In Defense of Slavery
You Guys Thought I Was Joking
This was originally written for the magazine Arditi but was taken down when the accompanying Substack publication was suspended. I’ve reposted it here for future reference, and for anyone who hasn’t yet read it.
By now most of you probably know that I have some rather unorthodox views on slavery, or perhaps it is more accurate to say that my views are extremely orthodox. For the most part, this tends to only manifest itself when I tell feature creatures/Substack normies that they should be enslaved. I’ve been doing this for a long time, and a few months ago people really started to notice on iFunny and it became my “thing” whenever someone said something retarded.
But, until now, I had never laid out a proper defense before (outside of some group chats). In order to do this, this post will be divided into three parts:
Background- Some relevant background information regarding my experience on the subject, both as the “You should be enslaved” guy and the actual academic experience I have on the topic.
Defining Slavery- Clarifying what I mean when I say slavery, providing some interesting historical examples of slavery, and (most importantly) deconstructing your preconceived [mis]conceptions about what slavery is or isn’t.
Defending Slavery- Self explanatory. I will be utilizing a few different approaches for this, so there should be an argument that appeals to everyone.
Background
Aside from being the “You should be enslaved” guy, I also have some other credentials. I am actually a Southron, and one from a long line which includes slave owners. In fact, as I’ve mentioned before, my family actually used to feud with the Polk family being that our families were both mid level slave owning families in the same area, with opposing political orientations.
Beyond all that, though, I also have an academic background in the study of slavery. Some of you may recall the infamous “Dr. Sayers” and her equally infamous “Slavery Class”1 (actually called “Comparative Slavery and Abolition”). But I’ve also taken a class called “Philosophy of Race” (really just Afro-Marxism: The Class) and a number of sociology classes, which of course are just more of the same. Anyway, I’ve had a lot of exposure to the libtard’s perspective on slavery, and from an academic level I’ve probably had more exposure to it than any one of you.
Of course, I also have written some on the topic of slavery here on Substack (just never a proper defense), which I will mention later. Naturally, links to the relevant articles will be included, either in-text or in the footnotes.
Suffice it to say that I am well versed in the objections raised against slavery, from the more general moral objections to the entire practice (which I believe are overbroad, and at times counter-intuitive) to the more particular “but-for” objections that hold slavery as immoral due to specific practices. All of these objections will be addressed later in the article.
Defining Slavery
What is and what it isn’t
Slavery is somewhat tricky to define. In fact, this was one of the things that Dr. Sayer’s harped on in slavery class. Being that slavery has existed for as long as civilization, and that every civilization has practiced slavery, it comes in a lot of forms. The Ottoman slave caste (kullar in Turkish) in particular presents a diverse range of material conditions, labor, and access to freedom, but there are many similar examples throughout the world.
For example, you can’t really define slavery based on the material condition of the slaves because quite a few slave societies afforded good living conditions to their slaves, yet we recognize them as enslaved all the same. American slaves, for instance, typically had a higher standard of living than European peasants from the same time.2 At the more extreme end, the Kapi Agha was the head eunuch and held the title of Vizier in the Ottoman Empire, managing most of the palace affairs and generally only being second to the Grand Vizier himself.
The type of labor they performed/the service they provided is also not consistent across types of slavery. Of course, slaves in the Americas were typically used in agriculture but even in America there existed a subset of highly skilled slaves who worked as craftsmen of some sort. In many places, slaves were exempt from military service (even prevented from service, since they could die and their owner would lose their investment) whereas other societies had an entire caste of warrior-slaves that were used as their primary fighting force, like the Mamluks.
Freedom is, somewhat paradoxically, also not a great axiom to define slavery. There are many examples of slaves who were afforded rights which were above and beyond what were given to the ostensibly “free” citizens. As mentioned above, many Ottoman officials were actually slaves (usually from the Devshirme) who wielded great authority, In addition to their generally opulent lifestyles, they had authority to manage swaths of the Ottoman Empire. The Mamluk themselves also formed a sort of military aristocracy which governed critical parts of Ottoman infrastructure/society. In this sense, the Ottoman slaves had greater freedom to affect change than the lower class, though otherwise “free,” members of Ottoman society.
A slaves access to freedom (essentially how slavery scholars refer to how easily a slave could be manumitted) is even more varied. Some chattel slaves could potentially purchase their own freedom (as in America), while other chattel slaves could not be freed by any means other than their master’s decision. Often times, slaves that served as soldiers would eventually earn their freedom after enough “tours of duty” so to speak.
