Why was Antebellum Southern Slavery Immoral?

[Unkotare]

What if, tomorrow, the Federal government said: We can no longer tolerate pollution from internal combustion, so we are outlawing the internal combustion engine and demanding that everyone turn over their vehicles to the government to be destroyed? From a purely 'moral' standpoint, they can justify this... .

No, they could not.

 

[Unkotare]

This is shocking and abhorrent to hear today, but that was the prevailing thought in 1860. Save for a few religious leaders who considered them part of humanity and God's creatures, who founded the abolitionist movement.

That is not true.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

We know that from the advent of the Foundation Era citizens of the Republic were struggling with slavery as a moral issue.

Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution refers to ‘free persons’ and ‘three fifths of all other Persons,’ the infamous ‘three fifths compromise.’ This in conjunction with the Framers never referring to slaves or slavery in the Founding Document is compelling evidence that slavery was not only a complex political issue, but a morally troubling one as well.

Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution prohibits Congress from making illegal the importation of slaves until 1808, clearly an acknowledgement as to the inherent evil and immorality of the slave trade, and by extension, slavery.

The euphemism ‘our peculiar institution’ used throughout the first half of the 19th Century was an admission by slaveholders themselves as to the immorality of the practice, as the institution was in conflict with fundamental tenets of individual liberty.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What if, tomorrow, the Federal government said: We can no longer tolerate pollution from internal combustion, so we are outlawing the internal combustion engine and demanding that everyone turn over their vehicles to the government to be destroyed? From a purely 'moral' standpoint, they can justify this... .

No, they could not.

True, the Boss’ is an unsurprisingly ignorant statement.

 

[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?

If you're fishing for something, you need bigger bait. What are you getting at?

I have the impression that what fuels a lot of the racism in our country today is derived from misinformation about what slavery was and what its moral condition was.

When slavery was brought to this country it was practiced in a way familiar to most of the world and that is that the slave was like part of the slave owners extended family, and I think that continued to be the idealized view of it even after the Civil War for some.

But the plantation system dehumanized slaves. This system of 'farming' was developed on Caribbean sugar plantations where slaves were used up like disposable human beings. Life expectance on these plantations was only a few years, and black slaves were the most durable in the tropical conditions. So the preference for black slaves was not based on racial ideology initially. The preference for black slaves was simply due to the ability of some blacks to withstand the extremes of plantation labor.

But once slavery was getting attacked in the early 1800's various ideologues invented systems of thought that dehumanized blacks into an inferior race. Other people that exploited brown populations around the world took up this way of thinking to justify their own mistreatment of their laborers as well.

This is why US Founding Fathers like Jefferson and Washington could be humane slave owners, and many of the later slave owners as well. The evil underbelly of slavery was not so plain to the FF and could be ignored by regional partisans in the South, as partisans are always given to seeing only the virtuousness of their own side and filter out criticisms no matter how valid.

So in short, I think it is a valid position to say that the men of the US who led our nation prior to the Civil War were not as evil as many would like to portray them simply because they tolerated, not at all.

We tolerate or look the other way for many dehumanizing situations and we tolerate a great deal of exploitation today such as with black market labor. So who are we to judge?

 

[JimBowie1958]

What if, tomorrow, the Federal government said: We can no longer tolerate pollution from internal combustion, so we are outlawing the internal combustion engine and demanding that everyone turn over their vehicles to the government to be destroyed? From a purely 'moral' standpoint, they can justify this... .

No, they could not.

True, the Boss’ is an unsurprisingly ignorant statement.

Lol, they only recently decided that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and controllable by the EPA, so Boss does have a point.

The federal government today can do anything it damned well wants and under this President the Left and the media will rush to his defense unless the action was directed at the media itself. Then after a couple of weeks all is forgiven and the press is back to kissing Obama's ass again.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

Republican state rep Jon Hubbarb calls slavery a 'blessing' as Charlie Fuqua advocates deporting all Muslims

Nope, you race-baiting little shit, Hubbard did not ask if slavery was immoral. He simply tried to point out some of the few good things that resulted from it.

But fucktards like you cant accept the idea that there is some good in everything if its something you have ideologically condemned. No, then everything about it must be evil and unacceptable.

So, you failed to quote a conservative asking the question you said conservatives have been asking 'since before the Civil War', even though you dug down to the state representation level of politicians, lol.

You are a pathetic ideological liar and fraud. Thank you for demonstrating that, loser bitch.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Many Americans never thought abortion was fine and acceptable. .

