Why was Antebellum Southern Slavery Immoral?

[jwoodie]

I know why I believe it was, but I would like to compare notes.

Why was the slavery of the pre-Civil War Southern US immoral?

Your question invites a distinction between African slavery in the U.S. and slavery in general, which existed in most parts of world for millennia. It should also be noted that this type of slavery was a British invention which was inherited by the United States after its independence. The continuation of British slavery in the Caribbean was, if anything, even less humane than conditions in the Southern States.

That being said, U.S. slavery was especially pernicious in that slaves were often treated worse than animals: They could be worked to death and sexually molested without any moral implications whatsoever. This obvious contradiction was deliberately ignored by many people who otherwise claimed to be "good Christians."

 

[JakeStarkey]

JoeBlam clearly needs to read up on slave plantation life and violence against slaves, particularly against slave women.

If you direct it at me, address it to me, sonny. You have no idea what you don't know about the subject. It's easy to demonize a way of life 150 years later...PBS continues bringing out new crapumentaries to infuriate blacks and heap a load of self-loathing on easily duped whites like yourself....

The reply of the poster clearly reveals he has no idea of what is being discussed. Once he clearly has educated himself on the issue, then the literate board members will pay attention without laughing. But nonsense now is simply boring: another far right reactionary who knows nothing of the subject except he doesn't like it.

The bubba does not get that no one cares.

 

[Osomir]

Since that's impossible, the question is irrelevent. By its very nature, slavery is inefficient.

I'm an economist as well, and I think I might disagree with this statement. I suppose from a utilitarian point of view the negative externalities suffered from slavery in the form of the suffering and loss of freedom that slaves suffer might in util terms may negate the positive production that slave labor generates, but economically speaking in terms of the specific market: who cares? Slaves aren't counted in it, and not everyone is concerned with maximizing social utility.

 

[pinqy]

Since that's impossible, the question is irrelevent. By its very nature, slavery is inefficient.

I'm an economist as well, and I think I might disagree with this statement. I suppose from a utilitarian point of view the negative externalities suffered from slavery in the form of the suffering and loss of freedom that slaves suffer might in util terms may negate the positive production that slave labor generates, but economically speaking in terms of the specific market: who cares? Slaves aren't counted in it, and not everyone is concerned with maximizing social utility.

I wasn't addressing social utility at all...just higher total cost for a slave and lower productivity.Unit cost of labor for a slave will be higher than a wage employee.

 

[Boss]

It wasn't immoral at the time.

Of course it was. Just because it was legal didn't make it moral.

It is essentially wrong for one human being to own another.

We have to try and understand context of the times when evaluating the morality. For instance, today, abortion is perfectly legal and some people don't consider it immoral at all, it's a woman's right to choose. Still, it is immoral to take the life of a human being, we all know that. Now, imagine if abortion somehow produced our #1 export? Yeah, that's a weird thought, but stick with it... would there be a whole lot more people who simply ignored the immorality and excused it because it was legal? This is the situation we had with slavery. It was always immoral and wrong, we just didn't view it as such, for a variety of reasons.

Yes, it's wrong to enslave humans... but African slaves were not considered humans. We apply our modern thinking and understanding, and can't see how people thought it was alright or justified it. We also ignore the economics and how people often excuse immoral behavior for the sake of the almighty dollar.

Slavery (like abortion) was a perfectly acceptable and legal practice. It wasn't made that way by the South or Southerners, it wasn't done by the CSA, it was done by the Founding Fathers who failed to outlaw it, and every President and Congress up to and including Lincoln, who failed to do away with it. If the day and time comes, where we finally outlaw abortion, will revisionists view women's rights advocates like the slave owners? Will all the blame and guilt be heaped upon them in condemnation? Will we run around pretending that it was obviously always wrong, and there were just people who were monsters and didn't care?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Many Americans never thought slavery was fine and acceptable. To suggest otherwise is to apply a standard that did not exist in Slave America. And slave owners are not the equivalent of women who have abortions today any more than when women had abortions in Slave America. That is revisionism of the worst sort.

 

[hoosier88]

I know why I believe it was, but I would like to compare notes.

Why was the slavery of the pre-Civil War Southern US immoral?

...

The victors write the history books, so we are taught the CW was fought over slavery and Lincoln freed the slaves. Generally, liberal teachers like to juxtapose the plight of the abolitionist movement, with the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. As if the prevailing mindsets were the same. It was a completely different time, and the abolitionists of 1860s had more in common with modern-day animal rights activists than anything approaching Civil Rights.

