The 1800s were brutal everywhere, but slavery is an inherently corrupt system. I can certainly imagine merciful white masters who genuinely cared for their slaves, but slavery is such a cut and dry obvious violation of human rights that it's not worth considering. A single person being considered, even in the most benign technical sense, property is an atrocity. We can and perhaps should commemorate those who worked very hard to salvage justice in an inherently just system, but we're still trying to wash the stains of racial injustice within our society today. Any time spent uplifting these persons must unfortunately be set aside to provide equity to those long ignored.
All of that being said, I can't say for certain that you're being intellectually honest, you're conflating quite a few things with crucial nuance. As an example, you claim black slave families were closer and more stable, because they were penned in and forced to breed together to provide additional laborers who would replace them. Have you ever considered that divorced families are better off than unhappy marriages? Have you considered that perhaps marriages aren't entirely necessary, and modern black culture isn't well suited to traditional marriage norms codified by white JudeoChristian people? If you're heart is in the right place, I'd imagine you could tell us a story of a true ally to black slaves in the south. One whom was raised in a toxic racist environment, but learned to work within a inherently broken system to provide some sense of equity.
I agree largely with your first paragraph! The world is a better place if people don't have total coercive power over others, self determination all the way!(obviously that statement lends to the subject and the great irony of the south). Long ignored.. the last 155 years is injustice made my the winners! Jim Crow laws were invented and wide spread in the north(1938 massachussets) before they went south.
Oif you know anything about the old south, white families penned themselves to the land they were on and married those in litteral proximities. Your son was going to marry the neighbors daughter. Thats why they were so defensive of thier land. It had been held closely for generations. Your using modern stanards of moving around constatly and marrying based on 60's free love standards. This was also not too uncommon of a stance made by west africans in their bative lands. Thats why africa is dense of language families, territorial familial rule. The anglo/Irish(ulster etc..)were very similiar in that regard. A story? Lincoln married a prominent kentucky slave holding white woman and sold her slaves for profit. Robert E lee was the executor of his wifes estate, and followed her fathers bequeathing of his slaves freedoms.
All of that being said, I can't say for certain that you're being intellectually honest, you're conflating quite a few things with crucial nuance. As an example, you claim black slave families were closer and more stable, because they were penned in and forced to breed together to provide additional laborers who would replace them. Have you ever considered that divorced families are better off than unhappy marriages? Have you considered that perhaps marriages aren't entirely necessary, and modern black culture isn't well suited to traditional marriage norms codified by white JudeoChristian people? If you're heart is in the right place, I'd imagine you could tell us a story of a true ally to black slaves in the south. One whom was raised in a toxic racist environment, but learned to work within a inherently broken system to provide some sense of equity.