Many Americans never thought slavery was fine and acceptable.

Those Americans were called "Northerners".

And you fucking lie again. Many Northerners owned slaves, like US Grant did, even in the midst of the Civil War you idiots still think was all about slavery.

Will you please shut the fuck up and go away? You bring nothing of any value to this discussion, moron.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The reason so many right wingers approve of slavery is because even Jesus seemed to approve in the New Testament.

(Ephesians 6:5 NLT) Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.

(1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT) Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.


(Luke 12:47-48 NLT) The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given."

The first two quotes were from Paul and not Christ, you fucking idiot.

And all three reflected the law of that time in regard to slavery of that time which was nothing like what slavery became in the industrial age.

Please go play in a street, you lying sack of shit.

 

[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?

We know that from the advent of the Foundation Era citizens of the Republic were struggling with slavery as a moral issue.

Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution refers to ‘free persons’ and ‘three fifths of all other Persons,’ the infamous ‘three fifths compromise.’ This in conjunction with the Framers never referring to slaves or slavery in the Founding Document is compelling evidence that slavery was not only a complex political issue, but a morally troubling one as well.

Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution prohibits Congress from making illegal the importation of slaves until 1808, clearly an acknowledgement as to the inherent evil and immorality of the slave trade, and by extension, slavery.

The euphemism ‘our peculiar institution’ used throughout the first half of the 19th Century was an admission by slaveholders themselves as to the immorality of the practice, as the institution was in conflict with fundamental tenets of individual liberty.

So if ownership of another person is itself immoral, then how do we reconcile that with the idea that our military owns its enlisted members as government property?

With our nation defended by people who are reduced top property, and thus dehumanized to an extent, is that a military culture that is a reflection of the culture of the nation it is defending?

And what about forced labor by convicts? We have one of the largest incarcerated populations in the world, and much of it is under the control of private corporations. Is this a modern form of slavery?

 

[JimBowie1958]

I thought this article about CPAC was very revealing. Some of the most "choice" comments:

After the presenter, K. Carl Smith of Frederick Douglass Republicans, answered by referencing a letter by Frederick Douglass forgiving his former master, the audience member said “For what? For feeding him and housing him?” Several people in the audience cheered and applauded Terry’s outburst.

(I wonder if it's the same people who cheered "let him die" and "education is for snobs"?)

When asked by ThinkProgress if he’d accept a society where African-Americans were permanently subservient to whites, he said “I’d be fine with that.” He also claimed that African-Americans “should be allowed to vote in Africa,” and that “all the Tea Parties” were concerned with the same racial problems that he was.
At one point, a woman challenged him on the Republican Party’s roots, to which Terry responded, “I didn’t know the legacy of the Republican Party included women correcting men in public.”

CPAC Participant Defends Slavery At Minority Outreach Panel: It Gave 'Food And Shelter' To Blacks

The 'audience member' does not represent the GOP by a long shot. In fact it is very plausible he was a libtard plant, talking in a provocative way to effectively discredit GOP minority outreach by merely participating. The dude has no leadership role is unheard of except for this particular incident.

http://www.rhodesnews.com/analysis/...-conservative-racists-to-smear-the-right.html

http://www.examiner.com/article/liberals-caught-posing-as-tea-partiers

That lying ideological partisan hacks like you have to point to random audience members to demonstrate racism in the GOP proves how little their actually is.

Meanwhile we have racist coming out of the Democratic Party all the time, and race baiting fools as well.

But this shake-down game is coming to an end. As the generation that lived in the segregation era dies off the remaining whites have less and less guilt for you libtards to use to keep them silent.

 

[JoeBlam]

Sad old fool in his kitty-cat stance playing make-pretend eye gouge.

Ah here's my pet flea.

You got those racing stripes painted on your walker yet, tough guy?

You in one of your manic episodes again, squirt? Give that sissy dog of yours the diet pills....damn thing is too fat to stand up.

 

[Unkotare]

Ah here's my pet flea.

You got those racing stripes painted on your walker yet, tough guy?

You in one of your manic episodes again, squirt? Give that sissy dog of yours the diet pills....damn thing is too fat to stand up.

Is it difficult for you to go into your kitty-cat stance while holding onto the walker?


As for the dog, have you ever heard of something called 'fur' you senile old poseur?

 

[squeeze berry]

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."

a field had cost more than a good horse, so sure, the slaves were wantonly killed and maimed

 

[squeeze berry]

The immorality was racheted up in the Americas. Old World slavery was the result of war, debt, criminality or religion. In the Americas race became the basis for the slave class and it couldn't be escaped, even if one was nominally a "freedman".

there was only one market where slaves, of any race, could be bought in any numbers.

