why were people so mean to slaves before the civil war?

Question

please no stupid answers this is to help me with my homework!! and put it so an eigth grader can read it

Answer 1

Would you beat your Cadillac Escalade because it would not start? No, I do not believe in slavery or that blacks were better off as slaves then free men in Africa. It is there were laws against the mistreatment of slaves; they did know how to read, they were suing whites and they were slave owners.

One other thing mistreated slaves either ran away or killed the overseer. Read the papers of the time if you really want the truth!


In 1850, there were around 350,000 slaveholders in a total free southern population of about six million. Among slaveholders, the concentration of slave ownership was unevenly distributed. Perhaps around seven percent of slaveholders owned roughly three-quarters of the slave population. The largest slaveholders, generally owners of large plantations, represented the top stratum of southern society. They benefited from economies of scale and needed large numbers of slaves on big plantations to produce profitable labor-intensive crops like cotton. These plantation-owning elite, known as "slave magnates”, was comparable to the millionaires of the following century.

In the 1850s, as large plantation owners’ out-competed smaller farmers, more slaves were owned by fewer planters. Yet, while the proportion of the white population consisting of slaveholders was on the decline on the eve of the Civil War—perhaps falling below around a quarter of free southerners in 1860—poor whites and small farmers generally accepted the political leadership of the planter elite. Thanks to modern graveyard science and surviving records, researchers know that in 1760, 100 years before the War Between the States, Charleston, South Carolina, had the largest population of slaves and we say proudly the second largest slave population was in New York City. Once you start studying the subject you find you have lived in a house of cards. Blacks owned slaves and a black was the third largest slave owner in Virginia. It was against the law to mistreat blacks (you need to realize it was like the SPCA). Blacks could read they had to if their work was to get done and religion taught. There is much more the biggest problem trying to break the circle of what people THINK they know replacing it with the truth.

God Bless You and Our Southern People

Answer 2

Your not a bigot for asking sensible questions. many human beings think of the conflict became into approximately slavery. It became into and it wasn't. in case you're able to ask the known northerner in the time of that ingredient, he could point out slavery. in case you're able to ask the comparable question to a southerner, could could permit you be responsive to approximately State's Rights. I lean greater in the direction of the State's Rights subject with the different than that the federal government can set up regulations that practice to all of us inspite of a State regulation. The rub right here is that our shape states that what isn't of course prevalent by using the form, is a State subject. Slavery became into seen a supplies subject, which might fall decrease than State's Rights. Even on the instant, we are nevertheless have criminal annoying circumstances over supplies with Eminent area regulations. Northerner's seen slavery to be a civil rights subject. Then politics have been given interior the way on the federal point and next subject you be responsive to, states are succeeding from the Union. there have been any sort of lawsuits that carry this authentic, now. yet one hundred fifty years in the past, there became into little or no prevalent case regulation with State's Rights and Federal jurisdiction matters. formerly interior the conflict or maybe till now the conflict, Lincoln would possibly not have had the criminal ability or backing to subject the Emancipation Proclamation. wish this helps...

Answer 3

If you are an 8th grader, this would not only have been discussed in your class, but is included in your textbook.

By stupid answers, perhaps, you mean answers such as: read your textbook. This is not a stupid response, however, because generally students who read their textbooks, listen and or participate in classroom discussions can come up with some logical reasons to the question you posed.

In the future, you might want to share your ideas with regard to the response and ask what people think. This way you are participating in your homework, getting a wider point of view and aren't just copying and pasting an answer for your homework assignment.

While we are doing your task, what are you doing? Just curious

Answer 4

Nobody thought about it as being mean. It was about using available resources (Africans) to help get done what was needed to have a healthy economy. There were not the same thoughts of human rights because Africans werent considered humans. It would be like if in a couple hundred years, people say we were mean for stepping on bugs. To us, we dont think of the value of a bug's life but who knows maybe there will be some bug's rights activism in the future and change to way people think of bugs! lol. (not that i'm comparing african americans to bugs, im just trying to simply explain the thinking about slaves back then)

Answer 5

mean is relative, in our politically correct world it is easier to show only evil slave owners and pictures of slaves with scares from the whip (ever notice all those pictures are the same two people?)

In actuality it was rare to whip a slave, just as most people wouldn't whip a horse, it is counterproductive as the slave was unable to work for a considerable time after

Also there were slaves who took flat bottom boats full of goods, usually cotton, but others as well, upriver to the free states, delivered it, got paid, and brought the money back to master. Obviously they were not overly mistreated or they would have run north money in hand.

Answer 6

well, i'm not defending slavery but you have to think about the mindset of the ppl back then, their plantations, crops were their bread and butter. and the way they saw it in their minds they had bought and paid for this help and so they basically owned a person. that's terrible but's that's how it was. when you think you "own:" a person, i think somehow that could lead to cruel behavior towards them. i'm really not sure why, just human nature maybe to have that kind of power. power can cause very good men to go astray and show cruelty and to think you own a person, i can't really imagine how that would affect the mindset. as i said im not defending it, just trying maybe to help you understand the reasoning of the ppl back then. that's how they made their money, that was their way of life. ppl will go to great lengths to defend their way of life. that is the way of the human mind.

Answer 7

I've learned that people often take their frustrations out on people they perceive as weaker or 'less than human.' That's why so many people abuse children, neglect their animals, and hurt elderly. It's sad, but it seems to be human nature. Luckily, each of us has the ability to control our own actions, but we cannot control the actions of others.

btw, i don't normally answer homework help questions because i feel that students should look to their books or parents for help, but you posed a thought provoking question. good luck with your assignment.

Answer 8

Because they owned them and could do as they pleased.
Did you ever see a person hit a horse to make it run faster?
They thought of these people as beast to do their labor. They
didn't think of them as having feelings. It was ignorance, it was ignorance that the white women of that time had to wear
12 petticoats to make their dresses look just right, tho it was
100 degrees. That was a sad time in history.

Answer 9

because in those days folks thought that people with darker skin than them were even less than human, possibly like animals. and they thought it was ok to treat them that way. and cuz yeah, humans like to have other humans to pick on. and yes, to do their work for them at a reduced, or nonexistent rate (ie no pay). still happening!

Answer 10

Its all about the money, they were forced to work hard so they could have better crops or whatever work needed to be done to make more money