Why was Antebellum Southern Slavery Immoral?

[beagle9]

Hmm, it's interesting how you use the animal analogy in your examples, in which sort of suggest that you feel that the slave owners saw these men as property in the same light as they would their animals in which they had purchased for work and other purposes, but I think that you are wrong on this, and that they knew these were men and women just like the illegals today are also seen as men and women in the eyes of their employers, but what they are seen as is very intense laborers who will get the job done under just about any circumstances that they are placed into, and that is what makes them so valuable to these employers/owners of the new and old time periods.

I don't "feel" they saw the slaves as property, that was the ruling by the US Supreme Court, it was law of the land. They weren't merely "valuable" to a cotton plantation, they were "essential" ...as I said, it's how cotton was harvested, there was no other way. To make the analogy with illegal aliens work, you have to make it legal to own illegal aliens as property. That's obviously not the case. If the SCOTUS rules that illegal aliens are property and not people, then you have a valid point.

So the slaves were brought here against their own free will yes we know, otherwise yes of course they were, but what does it matter, because it does not lesson their value as extreme workers to their masters or employers found in either time periods , and this whether they were brought here against their will or swam here across the Rio Grande to perform a similar work task in the fields where as the end results are similar to them if not almost the same. The only difference was the type of work or work load that was expected of them back then and today, and the type of conditions that existed in each time period that surrounded them, and the most important was their treatment either as free men or as slaves at the hands of their masters or their employers during both time periods in which we have mentioned.

If you can't acknowledge the difference between slavery and voluntarily coming to work, I don't know what to say. If you don't see a difference between a master who owns you as property, and an employer who pays you a wage, I don't know what to say. You just have some bizarre understandings, and I can't do anything with that. There is also the matter of something that was legal and upheld by SCOTUS and something that is illegal and not permitted by law. Huge major difference there.



The laws weren't being revamped. Every challenge to the law, slavery was upheld by the SCOTUS. This is another misconception, people think the South rebellious over not wanting to give up slavery. It was never an ultimatum, as I said, the court continued to side with the plantation owners, and upheld slavery. The South was not fighting to keep slavery against the will of the United States, the government was trying to get around the courts by adding enough "free state" votes to outlaw slavery, that was the plan. Southern plantation owners, who had the SCOTUS on their side, saw they were about to be royally fucked by government, and they rebelled.

I've often said, the Civil War could have been averted if Congress, at any point, had simply voted to outlaw slavery in the US and make it illegal. They didn't do that, instead, the SCOTUS continued to side with the plantation owners, and deem them property. Every president up to and including Lincoln, allowed slavery to exist, never campaigned against it, never promised to end it. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the Southern states, which he technically had no jurisdiction, since they had declared independence. It wasn't until AFTER the Civil War, and passage/ratification of the 13th and 14th Amendments, that slavery was ended in the US.

But slavery wasn't really about economics. There was no other way for cotton to get harvested, other than to be picked by human hands. It wasn't until the cotton gin, there was another actual way to harvest cotton, then it was a matter of economics, plantation owners couldn't justify the increased cost when they had perfectly good (legal) slaves to do the work. You can get upset and say it was about the economics of cotton, but you need to understand that every country has to produce something of value for the world, or it can't survive. I mean.... I would just love to live in a non-capitalist universe, where all of our desires are met, and needs taken care of, and no one ever has to work too hard or produce anything... but that is a utopian fantasy that isn't ever going to happen.

Did you just contradict yourself here, but didn't realize it ?

Uhm.. no, I don't think so. Slavery didn't exist because of economics, it existed because there wasn't another way to get cotton out of the fields. If there had been another way to do it at the time of our nation's inception, I'm quite sure Hamilton and Adams would have insisted we do that instead of slavery, and it would have never been allowed in America. It wasn't about economics, it was about doing what you had to do to harvest cotton.

Now, I supposed that you could argue our economics were tied to cotton, because it did pay for pretty much everything we did as a nation, and we couldn't have survived without it. But again, this wasn't something that was only realized by cotton plantation owners, a LOT of people were making money from cotton trade. This is why Congress never was able to get rid of it, and ONLY got rid of it after the Civil War, when the Southern states were essentially disenfranchised.

The illegals and the slaves are similar in many ways, but yes you are right that there is the slavery issue that came 1st (forced labor), otherwise as opposed to the barley getting paid for ones labor under illegal status and those sorts of conditions (almost forced) in which does barely separate the two peoples/issues of these two time periods, in which are still held in the eyes of those whom have worked them in these ways the same, and just as they are being compared to in some degree here as they should be. We have to learn these things in order to keep from repeating history to some and/or to any degree of the wrong in which was what some would call the norm, when it was no where near being normal at all in either of these cases.

