This seemed to be a common trend throughout most of history, not just US history. For slave traders, wouldn’t it have been far more profitable for the children of slaves to be born free, forcing slave owners to have to buy more slaves?
I get why slaves reproducing is good for the owner, because they have an infinite labor source, but it feels bad for everyone else involved in the trade?
In a more US centric focused bonus question, with the 1790 Naturalization Act, why wouldn’t slaves born on US soil be considered citizens and be free? Technically they weren’t bought so they wouldn’t be property according to slave owners so why was it considered the owner’s right to own child slaves born on US soil?
In: Other
For slavery you need to get off of human rights and think of it more as a pet or cattle.
If a farmer buys 3 cows and they all have kids why would those cows not be allowed to be slaughtered later?
If my dog has puppies I can do whatever I want with them. I can sell them or keep them or give them away I could probably even legally kill these hypothetical puppies too if I wanted, most animal cruelty laws are about pain for the sake of it not quick deaths.
Slaves were the same, except they were expensive so no one would just kill a slave, it was like buying a car or expensive machine to automate a task.
Latest Answers