(My bold)

Well, Prexy Lincoln confiscated the slaves, in those states which were in rebellion against the Union @ the time of the Emancipation Proclamation (politics - there were border states that sided with the Union but still allowed slavery. Lincoln didn't want to alienate those states.)

The US danced around with the issue of slavery from the Constitution on. The 3/5 compromise kept the states of the deep South in support of a strong federal government - I think the States' Rights argument died with the Articles of Confederation - which produced too weak a central government - which is indeed one of the principal reasons that the Confederacy failed in the war.

 

[9thIDdoc]

I would be surprised if slaves were actually abused more than other poor people such as sharecroppers, the women and children that worked in Northern factories, coal miners, and railway gangs come to mind. Slaves were considered property and required considerable financial investment and maintenance not required by other workers. You don't abuse the tools required to earn a living unless you're an idiot.

 

[Osomir]

Since that's impossible, the question is irrelevent. By its very nature, slavery is inefficient.

I'm an economist as well, and I think I might disagree with this statement. I suppose from a utilitarian point of view the negative externalities suffered from slavery in the form of the suffering and loss of freedom that slaves suffer might in util terms may negate the positive production that slave labor generates, but economically speaking in terms of the specific market: who cares? Slaves aren't counted in it, and not everyone is concerned with maximizing social utility.

I wasn't addressing social utility at all...just higher total cost for a slave and lower productivity.Unit cost of labor for a slave will be higher than a wage employee.

That seems to rest on the assumption that all slaves cost the same. It also depends on the scale in which slavery is utilized. You can eventually spread costs out over greater levels of labor units to make them quite significantly cheaper than paid labor.

 

[rdean]

I know why I believe it was, but I would like to compare notes.

Why was the slavery of the pre-Civil War Southern US immoral?

A question conservatives have been asking since before the Civil War.

 

[JoeBlam]

That was J. Edgar Suckermaster, dumbass.

AT the direction of the Attorney General aka RFK....dumbass.

So "Mr. Kennedy" refers to RFK? Bobby sent himself after Giancana?
Could he have refused his own order then? Or would he have asked himself for his own resignation?



As to the "why", there is a backstory, and it's got nothing in the world to do with "freeing slaves".

Damn, that's the weakest dodge outta you yet....playing possum is normal for a mealy-mouthed lib so don't think you're anything special.

 

[JoeBlam]

The reply of the poster clearly reveals he has no idea of what is being discussed. Once he clearly has educated himself on the issue, then the literate board members will pay attention without laughing. But nonsense now is simply boring: another far right reactionary who knows nothing of the subject except he doesn't like it.

The bubba does not get that no one cares.

Pull the stick outta your ass fool.....if you could read you'd already know there was a cotton plantation on my father's side of the line....I believe I'll accept anecdotal accounts of life on that farm over some tight-assed yankee putz with an agenda. And my name ain't bubba either, Sally.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The reply of the poster clearly reveals he has no idea of what is being discussed. Once he clearly has educated himself on the issue, then the literate board members will pay attention without laughing. But nonsense now is simply boring: another far right reactionary who knows nothing of the subject except he doesn't like it.

The bubba does not get that no one cares.

Pull the stick outta your ass fool.....if you could read you'd already know there was a cotton plantation on my father's side of the line....I believe I'll accept anecdotal accounts of life on that farm over some tight-assed yankee putz with an agenda. And my name ain't bubba either, Sally.

We had several slave owners in our lines as well, with same exculpatory anecdotal nonsense that "it wasn't all the bad, we treated our 'darkies' well, and blah blah blah."

When you do the requisite studying, reading, and reflecting, we can talk sensibly.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Just a thought here... How hard do you think a slave will work for his child not to be beaten?

Only a rented mule gets beaten. My great-great-grandfather owned a cotton plantation. After emancipation, his slaves stayed on for a wage and took the family name as their own. The only slaves who were mistreated were the ones fomenting trouble and trying to escape and the beating was usually done by the overseer, not the owner. They didn't have a good life by any means, but they weren't under the lash like northern history portrays. Those on plantations destroyed during the war were left destitute and lost. Lincoln might well have considered shipping them all back to the dark continent as a do-over. Think what a different country we'd be if he had.

The "dark continent"? WTF is the "dark continent"?

Lincoln did consider that. He was a supporter of the ACS - the movement that created Liberia.

"Dark continent"? Don't they get sunlight?