 

[Boss]

The illegals and the slaves are similar in many ways, but yes you are right that there is the slavery issue that came 1st (forced labor), otherwise as opposed to the barley getting paid for ones labor under illegal status and those sorts of conditions (almost forced) in which does barely separate the two peoples/issues of these two time periods, in which are still held in the eyes of those whom have worked them in these ways the same, and just as they are being compared to in some degree here as they should be. We have to learn these things in order to keep from repeating history to some and/or to any degree of the wrong in which was what some would call the norm, when it was no where near being normal at all in either of these cases.

The illegals and slaves are NOT similar in any way, and I've explained how they are quite different. Illegals are not being "almost forced" they come of their own volition, and are free to leave anytime they please. Do capitalists sometimes exploit people's situations to their advantage? Sure! But that's a completely different argument.

You perception of slavery is all wrong, you seem to think that plantation owners were taking advantage of their slaves, but they were taking advantage of the law and the property they rightfully owned according to the court. If you get in your car and drive to Florida, are you taking advantage of your car, or are you using your car for it's legitimate purpose? What if I think you're taking advantage of your car, and want to prevent you from doing that? Do I have any right to tell you how to use your property?

You have to remember, slavery wasn't "wrong" according to the law and the court. It had been upheld and endorsed for 86 years, more, if you count the colonial period. Now, you can say the US was wrong in allowing slavery to exist, something should have been done long before the Civil War, but it wasn't. This can't be blamed on the South, or plantation owners who were following the law.

 

[hoosier88]

...

...

Silly generalizations. Plantation owners knew that slavery was ending. They were naive enough to believe that they could leave the United States peacefully and end slavery gradually through manumission.

Bottom line is that the North invaded the South and did its level best to turn the former CSA into a vassal state. It largely succeeded. There was not a Southern-owned bank in the South until 1920. Ex-Confederates were not franchised to vote.

If you want to understand the roots of the Civil War, start with the conflict between Burr and Hamilton.

I understand the issues tolerably well. I recommend Dominion of Memories: Jefferson, Madison & the Decline of VA - Susan Dunn - Basic Books, 2007. For decades, the Commonwealth of Virginia led the nation. The premier state in population, size, and wealth, it produced a galaxy of leaders: Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Mason, Marshall. Four of the first five presidents were Virginians. And yet by the middle of the nineteenth century, Virginia had become a byword for slavery, provincialism, and poverty. What happened?

In her remarkable book, Dominion of Memories, historian Susan Dunn reveals the little known story of the decline of the Old Dominion. While the North rapidly industrialized and democratized, Virginia's leaders turned their backs on the accelerating modern world. Spellbound by the myth of aristocratic, gracious plantation life, they waged an impossible battle against progress and time itself.

In their last years, two of Virginia's greatest sons, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, grappled vigorously with the Old Dominion's plight. But bound to the traditions of their native soil, they found themselves grievously torn by the competing claims of state and nation, slavery and equality, the agrarian vision and the promises of economic development and prosperity.

 

[Unkotare]

The illegals and the slaves are similar in many ways, .

No, they are not.

 

[beagle9]

The illegals and the slaves are similar in many ways, .

No, they are not.

Yes they are, it's only that one had chains and the other has invisible chains, but both struggles have the same affect on the individual in the end. They both end up bitter and mad because they were seen and treated as low class citizens (taking out the trash for those whom they probably felt didn't deserve the trash being taken out for them), but there they were either being forced or invisibly coerced to do what they had to do anyway, only the slaves were even treated as worse than that.

Anytime we allow or engage in working people in ways that demean them as human beings, it is the same result and consequences in the end, but only in different degree's is all.

 

[beagle9]

The illegals and the slaves are similar in many ways, but yes you are right that there is the slavery issue that came 1st (forced labor), otherwise as opposed to the barley getting paid for ones labor under illegal status and those sorts of conditions (almost forced) in which does barely separate the two peoples/issues of these two time periods, in which are still held in the eyes of those whom have worked them in these ways the same, and just as they are being compared to in some degree here as they should be. We have to learn these things in order to keep from repeating history to some and/or to any degree of the wrong in which was what some would call the norm, when it was no where near being normal at all in either of these cases.

The illegals and slaves are NOT similar in any way, and I've explained how they are quite different. Illegals are not being "almost forced" they come of their own volition, and are free to leave anytime they please. Do capitalists sometimes exploit people's situations to their advantage? Sure! But that's a completely different argument.