There have been times in history when even slaves could become quite wealthy and independent, believe it or not. All slavery entails is that someone is contractually bound to another, and can be bought and sold. Slaves were not like prisoners, desperate to break free, because if they broke free they would have no means of sustaining themselves.3
There are a number of lofty, highfalutin, definitions for slavery which academics have come up with, but they tend to fall short in one way or another. For example, Suzanne Miers goes so far as to say “no definition of slavery can be separated from the definition of its antithesis-freedom.”4 Other scholars use a more diverse approach, like Sean Stillwell’s notion of a “bundle of traits” (slaves as kinless outsiders, slaves as property, and/or slaves as violently dominated or powerless).5 And of course, some scholars may focus on particular aspects of slavery rather than a comprehensive definition, such as Eugene Genovese’s analysis of the treatment of slaves.6 Yet even these more particular forms of analysis are still not sufficient enough to account for such a broad and long-lasting institution as slavery.
Even within the kul system of the Ottomans, discrepancies begin to arrive. Certainly the Devshirme were not “powerless” by any means, in fact they generally wielded more authority than most freemen by virtue of their government office. It is similarly hard to imagine the Mamluks as violently oppressed, at least in the typical sense, being that they were the often leaders within the military. Of course, as with all Ottoman slaves, the Mamluks were castrated upon their enslavement7 which is arguably a form of violent oppression, and served to mark them as “kinless outsiders.” Kinless outsiders is really the only trait that is universal to Ottoman slaves, as Muslim law forbids Muslims from enslaving one another (although it did still occur at times).
There is further debate—oftentimes very contradictory—among academics regarding whether certain demographics or social classes were enslaved. For example, Dr. Sayers was quite adamant indentured servants (otherwise known as debt slaves) were not enslaved but was quite certain that serfs were enslaved, as articulated by Peter Kolchin.8 I pressed Dr. Sayers frequently on the issue of indentured servitude but I never got a satisfactory answer. Perhaps it’s just the Stellaris player in me, but I’ve always considered indentured servants to be enslaved. I was, however, compelled by Kolchin’s arguments that serfs and peasants could be considered slaves and this revelation played no small part in the making of this article.
Generally, I don’t hold to a hard definition of slavery. Instead I adopt a very judicial sort of approach in analyzing potential forms of enslavement on their own merits in order to come to a conclusion. As Stillwell says: “The various traits in the bundle that made up slavery varied over time and place.”9 We’ll get in to this more in the next sections.
Ultimately I don’t think it matters what definition of slavery you adhere to, what I want you to take away from this section is that slavery is not quite so objective and clear cut as the general consensus seems to believe.
Deconstructing Slavery
Most of what you already believe about slavery is derived almost exclusively from the American institution, specifically North American. As you can probably already see, that is not a very good model for describing other forms of slavery. Leftists tend to agree, though for different reasons than what I would argue. To the Leftist, American slavery was the “peculiar institution” because it was unique in that it was racial, which is itself a product of the equally unique advent of racism in the 16th to 17th century. I’ve already addressed this topic, and why it’s silly, in one of my earliest articles10 (dating back to iFunny) so I won’t readdress it here. To the Leftist, slavery is slavery is slavery, except when it’s racist because that’s worse. To me (and probably you) slavery is just slavery, and it was almost always racist in some capacity. This is because slaves were generally foreign and most often captured via conquest (the United States was a rare exception where most slaves were “bred” domestically, following the import ban in 1807), a prime example being the Ottoman’s frequent raids of European villages for more slaves, or the Aztec conquests of their neighbors.
This is, of course, important for the Leftist because White people are FREAKING RACIST MAN!!!!! But to basically everyone else slavery is essentially contractual in nature, as Sectionalism put it. It isn’t really inherently one thing or the other, including good or bad. For many slaves, their enslavement entitled them to a higher standard of living than they would otherwise have had, which is itself very appealing, particularly in antiquity where life was generally more brutal.
So, essentially, you need to throw all of that out of your head. The public education system is too reductive and implies that all slavery was more or less like American slavery, while the Leftist academic elite bend this to show how Whitey is an evil racist. I’ll do a quick lightning round of facts that will be important to contextualize your further reading:
Africans were highly involved in the Transatlantic Slave Trade, and even controlled European access to slaves as a bargaining tool for European goods.11
African slaves in the United States were actually treated rather well, enjoying a higher standard of living than contemporary European peasants, and just generally not being whipped 24/7 like the media portrays.12 More on that last part later.
