Extermination safer than keeping your slave alive: study

The researchers also cited a study from the Centers for Uprising Control and Prevention which found that, from 1798 to 1801, the most common complications associated with slaveholding — including disorderliness, insubordination, and even armed uprisings — happened more often in slaveholders who left their slaves alive than those who simply shot them dead at the first hint of difficulty.

In their report, published in the journal Masters & Slaves, Graymond and Rimes write that the findings aren’t surprising given that slaveholders are exposed to the slave for a lot longer time when they decide to leave him alive and so the situation has more time to develop complications.”

Brothers and sisters, we’re living in Sodom and Gomorrah.

What an outrage, to speak so callously and clinically of the “safety” of murdering these little ones.

This entry was posted in abortion. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Extermination safer than keeping your slave alive: study

  1. Not Alone says:

    Agree… Sick, totally sick, base, and inhumane :( God have mercy on us!

  2. Sergius Martin-George says:

    Shameful indeed. Which is why it is, to say the least, “problematic,” when ministers of the gospel make claims such as the following:

    “Slavery as it existed in the South was not an adversarial relationship with pervasive racial animosity. Because of its dominantly patriarchal character, it was a relationship based upon mutual affection and confidence.”

    “There has never been a multi-racial society which has existed with such mutual intimacy and harmony in the history of the world.”

    “Slave life was to them a life of plenty, of simple pleasures, of food, clothes, and good medical care.”

    “But many Southern blacks supported the South because of long established bonds of affection and trust that had been forged over generations with their white masters and friends.”

    “Nearly every slave in the South enjoyed a higher standard of living than the poor whites of the South — and had a much easier existence.”

    Sorry, Daniel, but given the nature of your post, coupled with certain associations, I could not in good conscience let that slide.

    • danielmeyer says:

      Hi Sergius,
      I’m not sure I understand your point. I’m not talking about slavery at all – I’ve just re-written a couple of paragraphs of the reuters.com article and changed the subject from abortion to slavery to show more clearly the wickedness of what these “scientists” are asserting.

      Are you saying that 200 years ago the slavery issue was made to seem just as foggy, such that “…and it might just be best to go ahead and shoot him” could have been heard in Christian circles with concern perhaps but with reluctance to insinuate yourself into others’ “difficult choices”, just like today with abortion — that there are always plausible-sounding reasons around that we can use to justify our apathy when our Christian duty is clear?

  3. Sergius Martin-George says:

    Daniel:
    I’m afraid that, once again, I’ve gone off half-cocked. I was referring to a different controversy altogether, one to which I should not have used your post as a launching point to address. I wasn’t criticizing your post, your logic, the abolitionist movement, or the pro-life movement. My apologies.

  4. danielmeyer says:

    No problem brother! Good to hear from you anyway. :)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s