You perception of slavery is all wrong, you seem to think that plantation owners were taking advantage of their slaves, but they were taking advantage of the law and the property they rightfully owned according to the court. If you get in your car and drive to Florida, are you taking advantage of your car, or are you using your car for it's legitimate purpose? What if I think you're taking advantage of your car, and want to prevent you from doing that? Do I have any right to tell you how to use your property?

You have to remember, slavery wasn't "wrong" according to the law and the court. It had been upheld and endorsed for 86 years, more, if you count the colonial period. Now, you can say the US was wrong in allowing slavery to exist, something should have been done long before the Civil War, but it wasn't. This can't be blamed on the South, or plantation owners who were following the law.

No, not saying that plantation owners were taking advantage of their slaves, even though some may have abused them as they did, but what I am saying is that it makes more sense that it is more of an economic situation in which they faced in that time concerning these huge plantations, where as no one was giving them a good enough or workable alternative that to replace their labor in the fields, in which they had conditioned for that labored task with no easy solutions to it, because they couldn't imagine that a man would do such a seriously hard labored task as free men, and so I think that this is partly what the great resistance of it all was, and why they fought against the freeing of the slaves in that time period the way that they did in the south. The north was able to get rid of it easier, because they didn't grow these crops as the south did, and they didn't have literally thousands of acres to harvest by hand either.

 

[Boss]

Yes they are, it's only that one had chains and the other has invisible chains, but both struggles have the same affect on the individual in the end. They both end up bitter and mad because they were seen and treated as low class citizens (taking out the trash for those whom they probably felt didn't deserve the trash being taken out for them), but there they were either being forced or invisibly coerced to do what they had to do anyway, only the slaves were even treated as worse than that.

Anytime we allow or engage in working people in ways that demean them as human beings, it is the same result and consequences in the end, but only in different degree's is all.

Invisibly coerced? That's a new one!

Illegals come here from Mexico of their own free will, no one is making them do it, and they certainly don't have to stay. In fact, there are great many Americans who think they should go! Others think, if we can't make them go, we should at least make them pay taxes, because right now, they contribute nothing to their communities or state.

You say only the slaves were treated worse, and again, I strongly disagree. Aside from the obvious fact they have a choice to leave and go back anytime they want to, yet they continue to flood across our border, they are given free emergency medical care, education for their kids, hell... citizenship for their kids! Let's talk about a few examples which are markedly worse... Like the indigenous peoples, who we call "Native Americans," but who were here long before America or European settlers. These people had their lands STOLEN, were given smallpox, then they were marched to their deaths on the Trail of Tears, where we stuck them in what amounts to a concentration camp, to live out their days. This, after killing tens of millions of their ancestors. In my opinion, their story is even worse than the slaves.

Then, we can also talk about the Chinese immigrants who built the railroad. Or the Irish immigrants, or the Italian and German immigrants, and how they were discriminated against for years in society. So we have to go WAY down the list before we get to the "deplorable treatment" of people who are breaking our law to come here illegally, of their own free will.

You are trying to connect slavery and illegal immigration, by drawing a correlation to 'greedy capitalism', which is simply a Marxist meme and has recently become popular among Socialist morons. It's a topic that warrants it's own debate, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the issues of slavery or illegal immigration.

 

[JoeBlam]

Invisibly coerced? That's a new one!

Illegals come here from Mexico of their own free will, no one is making them do it, and they certainly don't have to stay. In fact, there are great many Americans who think they should go! Others think, if we can't make them go, we should at least make them pay taxes, because right now, they contribute nothing to their communities or state.

You say only the slaves were treated worse, and again, I strongly disagree. Aside from the obvious fact they have a choice to leave and go back anytime they want to, yet they continue to flood across our border, they are given free emergency medical care, education for their kids, hell... citizenship for their kids! Let's talk about a few examples which are markedly worse... Like the indigenous peoples, who we call "Native Americans," but who were here long before America or European settlers. These people had their lands STOLEN, were given smallpox, then they were marched to their deaths on the Trail of Tears, where we stuck them in what amounts to a concentration camp, to live out their days. This, after killing tens of millions of their ancestors. In my opinion, their story is even worse than the slaves.

Then, we can also talk about the Chinese immigrants who built the railroad. Or the Irish immigrants, or the Italian and German immigrants, and how they were discriminated against for years in society. So we have to go WAY down the list before we get to the "deplorable treatment" of people who are breaking our law to come here illegally, of their own free will.