Slaves were not separated from their families nearly as often as the media portrays, and it was in fact rather dishonorable to sell slaves to begin with.13
The Civil War wasn’t about slavery.14
Even in America, there were White slaves too.15
Black people, even in America, owned slaves. This was not an uncommon occurrence, and it was also not always out of compassion/a desire to free their brethren. In fact, many sources seem to indicate that blacks were particularly harsh masters/overseers.16 Again, more on that last part momentarily.
Recall, for a moment, the thumbnail of this article and the caption underneath which read: “I’ve never actually watched this movie [Django Unchained] and I never will because it is a blatant attack on Southern culture.” That would be because Calvin Candie is archetypal of the media portrayal of every slave owner in America. As
points out:Nobody is spending the money, time, and energy to get a slave back to their house just to start wailing on them. Even defenders of the “mainstream” slavery narrative admit that slaves were treated like farm animals. Ok, I agree. How many farmers buy a work horse to take it home and start beating it? How many of them use only negative reinforcement with animals that clearly can’t understand their words? Some, sure. But, no, slaves were not typically beaten on a whim unless they got a particularly cruel master, just like farm animals today. There’s no evidence of it occurring outside individual instances, and it just doesn’t make sense. The myth that every slave owner beat their slaves is a sensationalism drawn from individual accounts like the autobiography of Frederick Douglass, someone who could genuinely claim that it happened to them.17
I would go further, however, to point out that very few masters ever actually beat their slaves themselves, or really even interacted with them at all. Many masters were “absentee slavemasters” who only occasionally visited their plantations, and only did so for administrative purposes (like Polk), but even the ones who lived on their plantation also rarely ventured out into the fields and seldom ever to administer punishments. The “house slaves” (like Frederick Douglas) were the ones that the masters typically interacted with, and they WOULD sometimes be punished by the master himself (or his wife) since an overseer typically was not employed in the house. Instead, overseers were employed to manage their slaves. In almost all cases, the overseer was the one to doll out punishments (examples to follow). This is particularly noteworthy because overseers were almost always either fellow slaves or local poor Whites (who often harbored resentment for black slaves because they essentially pushed the free Whites out of a job) paid by the owner.
Overseers were actually rather notoriously cruel, and there are plentiful examples of overseers being fired by the slave masters for abusing their slaves. In fact, the picture I chose for this section (one of, if not THE, most famous pictures of slavery of all time) is actually an example of the overseer abusing slaves, not the master:
Ten days from to-day I left the plantation. Overseer Artayou Carrier whipped me. I was two months in bed sore from the whipping. I don't remember the whipping. I was two months in bed sore from the whipping and my sense began to come—I was sort of crazy. I tried to shoot everybody. They said so, I did not know. I did not know that I had attempted to shoot everyone; they told me so. I burned up all my clothes; but I don't recall that. I never was this way (crazy) before. I don't know what make me come that way (crazy). My master come after I was whipped; saw me in bed; he discharged the overseer. They told me I attempted to shoot my wife the first one; I did not shoot any one; I did not harm any one. My master's Capt. John Lyon, cotton planter, on Atchafalya, near Washington, Louisiana. Whipped two months before Christmas.18
As a short aside, there is a great deal of confusion regarding this image and it’s backstory and has been since the image was taken. Just to clarify things: “Poor Peter” is the man in the photo; his name is not “Gordon” as many people think. Gordon was another slave and a close associate of Peter, but they are two separate people.19 The above quote is regarded as the closest and most accurate depiction of events (obviously we are missing details as to whether or not he did try to shoot his wife, or if he did anything to deserve punishment to begin with), which were later confused by the rampant circulation of the story/image as part of the wartime propaganda effort.
It should be noted, however, that overseers were most commonly employed on large plantation (granted this is where most of the slaves were also found) so the more “middle class” slaveowners who only had a few slaves generally didn’t have an overseer as that role was usually filled by the master or an immediate family member like a son.
In slavery days you didn’t hab ter worry ‘bout yo clothes en rations but dese days you hab ter worry ‘bout eve’ything.20
Defending Slavery
I mentioned in the beginning of the article that oftentimes people will object to slavery for particular “but-for” reasons. That is to say, some people might say slavery wouldn’t necessarily be so bad if the slaves weren’t constantly being ripped from their families or what have you. This is, obviously, a sentiment that is more common on the Right; on the Left slavery is always bad but it was EXTRA bad for X reason in America. Either way, I would refer such objectors to the previous section were I outlined some important facts, with links to further reading on the topic.
