Setanta wrote: Livestock is chattel
Slaves were chattel, not livestock.
What distinction u seek to make is beyond me.
" chat·tel /ˈtʃætl/ Show Spelled
1. Law . a movable article of personal property.
2. any article of tangible property other than land, buildings,
and other things annexed to land.
3. a slave."
Essentially, all property is chattel except for real estate,
with an arguable exception for intellectual property.
One's wife and children were legally chattel as well
That 's RIDICULOUS
-- hi-larious! U think thay coud be sold n rented ??
"O, excuse me, Fine Sir! Beautiful morning,isn 't it ?
That 's a comely young wife u have there.
I 'll pay u 40 shillings and a sheep, for 2 hours of her time, in private, Sir "
applied to a passing pedophile, the same regarding
rental of a son or daughter. I don 't think so
Do u make this nonsense up as u go along ???? I think u do.
--do you allege that they didn't consider them human?
Of course not; I reject your premise.
You make most of this up as you go along.
That is a pretty bad insult, but considering its source,
I 'll not allow it to disturb my harmony n delight of the day!
I 've had some Good Fortune
recently and I 'll mentally dwell upon it. Yes
Initially, the colonists of the North American mainland had no interest in African slaves.
The labor upon which they relied which was not the labor of immigrant settlers
came from bound "servants," people indentured to a term of service.
Yes; thay paid for their passage by ship over the Atlantic Ocean
by 7 years of service, instead of cash fare.
Initially, African "bound servants" were to serve a term of indenture. However, when such "servants" could not speak the dominant language and could not read, it was easy enough to convert them into slaves. Once underway, the process took about a generation.
That 's the first I 've heard of that; I don 't believe u.
Do u deny the Spanish Triangular Trade ??
Do u know what that was ?
The constitution recognized people of African descent as persons.
In fact, it refers to them as Persons.
use that language. That does not alter the fact
that thay were deemed livestock, bought, sold and rented as such.
That was the sense of the situation, the spirit of the times.
I thought everyone knew that.
That you don't [??] is simply evidence of your ignorance, and your willingness
to distort historical truth in aid of your hysterical ideological cant.
I know that your interpretation of history
is inconsistent with known fact. Your opinions, wishes nor hopes
do not retroactively change anything.
I wish that we had simply left them undisturbed in Africa,
and gone about our own business, but that does not retroactively change the past.