You are trying to connect slavery and illegal immigration, by drawing a correlation to 'greedy capitalism', which is simply a Marxist meme and has recently become popular among Socialist morons. It's a topic that warrants it's own debate, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the issues of slavery or illegal immigration.

You're missing the boat on the illegals comparison. We in Arizona read daily of the abuses the illegals suffer at the hands of their coyotes in the crossing and after. If the coyotes feel they can get more money out of these folks, they hold them hostage for ransom. Then when released, these people are at the mercy of their friends or relatives already here. They have nothing left at this point...no money, few possessions, and in fear of being deported by anybody at odds with them. True, they aren't legally "owned" by anybody, but they are not in control of their destiny should those they trust betray them.

 

[JoeBlam]

OP something...let's see what ya got, boy.

Well Popeye? Have you bothered to look yet? Or did you freeze up in your kitty-cat stance and can't reach your 'Life Alert' button?

I'm 65, squirt....and could easily slap your eyebrows off for a laugh, so enough of the "old" insults.....you'll be lucky to make it this far given you're already a weakling "poseur" whatever the hell that means.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Understanding the past in its own context is one thing. Understanding what "morality" means is another.

You really do not think the two entwined?.

Not if you understand what "morality" means.

I know what morality means, and every moral system accounts for circumstances and contingencies. David was not condemned for eating the Holy Bread stored for the priests because he was starving. The man whose jack ass falls into a ditch is not condemned for pulling it out of a ditch on the Sabath. A person is not held accountable for violating a morality system he does not ascribe to or is not aware of.

The law is made for mankind, not mankind made for the law.

 

[Boss]

No, not saying that plantation owners were taking advantage of their slaves, even though some may have abused them as they did, but what I am saying is that it makes more sense that it is more of an economic situation in which they faced in that time concerning these huge plantations, where as no one was giving them a good enough or workable alternative that to replace their labor in the fields, in which they had conditioned for that labored task with no easy solutions to it, because they couldn't imagine that a man would do such a seriously hard labored task as free men, and so I think that this is partly what the great resistance of it all was, and why they fought against the freeing of the slaves in that time period the way that they did in the south. The north was able to get rid of it easier, because they didn't grow these crops as the south did, and they didn't have literally thousands of acres to harvest by hand either.

You're missing a few key points. There was no alternative, it had nothing to do with no one giving them one that was workable, there wasn't one. The only method by which cotton could be harvested, was by human hands. In that time, slaves were used for this. Doesn't make it "right" it's just how things were. If you were going to produce cotton in large quantity, you had to rely on slave labor. No other option existed. If you tried to pay workers to pick cotton, it would have been too expensive for anyone to afford. Now, after the technology had been developed to do this job more efficiently and without as much human labor, there was another option and this is eventually where we would turn. But we're talking about the origins of slavery in America, and how it came to be.

You're correct about it being easier to get rid of slavery up north, but contrary to what some idiots think, it wasn't because the north was less racist or more sympathetic with the slaves, it was because cotton didn't grow up north. If cotton was favorable to colder climates, there would have been just as many cotton plantations in the north, and slaves would have picked it, because that's how you harvested cotton. It's also how you harvested tobacco and sugar cane, which also didn't grow well up north. The northern states were full of textile factories and industry, which used the cotton, tobacco, and sugar cane, harvested by slaves. The northern east coast, was full of shipping yards, which made their fortunes exporting cotton, tobacco and sugar cane. All of it was what drove our economy as a nation and paid for everything we did, including fighting for our independence and defending it several times.

 

[Boss]

You're missing the boat on the illegals comparison. We in Arizona read daily of the abuses the illegals suffer at the hands of their coyotes in the crossing and after. If the coyotes feel they can get more money out of these folks, they hold them hostage for ransom. Then when released, these people are at the mercy of their friends or relatives already here. They have nothing left at this point...no money, few possessions, and in fear of being deported by anybody at odds with them. True, they aren't legally "owned" by anybody, but they are not in control of their destiny should those they trust betray them.

I'm sorry, I can't work up a whole lot of sympathy for criminals who are breaking our laws. You want to talk about a betrayal of trust? How about what Andrew Jackson did to the Native Americans? How about the countless treaties the US reneged on and outright ignored? How about the sheer GENOCIDE committed on these people? There were more than 30 million indigenous people in the US, when the first settlers came... where did they go? By 1890, there were less than 500,000.