The more general objections to slavery (that it is inherently evil for one reason or another) are somewhat more varied. Objections can be based on religious, political, or philosophical positions and so there is effectively an infinite multitude of objections one could make, based on whatever their worldview is. Obviously, I’m not going to address every single one of them, just a few of them I find interesting or important for demographic reasons (i.e: the number of people that would agree with the objection based on a shared system of belief).
The Christian Objection
Christianity has always played a large role in the history of slavery, particularly in America. Both staunch abolitionists and staunch Calhounites mobilized Christianity to support their position. The arguments both sides made were generally valid, though the Bible quotes regarding slavery generally assume that the master is acting in a pious manner, as is the slave. Obviously, the Bible doesn’t condone the sort of slavery that would castrate their slaves (Ottomans) or the sort of obscene level of violence that “Poor Peter” was subjected to by his overseer.
5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ, 6 not ⌊while being watched⌋, as people pleasers, but as slaves of Christ doing the will of God from the heart, 7 serving with goodwill as to the Lord and not to people, 8 because you know that each one of you, whatever good he should do, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free. 9 And masters, do the same things to them, giving up threats, knowing that both their Lord and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with him.
W. Hall Harris III et al., eds., The Lexham English Bible (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012), Eph 6:5–9.
Generally, the Bible treats slavery as a matter of circumstance that begets the sort of “contractual obligation” mentioned by
. It’s the “true neutral” approach which tells you to fulfill your obligations, slave or free, because that’s what God wants. Really, it ties in with the much more broad concept of oath-keeping which is found across practically all religions:I would like to mention two moral standards which seem to basically be held in high regards everywhere on earth: Hospitality and Oath-keeping. In some sense, oaths can be considered as the atomic unit of Pagan morality, because in breaking an oath you are engaging in an act of self-contradiction. You are doing the opposite of what I just described as the goal of traditional religious life.21
In some cases, this oath/contract of slavery is literal in the Bible: repaying a debt through a period of unpaid labor as an indentured servant. Other times, the slave is a more typical chattel won through conquest or bought at a market. In both cases though, the Bible generally commands that you obey your master in order to fulfill this duty. In most cases where this happens, such as in the case of Joseph, the slave is rewarded for their commitment either with increasingly prestigious positions and a higher standard of living, or manumission.
37 And the plan was good in the eyes of Pharaoh and in the eyes of all his servants. 38 Then Pharaoh said to his servants, “Can we find a man like this in whom is the spirit of God?” 39 Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, “Since God has made all of this known to you there is no one as discerning and wise as you. 40 You shall be over my house, and to your word all my people shall submit. Only with respect to the throne will I be greater than you.” 41 Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, “See, I have set you over all the land of Egypt.” 42 Then Pharaoh removed his signet ring from his finger and put it on the finger of Joseph. And he clothed him with garments of fine linen, and he put a chain of gold around his neck. 43 And he had him ride in his second chariot. And they cried out before him, “Kneel!” And Pharaoh set him over all the land of Egypt. 44 Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, “I am Pharaoh, but without your consent no one will lift his hand or his foot in all the land of Egypt.”
W. Hall Harris III, Elliot Ritzema, et al., eds., The Lexham English Bible (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012), Ge 41:37–44.
This is the position that I adopt; that slavery is not inherently wrong but it can become immoral if the parties involved act immorally. Essentially, it’s not really any different from saying “war is inherently neutral but becomes immoral if it is waged for unjust reasons” which I think everyone reading this would agree with.
Natural Slavery
In some instances it is sufficiently clear, that it is advantageous to both parties for this man to be a slave, and that to be a master, and that it is right and just, that some should be governed, and others govern, in the manner that nature intended; of which sort of government is that which a master exercises over a slave. But to govern ill is disadvantageous to both; for the same thing is useful to the part and to the whole, to the body and to the soul; but the slave is as it were a part of the master, as if he were an animated part of his body, though separate. For which reason a mutual utility and friendship may subsist between the master and the slave, I mean when they are placed by nature in that relation to each other, for the contrary takes place amongst those who are reduced to slavery by the law, or by conquest.22
I agree with Aristotle on the concept of Natural Slavery, save for that last part there. I wholeheartedly agree that slavery is just in cases, such as those outlined by Aristotle, where the slave is “rationally deficient” as Aristotle would say. In those cases, where the slave has a low IQ, I wholeheartedly agree that they cannot be expected to make the best decisions for themselves.