PS

if buying was immoral, so was selling.

Africa sold to all the world.

Africa, most immoral.

You cited my post but failed to address my point. In the Americas race was added to the equation and became the only reason for enslavement. We're still suffering the consequences of that particular piece of immorality. My point was separate from the overall morality of slavery and posits that slavery in the New World WAS NOT the equivalent of slavery as it had been practiced through the ages.

as a matter of fact I did address your point, but it sailed over your head

 

[JakeStarkey]

JoeBlam, you are an internet wannabee tough guy.

No one cares.

When you can write intelligently on the subject, we can have an adult conversation.

No, I'm as bad a badass as you'll ever run across, Sally. Ask somebody what Echo-Recon and LRRP was all about in the RVN.....you care, otherwise you'd be long gone by now ya weak-suck joke.

You are off track. I was the guy who trained you fools so long ago for Spec Ops and running around in the jungle. We trained FRF as well as the Lurps. Bet you washed out.

On track. When you can demonstrate that you understand "America" and "19th Century" and "morality" and "slavery", we can talk.

 

[JoeBlam]

JoeBlam, you are an internet wannabee tough guy.

No one cares.

When you can write intelligently on the subject, we can have an adult conversation.

No, I'm as bad a badass as you'll ever run across, Sally. Ask somebody what Echo-Recon and LRRP was all about in the RVN.....you care, otherwise you'd be long gone by now ya weak-suck joke.

You are off track. I was the guy who trained you fools so long ago for Spec Ops and running around in the jungle. We trained FRF as well as the Lurps. Bet you washed out.

So, now instead of an "internet wannabe tough guy" I'm one of your students? Now you've stepped in it....I'm 1/7 AC/AM, Benning, Polk for AIT, back to Benning for Echo Recon (11F40) deployed to RVN 10-67, MACV RECONDO Nha Trang 3-68, 17 insertions/extractions to 10-68. Maybe you'd like to tell me which outfit you were in that trained me.

 

[ErikViking]

I must apologize for almost keeping the thread on topic.

But, how can we place a moral verdict on historical events? Or how can we not?

Post got me thinking:

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

Is it that easy?

As well as I don't like to call an Aztec preiest immoral just for cutting a living mans heart out, I DO want to call the execution of an innocent civilian in a ditch in Poland -42 immoral.

 

[JoeBlam]

It probably should be mentioned here that an African fresh off a slave ship wasn't somebody a genteel southerner would even consider human. Somebody spoke to the "uncouth" south earlier but quite the opposite is true....compared to the northern states outside of Massachusetts, what became the Confederate states were far ahead culturally. However once the slave was brought to the farm, the owner began to see his property as not only human, but often trusted to come inside the house as a domestic. Were they still property? Yes they were, but many hundreds were given their freedom in time and stayed on to work for wages.

My brother is more versed on the aftermath of the Civil War than I am because he grew up in the Antebellum south, while, according to my brother ("Roadrunner"), I was stolen by gypsies and dragged up to Michigan where my pop found me and bought me from them. (Okay, that part you must take with a grain of salt although don't ever call my brother a liar or he will hound you until you go berserk). All I know is the stories about the slaves' treatment on the plantations were quite different than has been portrayed in American literature. Southern writers have never been given the chance to refute these lies because they must exist in a world controlled by Yankees to this day. I abhor slavery but I feel no shame my family once engaged in it...it was a way of life then and should be seen in that context.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, I'm as bad a badass as you'll ever run across, Sally. Ask somebody what Echo-Recon and LRRP was all about in the RVN.....you care, otherwise you'd be long gone by now ya weak-suck joke.

You are off track. I was the guy who trained you fools so long ago for Spec Ops and running around in the jungle. We trained FRF as well as the Lurps. Bet you washed out.

So, now instead of an "internet wannabe tough guy" I'm one of your students? Now you've stepped in it....I'm 1/7 AC/AM, Benning, Polk for AIT, back to Benning for Echo Recon (11F40) deployed to RVN 10-67, MACV RECONDO Nha Trang 3-68, 17 insertions/extractions to 10-68. Maybe you'd like to tell me which outfit you were in that trained me.

You are the internet wannabee tough guy, not me.

If you are who you say you are, you would have trained at Nha Trang (Special Forces) before it was closed in December 1967 and became a member of Echo Fifty First. If you are real you may trained other volunteers at company recondo school.