 

[JoeBlam]

You're missing the boat on the illegals comparison. We in Arizona read daily of the abuses the illegals suffer at the hands of their coyotes in the crossing and after. If the coyotes feel they can get more money out of these folks, they hold them hostage for ransom. Then when released, these people are at the mercy of their friends or relatives already here. They have nothing left at this point...no money, few possessions, and in fear of being deported by anybody at odds with them. True, they aren't legally "owned" by anybody, but they are not in control of their destiny should those they trust betray them.

I'm sorry, I can't work up a whole lot of sympathy for criminals who are breaking our laws. You want to talk about a betrayal of trust? How about what Andrew Jackson did to the Native Americans? How about the countless treaties the US reneged on and outright ignored? How about the sheer GENOCIDE committed on these people? There were more than 30 million indigenous people in the US, when the first settlers came... where did they go? By 1890, there were less than 500,000.

I'm not talking about sympathy, I'm talking about understanding. I want the borders sealed and the "la raza" loudmouths sent home, by force when necessary. But understand these people for the most part are victims of NAFTA.....it destroyed the mexican farmers and left them without a means to make a living. The middle-class mexicans aren't walking out into the Sonoran Desert to make a better life for themselves....these people are primatives...more indian than spanish....you see them stare at the first blond American they see like monkeys looking at a basketball.....they had no idea what awaited them here.

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

It wasn't immoral at the time. Not any more than historical slavery was ever immoral.

Slavery was on its way out at the time of the civil war. There was no way it could have lasted more than a few more years at best.

Man's inhumanity to man has been commonplace often during our history. But just because it is commonplace doesn't make it moral. And deep down, everybody knows it, even during the times when that inhumanity is the norm. It's still immoral.

There may be local behaviors that are accepted, but morality is really a more universal thing.

A good example is Muslims in the Middle East, who think it perfectly okay and absolutely moral to bury a woman to her chest in the sand and then stone her to death because she flirted with a man (who, by the way, flirted with her first). It is not moral, it is not okay, and we all know it isn't okay just because in their twisted culture at this time in history they think it is okay.

The climate of Nazi Germany is another good example. Entire countries can be immoral. The prevalence and acceptance of immoral behavior does not make it moral.

 

[Boss]

It wasn't immoral at the time. Not any more than historical slavery was ever immoral.

Slavery was on its way out at the time of the civil war. There was no way it could have lasted more than a few more years at best.

Man's inhumanity to man has been commonplace often during our history. But just because it is commonplace doesn't make it moral. And deep down, everybody knows it, even during the times when that inhumanity is the norm. It's still immoral.

There may be local behaviors that are accepted, but morality is really a more universal thing.

A good example is Muslims in the Middle East, who think it perfectly okay and absolutely moral to bury a woman to her chest in the sand and then stone her to death because she flirted with a man (who, by the way, flirted with her first). It is not moral, it is not okay, and we all know it isn't okay just because in their twisted culture at this time in history they think it is okay.

The climate of Nazi Germany is another good example. Entire countries can be immoral. The prevalence and acceptance of immoral behavior does not make it moral.

Another current example in this country, is abortion.

 

[ErikViking]

Both Boss and Kooshdakha:
No, I don't belive in universal morality stretching over time- and cultural patterns.
If I did, I would have to accept humanity today as a result of a long range of immoral actions.

 

[Boss]

Both Boss and Kooshdakha:
No, I don't belive in universal morality stretching over time- and cultural patterns.
If I did, I would have to accept humanity today as a result of a long range of immoral actions.

There are things man has done that are completely immoral, and things man has done that are completely moral. But there are also things done in the name of morality that are immoral. We're a mixed bag.

What is stunning to me, is the lack of context when examining history. We assume that because we recognize something as "immoral" today, it was recognized as such in the past, or should have been. We seem to forget that man often justifies immorality. Such was the case with slavery in the 1800s, such is the case with abortion today.

 

[ErikViking]

Well, I know what you mean, satisfied with that. The subject could easily be disscussed further...

 

[Unkotare]

Both Boss and Kooshdakha:
No, I don't belive in universal morality stretching over time- and cultural patterns..

Then you don't understand what the term means - as I've told you many times now. You can profess any 'belief' you want, but you cannot change the meaning of the term.

 

[Unkotare]

OP something...let's see what ya got, boy.

Well Popeye? Have you bothered to look yet? Or did you freeze up in your kitty-cat stance and can't reach your 'Life Alert' button?

I'm 65, squirt....and could easily slap your eyebrows off for a laugh

So you can hold yourself up on your walker with just one hand? Impressive! Your nurse must be making sure you get plenty of calcium along with your Jell-O. Now go take a nap, you old clown.