I would go so far as to say that letting that sort of person, the impulsive and baser savage or the dimwitted oaf, live the life of a freeman is grossly immoral. Such a person would pose a serious threat to society by their own incompetence and, in the case of the savage, their wanton violence. Moreover, I would argue that it is also personally destructive for the Natural Slave to be free. The lowered impulse control of such a person renders them extremely vulnerable to exploitation from bad actors. It also all but ensures that such a person would fall in to the clutches of addiction and self destructive habits. This is exemplified by the high-school dropout succumbing entirely to their weed addiction, or the downy who is unable to go more than 8 hours without masturbating.
Where I disagree, however, is Aristotle’s objection to being “reduced to slavery by the law.” Honestly, this may just be more of a semantics issue that Aristotle doesn’t really clarify, but I have no issue with, for example, the 13th Amendment’s exception for criminals. If we aren’t going to execute hardened criminals, then they should be required to work in order to justify their otherwise subsidized existence. That being said, I don’t really agree with privatized prisons and would prefer it if they were state-run and the value of the labor went back directly to the state in some capacity.
As for slaves by conquest, I agree with Aristotle entirely. Primarily because the societal implications of such a society aren’t really ideal, and history has proven the fates of these empires. Enslaving your neighbors is one of the best ways to ensure you have no allies, as was the fate of the Aztecs. Overreliance on the slave trade also renders your (inevitably export centric) economy highly vulnerable to sudden market changes in demand (as happened to Africa following the ban on the slave trade). And, of course, there is the simple fact that it is all around more productive to incorporate conquered territory in your empire as some sort of colony or vassal instead of raiding its population and leaving.
This is also the worldview (with the addition of the Christian elements previously mentioned) which defined the Paternalism of Southern slavery. That’s why the name “Paternalism” was chosen; because you were adopting the role of a father; the slave the role of a naïve child. Which, I suppose, brings us to the question of whether or not black people could be considered the ‘naïve child” or the Sambo that the South characterized them as. I think we are all in agreement on the racial IQ question, and I’ve already addressed it myself in prior work,23 so I won’t rehash it here.
Putting it in to Practice
So what would my system of slavery actually look like?
Well, for starters I should clarify that I’m not arguing that slavery should really be a common institution. There are only a few applications I typically support. For example, I have no objection to the 13th Amendment’s exception to slavery as a form of punishment, as I previously mentioned.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Beyond that, I only really see slavery as viable in America insofar as Natural Slaves (as defined above) should be enslaved in some sort of government program. Frankly, for a lot of people (specifically the mentally retarded) this just translates to them being institutionalized and being employed as janitors without the requirement for a wage (since they are being provided for by their “employer”).
Slavery itself is not really economically viable in the long run, at least not compared to a more robust system like Capitalism. Slaves don’t make much money (if any at all) which means they are not spenders, and so they do not really participate in the economy beyond whatever they produce. Obviously, their masters would be required to purchase things on their behalf like food and clothes, but a slave would not be buying luxury goods/services and stimulating the economy. Further, the obvious benefits of slave labor to one’s overhead means that local workers are deprived of most jobs, since slaves can be employed in their place for free. This was an enormous issue with slavery as it existed in the South and is why most Southern statesmen (like Jefferson, for example) preferred to keep slavery around long enough to end it on their own terms. Obviously, ending slavery overnight would cause a huge economic upset in the South (as it did following the Civil War) but keeping this system in effect forever was equally undesirable because it deprives American’s from jobs. The effect of this is probably the largest income disparity between Americans in the country’s history:
Dirt-eating has also been practiced among poor, rural whites, who in the early part of this century were known as ''clay eaters.''24
If anything, the only long-term form of slavery that would be commonplace in America would be the sort of quasi-indentured servitude that you saw in 20th century “Company Towns” where you worked for a company which provided you with a house and credit at the “Company Store” in exchange for your labor:
Obviously, to avoid the economic issues I already mentioned, they wouldn’t be allowed to pay you in company credit (or they would at least have to set up an equivalent exchange rate for USD), so it isn’t really slavery in lay sense of the term, but legally and historically it tends to be considered slavery. Similarly, I’m not opposed to the sharecropping system for the agricultural industry which has been criticized on the same grounds as company towns.
