You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →


[–] 8457191? 1 points 48 points (+49|-1) ago 

I googled why these idiots think this is false. It's predicated on the fact that indentured servitude is different from slavery. And thats just patently false. In fact, a black man named Anthony Johnson was the man who took a case to the Supreme Court to retain ownership of a black indentured servant permanently, codifying slavery into American case law.


[–] go1dfish 5 points 14 points (+19|-5) ago 

Slavery and indentured servitude differ about as much as slavery and taxation.

That is to say not by much


[–] jobes 3 points 6 points (+9|-3) ago 

I love all that you have done for this site, exposing extreme bias on reddit with ceddit (and its prior incarnation), but why is it that almost every time you have popped up in the last week or so you are just adamant about pushing your "taxation is theft" ideology into almost every post you make?

I agree with many parts of that, but you're being rather extreme in pushing it into every thread you join. Why the sudden change?


[–] SaneGoatiSwear3 11 points -11 points (+0|-11) ago 

i wonder how much shareblue pays @empress or maybe that's conde nast.


[–] kalby 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

There's what the indentured servant (slave) receives in return for their efforts. If it is greater than what they could otherwise get without the employer (master) then that master should lead. If what a slave can get apart from the employer (master) is greater, then he should escape.

On another also important note. I think more people are here and listening than the upvoats would imply. There's bots downvoting the whole site.


[–] Norm85 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

A pile of shit by any other name still stinks just as bad.


[–] mamwad 17 points -3 points (+14|-17) ago 

It largely depends on your definition of slavery. Black slaves were considered chattel, meaning that they were property. Indentured servants were not property. That's a big difference. If that article equates indentured servitude and chattel slavery, it is false. If it uses a broader definition of slavery without conflating the two, then there's truth to it.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago  (edited ago)



[–] HashTagFU 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

Everybody on voat hates you. Carry on.


[–] Game_Maven 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Hey dunce, you ought to red the thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Section 1. Neither slaver 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. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

It's diction is well chosen so that it's crystal clear in regards to "We do everything bad about slavery, but calling it something different is OK" nonsense was off the table. Your attempt at making distinctions was the first issue anticipated by the law makers who wrote this. They were very right. Now go have an brain aneurysm while you double think the difference between share cropping and the indentured Irish or the Chinese women trafficked into America in the late 1800's.


[–] Tetromino 4 points -3 points (+1|-4) ago 

Slavery was not ended after the US Civil War. Indentured Servitude was. so...