Due to poor roadways, more effectively resistant tribes, and disease, Africa was the least mapped by Europeans, thus the 'dark' continent. Had nothing to do with the race of people there. In the same way the 'dark' ages were described so because there was little history recorded during that time. The sun still shown in France the whole time.

 

[JakeStarkey]

JimBowie got it right for the first time in a long time. Good for him.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I know why I believe it was, but I would like to compare notes.

Why was the slavery of the pre-Civil War Southern US immoral?

A question conservatives have been asking since before the Civil War.

OK, then show me a publicly recognized conservative who holds office that has raised this question even once since 2000.

 

[Pogo]

Only a rented mule gets beaten. My great-great-grandfather owned a cotton plantation. After emancipation, his slaves stayed on for a wage and took the family name as their own. The only slaves who were mistreated were the ones fomenting trouble and trying to escape and the beating was usually done by the overseer, not the owner. They didn't have a good life by any means, but they weren't under the lash like northern history portrays. Those on plantations destroyed during the war were left destitute and lost. Lincoln might well have considered shipping them all back to the dark continent as a do-over. Think what a different country we'd be if he had.

The "dark continent"? WTF is the "dark continent"?

Lincoln did consider that. He was a supporter of the ACS - the movement that created Liberia.

"Dark continent"? Don't they get sunlight?

Due to poor roadways, more effectively resistant tribes, and disease, Africa was the least mapped by Europeans, thus the 'dark' continent. Had nothing to do with the race of people there. In the same way the 'dark' ages were described so because there was little history recorded during that time. The sun still shown in France the whole time.

I'm aware of the derivation, nor did I say it had anything to do with race. What I'm questioning is what century Blam-Blam lives in since he uses the linguistic archaism.

 

[JoeBlam]

The reply of the poster clearly reveals he has no idea of what is being discussed. Once he clearly has educated himself on the issue, then the literate board members will pay attention without laughing. But nonsense now is simply boring: another far right reactionary who knows nothing of the subject except he doesn't like it.

The bubba does not get that no one cares.

Pull the stick outta your ass fool.....if you could read you'd already know there was a cotton plantation on my father's side of the line....I believe I'll accept anecdotal accounts of life on that farm over some tight-assed yankee putz with an agenda. And my name ain't bubba either, Sally.

We had several slave owners in our lines as well, with same exculpatory anecdotal nonsense that "it wasn't all the bad, we treated our 'darkies' well, and blah blah blah."

When you do the requisite studying, reading, and reflecting, we can talk sensibly.

How about you go fuck yourself instead?

 

[JimBowie1958]

My take on the morality of slavery is a bit different than most here.

The US military owns its enlisted members. They are government property. If you get a tattoo in the military you can be written up on charges for damaging government property. I don't have time to prove it to anyone who can look it up themselves.

The Mamelukes and Janisaries were all slaves and held in high social regard, at times even ruling their respective nations, Egypt and Turkey. So being owned was not necessarily a bad thing at all.

Most slavery prior to the industrial age was more personal and slaves could earn their freedom by paying off debts of one kind or another or by buying themselves freedom if they were in a position to make money, and many did. Slaves had rights under the law in most nations in the Old World, but the new industrialized West changed this.

What made slavery immoral was the industrialization of slavery. Slaves were dehumanized and had no standing in law as they were property and not fully regarded as human beings. As events approached the Civil War, the ideological defense of slavery relied more and more on racism, and the claim that blacks cannot rule themselves and therefore slavery was their best way to live. Slaves could be raped or killed with no repercussions in many places, and many plantations bred slaves like animal stock.

Slavery became a very evil thing in the 19th century, and I think that is why the more backwards areas of the nation, like in the South prior to the Civil War were simply unfamiliar with most of these shenanigans foisted off onto blacks.

But we still have wage slavery and people think it natural to be such.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The "dark continent"? WTF is the "dark continent"?

Lincoln did consider that. He was a supporter of the ACS - the movement that created Liberia.

"Dark continent"? Don't they get sunlight?

Due to poor roadways, more effectively resistant tribes, and disease, Africa was the least mapped by Europeans, thus the 'dark' continent. Had nothing to do with the race of people there. In the same way the 'dark' ages were described so because there was little history recorded during that time. The sun still shown in France the whole time.

I'm aware of the derivation, nor did I say it had anything to do with race. What I'm questioning is what century Blam-Blam lives in since he uses the linguistic archaism.

Well, I have read and heard that phrase used many times, but then again, I am 55 years old.