Generally, I would grant the people employing the sharecroppers/etc. increased control over the lives of their indentured servants, in accordance to certain legal restrictions. Obviously you couldn’t force them to, say, commit a crime but you could enforce the terms of their Contract of Servitude with the backing of the Courts. As a rule, these contract would also be added as an application of the Statute of Frauds, requiring them to be written down in order to be enforceable. Similarly, they couldn’t extend for more than a year without being mutually renewed by all parties in order to prevent people from being forced to work as a sharecropper for all their life. The idea being that young people would be drawn towards these “Contract of Servitude” on sharecropper farms or company towns, because it effectively drops their cost of living to 0 while still giving them some form of income. Long term, you wouldn’t want to stay in the company town or whatever because it would be harder to start a family.
Returning to this idea of a “Contract of Servitude” and being “in accordance to certain legal restrictions,” there would need to be a wealth of legal precedents towards this sort of system. While you could enter into a “Contract of Servitude” in order to repay debts (as was common throughout history), or as a form of employment early in your life, the “master” in this contract wouldn’t be allowed to abuse you or anything. In fact, any violations of the contract would not be punishable by the master, and would have to be enforced by the Courts and a specialized arm of law enforcement. For example, someone who signs a “Contract of Servitude” wouldn’t be allowed to lay around all day doing nothing. They could be sued in Court and either charged a fee, required to work past the typical 1 year maximum, or put in prison (where they can be disciplined a little more, teehee). Conversely, a master wouldn’t be allowed to do whatever they want and the servant could sue them for breach of contract, getting awarded money, reducing or ending the servants obligation to fulfill the terms of the Contract of Servitude, or something like that.
Of course, there would also be a criminal element to this as well. You could be criminally penalized for violating these contracts (on both sides) and the minimum sentencing would be 1 year, making it a Class E Felony at the very least. Negligence suits would also be common in Tort law, either because the servant violates their duty to provide labor or because the master violates their duty to provide adequate accommodations.
Obviously, this would require a wealth of new legislation in Contract, Criminal, and Tort law, but most of it could easily be adapted from contemporary law (particularly labor law) or inspired by the practices of Antebellum slavery. One of the issues I have with slavery in the South is that a great deal of the “rules” regarding the master-slave relationship were entirely left up to the honor system. While this system does work more often than not, it’s still possible to violate the system and when that happen there isn’t really much of any recourse. So on day 1 of this system being implemented, a lot of the honor practices of the South (like not separating slaves/servants from their families) would be codified as law, with remedies/punishments provided by the Courts and enforced by a specialized (probably federal) arm of law enforcement. While I definitely have an idea of how these particular laws should be worded and what punishments/remedies I would have for each one, I’m not going to get in to them here since this post is already extremely long. Also, slave import/export would be forbidden and, on an international level, the slave trade should still be illegal for reasons already discussed. Suffice it to say that there would be accountability and an extensive area of law governing this system.
But that’s only the domestic system, which I’ve already said would probably not be that extensive. Most slaves in the world would be colonial in nature, but this system would also be predominately transitional and exclusively reserved for the sort of barbaric cultures typically colonized. That is to say, if America were to colonize Britain or something (lol) then slavery could only exist insofar as it would domestically in the way I outlined above. Meanwhile, if American colonized virtually any part of Latin America or Africa, slavery could exist in the more typical chattel form. Again, there would be more legal restrictions like not being able to beat your slave half to death, but the general scope of the law would be structured around trying to civilize these people [in their own homeland] with the eventual goal of turning them in to a proper vassal state (like what Britain would be in the previous scenario). This would be accomplished through a series of eugenics (in an attempt to raise the average IQ) and sociopolitical restructuring (killing cartel members and warlords) to make them less barbaric. Immigration would be strictly controlled between these countries, and the general idea would be to avoid brain draining them so as to avoid compromising their home country even more, like what is happening in India right now.
It also goes without saying that this would be paired alongside strict racial quotas for immigration and the repatriation of the vast majority of non-Whites from America25 and generally trying to maintain the natural/historical ethnic composition of any of America’s vassals. That is to say, Africa for Africans (with colonial American masters/governors), Europe and America for Whitey, etc.
TL:DR
Slavery is inherently morally neutral, but is a positive good in correct applications (Aristotle) and a moral repugnancy in bad applications (beating your slave for fun). Slavery should be legal, but on a restricted basis (primarily for economic reasons) and there should be plenty of legal consequences for breeching your duty as both master and slave, with any criminal actions resulting in a Class E felony, at minimum.
While I was looking forward to reading this article, I was expecting it to be more stereotypically white supremacist, hence why I am shocked that your opinions are surprisingly similar to my opinions. I still almost can't believe how similar we think.
I was giddy with excitement that you didn't paywall this article like you did last time.