3 ms·

Someone can correct me but I think the difference is the Church wasn't down with taking a Christian as a slave. That would have resulted in the number of slaves

Someone can correct me but I think the difference is the Church wasn't down with taking a Christian as a slave. That would have resulted in the number of slaves dwindling. I think the in the US slavery is associated with the virulent Slavery in the United States where slaves were literal property every bit as much as a horse and a wagon were property. Might be that Romans would have considered the difference between their slaves and medieval surfs as a distinction without a difference. And possibly be horrified by the US variant. Your slave doesn't have the right to marry and own property? WTF?

thaumasiotes 5y ago
> I think the in the US slavery is associated with the virulent Slavery in the United States where slaves were literal property every bit as much as a horse and a wagon were property. There was nothing especially virulent about slavery in the US compared to slavery in other places. > Your slave doesn't have the right to marry and own property? WTF? It's actually true that American slaves were generally legally forbidden from marrying. This didn't matter, though; marriage was not just not suppressed but actively encouraged by slaveholders. It's not true that American slaves didn't have the right to own property. They did.