American Slavery was not the Vast Evil it is Portrayed as

Thanks, Pro. My opponent begins with a quote from Woodrow Wilson claiming that slavery wasn't that bad. In fact, Woodrow Wilson is known as one of the most racist presidents in modern history [1]. He said that segregation was humiliating and did not allow black people to serve in WWI. He firmly disagreed with black people having civil rights, and Wilson sympathized with the KKK while serving as an apologist for Southern racism. People note that he opposed slavery for economic and not moral reasons [2]. In other words, Woodrow Wilson is yet another useless source. He wasn't even alive during the time of slavery, and based on his other racist observations, we can tell that he was completely biased and misinformed. Pro then quotes another white person saying in 1900 that slavery "engendered a bond of personal affection" in a strong way which is unfounded and not at all based in reality. Has this source (history professor Dr Henry A. White) have any proof of this claim? In fact, we can presume this is 100% false considering masters were constantly afraid their slaves would run away or fight back. Indeed many slaves DID run away and fight back in multiple slave rebellions [3]. No longer do academic historians downplay the tragedy of slavery. It was popular in the past to do so which is why Pro quoted a historian from 116 years ago. They simply regurgitated the same talking points that was used by pro-slavery advocates from a few years earlier. But in fact millions of people died unjustly under the institution [4]. If it's true that slavery breeded such strong affection, why were their runaway slaves risking their life to flee? Why did masters and the government work so hard to keep slaves oppressed and with little to no rights, if the relationship between slave and master was that of mutual affection? Quite obviously, that makes no sense and there is not a shred of historical evidence to validate this claim. Pro has only cited a history professor saying as much, but all facts point to the exact opposite. In the next round, I'll cite some first-hand accounts and testimonials of slaves. The audience can decide if the slaves felt "affection" toward their masters or not. Pro argues that a cruel slave owner was the exception and not the rule. He writes that most slave owners were benevolent. First, Pro must offer proof of these claims, and quotes from fellow white people (especially those who were not alive at the time) don't count. I've mentioned that slaves were treated differently; however, on balance slavery was a cruel institution. My opponent writes, "Slaves and their master typically had a good relationship that was beneficial to both parties." This is a bare assertion without evidence. The very fact that slaves had a master and OWNER proves the relationship is very one-sided. If it weren't, the slave would voluntarily agree to provide their labor without the threat of force, violence, aggression and coercion. Furthermore, let's not forget that the slaves were taken captive to the U.S. (in horrible conditions) against their will. So even if it behooved the slaves to work on plantations while here, they never should have been brought here in the first place. Pro writes that slaves were treated like "family." Just because they were referred to with affectionate names in no way whatsoever changes their status, role and duties. Did white slave owners make their FAMILY members work 15 hour days in the fields under harsh labor conditions without choice or pay? Did they beat, brand, burn, rape, beat and mutilate their family members? If not, then we have no reason to accept this statement by Pro. Calling someone "auntie" doesn't mean you also aren't treating them like a subhuman animal with little to no rights at the same time. The rest of Pro's round consists of many quotes trying to convince us that slaves were treated with kindness and respect. Pro even cites a quote that describes the slaves and their masters as FRIENDS... "slaves would come to be cherished not only as property of high value but as loving if lowly friends." Once again this is absurd and unfounded. Did white plantation owners rape and mutilate their friends? Pro seems to deny that these things occurred, or perhaps he's suggesting that it wasn't popular and thus doesn't matter. That is incorrect. All of those things not only happened and not sparingly, but the fact that they occurred under slavery at all (and NOT on a very minimal scale) proves these things are just as evil as they are portrayed. Keep in mind that just because movies may focus on certain types of plantations doesn't mean it didn't happen or is any less evil. Pro has the burden of proof and is responsible for proving how the majority of slaves weren't treated poorly. Yet that is self-defeating, as being a slave at ALL is already evil. Note that I don't have to speak on freed slaves. Yet my opponent cites a quote, "They [slaves] fare better than the poor of any of our citizens are more warmly clad, work less, and are a thousand-fold more cheerful and contented." I've addressed this at length in the last round: just because slaved received bare minimal provisions for excessive labor, doesn't discount the fact that they could have voluntarily labored to earn those things - food, clothes, etc. Obviously poor whites would be without work since white people could just force slaves to work for free. Had there been no slavery and poor whites were able to compete with their labor for provisions, slaves wouldn't have been "better off." And again, in exchange for the food and clothes that slaves received, they were raped, beaten, mutilated, whipped, hanged, harassed, burned, branded and forced to labor in the blistering heat (in some cases) with little to no rights. Pro is trying to convince us that being given an "affectionate name" or receiving shoddy medical care from fellow slaves somehow makes this a not-too-bad lifestyle. [1] http://www.theatlantic.com... [2] http://www.alternet.org... [3] http://www.pbs.org... [4] http://www.salon.com...