Why was Antebellum Southern Slavery Immoral?

[Boss]

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.
.

The cognitive dissonance exemplified by putting those two sentences into juxtaposition is quite breath-taking !!

Of course it was about economics.

Has anything of any significance in the Terrorist Founded United States ever been about anything other than economics? !!!!

.

Lord have mercy.... On a macro level, I guess the whole fucking WORLD is about economics! I mean... at some point in time, men were sitting around a caveman fire, thinking.... ya know, wouldn't it be nice if we had a wheel? And then, one of them decided to make them and economics were born. Nations and economies operate on commerce, and this depends on a variety of things, but no civilization can exist without it.

So yes... at a purely MACRO level, it was about economics... The United States had a goldmine in Cotton, they called it King Cotton, and it literally funded every fucking thing the US did, including all the military and public service. It fueled the engine of industry in the North, and was to that era, what Oil is today.

A lot of people didn't want to do anything to mess with the success of cotton, or interrupt the interests they had in play at the time. It wasn't a consideration they wanted to make, especially for the plight of the African slave, they simply didn't give a shit. North or South!

Now in today's perspective, we read that to mean these people cared more about money than human rights, because we recognize the slaves were humans who should have had rights. But in 1860, the law said they were not humans with rights, but property, owned by their masters. This was the law as established by the United States, not the CSA, not The South. So it wasn't about "economics" that the South didn't want to give up slavery. It was 100% principle of the matter for them, the Feds had no business doing what they were doing.

Imagine today, if the Feds decided they wanted to nationalize all the oil wells? Look, we've got all these big greedy oil companies making record profits, and hard working people paying $4 a gallon for gas, and the public isn't really trying to conserve like they should, and our atmosphere keeps being polluted with fossil fuels, so the time has come... the oil is under the ground, it's a resource... the Feds have the "right" to control it! ...Are the people who happen to be involved with Oil, in any way, going to be "for" or "against" this measure? Whaddya think? Would it be about "economics" if they were opposed, or would it be about the principle of the matter?

 

[numan]

Imagine today, if the Feds decided they wanted to nationalize all the oil wells? Look, we've got all these big greedy oil companies making record profits, and hard working people paying $4 a gallon for gas, and the public isn't really trying to conserve like they should, and our atmosphere keeps being polluted with fossil fuels, so the time has come... the oil is under the ground, it's a resource... the Feds have the "right" to control it! ...Are the people who happen to be involved with Oil, in any way, going to be "for" or "against" this measure? Whaddya think? Would it be about "economics" if they were opposed, or would it be about the principle of the matter?

It would be totally about money. It would have nothing to do with principles.

.

 

[Boss]

Imagine today, if the Feds decided they wanted to nationalize all the oil wells? Look, we've got all these big greedy oil companies making record profits, and hard working people paying $4 a gallon for gas, and the public isn't really trying to conserve like they should, and our atmosphere keeps being polluted with fossil fuels, so the time has come... the oil is under the ground, it's a resource... the Feds have the "right" to control it! ...Are the people who happen to be involved with Oil, in any way, going to be "for" or "against" this measure? Whaddya think? Would it be about "economics" if they were opposed, or would it be about the principle of the matter?

It would be totally about money. It would have nothing to do with principles.

.

Well, it would be about money, in that, people had spent money to lease land, build oil rigs and find oil, and they wouldn't be compensated for this cost. It would be about money, in that, people had made investments in businesses and livelihoods around a legal and legitimate activity. But it's the principle of whether or not the Feds have the right to seize property without due cause, pursuant to the 4th Amendment...of course, you Marxists don't really care about the Constitution anyway, so no wonder you don't see the principle of the matter here.

smh

 

[numan]

...Are the people who happen to be involved with Oil, in any way, going to be "for" or "against" this measure? Whaddya think? Would it be about "economics" if they were opposed, or would it be about the principle of the matter?

It would be totally about money. It would have nothing to do with principles.

Well, it would be about money, in that, people had spent money to lease land, build oil rigs and find oil, and they wouldn't be compensated for this cost. It would be about money, in that, people had made investments in businesses and livelihoods around a legal and legitimate activity....

Hooo, boy!! Is that ever fairy-tale economics!!

In the Real World, there is the graft and corruption, the bribing of officials, cheating people out of their land, killing or otherwise destroying the little people who get in the way of the Pashas of Petroleum!! There are the falsifying of records, shmoozing with other rich people, making illegal insider deals, staying on the right side of politicians and judges, giving them sweetheart deals, owning newspapers and TV stations so that you control all the news about your companies, and, of course, paying masters of psychology and propaganda to brainwash simple-minded people into having your absurd notions about the way multinational corporate monopolies operate!!
.

 

[squeeze berry]

Imagine today, if the Feds decided they wanted to nationalize all the oil wells? Look, we've got all these big greedy oil companies making record profits, and hard working people paying $4 a gallon for gas, and the public isn't really trying to conserve like they should, and our atmosphere keeps being polluted with fossil fuels, so the time has come... the oil is under the ground, it's a resource... the Feds have the "right" to control it! ...Are the people who happen to be involved with Oil, in any way, going to be "for" or "against" this measure? Whaddya think? Would it be about "economics" if they were opposed, or would it be about the principle of the matter?

It would be totally about money. It would have nothing to do with principles.

.

or barter

the africans wanted trade goods