and pregnancy (so that masters did not have to pay for new slaves -- something Pro completely dropped in this debate, because he can't deny the facts). On begging the question, I have included cited and sourced evidence throughout this debate verifying the claims of evil that I've made: being considered property; having little to no rights; perpetual rape and forced pregnancy/childbirth; living in close, cramped quaters; working 15 hours a day by law, so probably more in practice which Pro did not deny; masters raping slaves with husbands; frequent beatings and whippings to keep slaves in line -- which Pro admits was common at the time; some mutilation, burning, hanging and extensive labor in the hot sun and other difficult chores all year round; being separated from familes and inspected/treated like livestock; etc. Pro has not proven that any of these things were not pretty much universal to American slavery. Quotes and Photos From First Hand Accounts Disproving Pro's Claims “If I had my life to live over I would die fighting rather than be a slave again. I want no man’s yoke on my shoulders no more.” —Robert Falls, age 97, Knoxville, Tennessee“If I thought, had any idea, that I’d ever be a slave again, I’d take a gun an’ jus’ end it all right away. Because you’re nothing but a dog. You’re not a thing but a dog.” —Fountain Hughes, age 101, Baltimore, Maryland“I sure has had a hard life. Jes wok an’ wok an wok. I nebbah know nothin’ but wok . . . No’m I nebbah knowed whut it wah t’ rest. I jes wok all de time f’om mawnin’ till late at night . . . Lawdy, honey, yo’ cain’t know what a time I had. All cold n’ hungry. No’m, I aint tellin’ no lies. It de gospel truf. It sho is.” —Sarah Gudger, age 121, Asheville, North Carolina“Talkin’ ‘bout somethin’ awful, you should have been dere. De slave owners was shoutin’ and sellin’ chillen to one man and de mamma and pappy to ‘nother. De slaves cries and takes on somethin’ awful. If a woman had lots of chillen she was sold for mo’, cause it a sign she a good breeder.” —Millie Williams, age unknown, Texas“I remember when they put ‘em on the block to sell ‘em... The auctioneer he stand off at a distances and cry ‘em off as they stand on the block. I can hear his voice as long as I live.” —W. L. Bost, age 87, Asheville, North Carolina “Course dey cry; you think dey not cry when they was sold lak cattle? I could tell you ‘bout it all day, but even den you couldn’t guess de awfulness of it.” —Delia Garlic, age 100, Montgomery, Alabama“We wuz glad ter be free, an’ lemmie tell yo’, we shore cussed ole martser out ‘fore we left dar.“ —Charlie Crump, age unknown, North Carolina“I lays in de bunk two days, gittin’ over dat whippin’, gittin’ over it in de body but not de heart. No suh, I has dat in de heart till dis day.” —Andy Anderson, age unknown, Fort Worth, Texas-- Louis Cain, a former slave, describes seeing another slave punished: "One nigger run to the woods to be a jungle nigger, but massa cotched him with the dog and took a hot iron and brands him. Then he put a bell on him, in a wooden frame what slip over the shoulders and under the arms. He made that nigger wear the bell a year and took it off on Christmas for a present to him. It sho' did make a good nigger out of him" [3]. -- First Hand Drawings [5]. [1] Nichols, William W. (1971). "Slave Narratives: Dismissed Evidence in the Writing of Southern History". Phylon. 32 (4): 403–409.[2] McBride, D. (2005). "Slavery As It Is:" Medicine and Slaves of the Plantation South. OAH Magazine Of History, 19(5), 37.[3] Rawick, George P. "From Sundown to Sunup", Making of the Black Community 1. (1972): n. pag. Web. 21 Nov 2009[4] https://americanslavehorrors.wordpress.com...[5] http://abolition.e2bn.org...