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
It is indeed desirably for the slade traders if the slaves could not reproduce. However after the slaves had been sold to their plantation owners they were the property of the plantation owner and not the slave traders. So they would not have anything to say about the children of the slaves they had already sold. But they would absolutely not want the slaves to become free as that would still mean that they could work and take profit from them. It should also be noted that it was often cheaper for slave owners to just buy new slaves rather then let their slaves reproduce because it would cost them more money to raise the child then to just buy a new grown up slave.
As for the Naturalization Act this did not apply to African Americans because they were not considered humans in the same way as white people. At least not at the time. Later on this was amended which caused quite the rebellion.
Latest Answers