Why was Antebellum Southern Slavery Immoral?

[Unkotare]

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, .

Then you don't understand what morality is.

You don't think the context of history matters?
The actions of ancestors should be judged by my own moral?
I mean, it could work, but it will reduce the ability to understand our past, wouldn't it?

Let's say Aztec society believed that a god would destroy humanity if they failed in this sacrifice? They saved a million by killing one?

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

 

[JoeBlam]

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

Yet you write nothing on this subject except to drop your little turds on others' thoughts...you should have to pay to come here ya little twerp.

 

[Unkotare]

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

Yet you write nothing on this subject except to drop your little turds on others' thoughts...you should have to pay to come here ya little twerp.

Go practice your little kitty-cat stance, ya senile old fool.

 

[JoeBlam]

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

Yet you write nothing on this subject except to drop your little turds on others' thoughts...you should have to pay to come here ya little twerp.

Go practice your little kitty-cat stance, ya senile old fool.

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

 

[JoeBlam]

So that's it...you do your little dance and say nothing....

 

[Unkotare]

Go practice your little kitty-cat stance, ya senile old fool.

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

There is a search function, you dopey old sack of dust. Go ask someone to explain it to you and then have fun.

 

[whitehall]

Why specify "southern" slavery? Wasn't northern slavery immoral? Of course antebellum means "before the war" usually the Civil War and the flag that flew from the stern of slave ships wasn't the Confederate stars and bars, it was the Union Jack and later the American flag.

 

[ErikViking]

Then you don't understand what morality is.

You don't think the context of history matters?
The actions of ancestors should be judged by my own moral?
I mean, it could work, but it will reduce the ability to understand our past, wouldn't it?

Let's say Aztec society believed that a god would destroy humanity if they failed in this sacrifice? They saved a million by killing one?

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

"Morality", like it isn't a real word?

In order to make yourself an opinion about a certain event, practice or action you need to understand the context.

So in order to determine if a human at a certain time acted "good" according to his/her ethic code, you will need to know that code.

An historical action we see as good might actually have been immoral. Thus, commited by an immoral person.

What is it you think I don't understand?

 

[whitehall]

As northern states became less dependent on agriculture and more industrialized they gradually abolished the troublesome institution of slavery. The Garden State was the last and in 1846 slavery was abolished but freed slaves became indentured servants for life. In the 1700's the northern colonies were able to make their own laws regarding slaves and in N.J. it was decreed that arson by slaves would be met with appropriate punishment. A slave who set fire to a house in Bergen, NJ was burned at the stake in 1835.

 

[Unkotare]

You don't think the context of history matters?
The actions of ancestors should be judged by my own moral?
I mean, it could work, but it will reduce the ability to understand our past, wouldn't it?

Let's say Aztec society believed that a god would destroy humanity if they failed in this sacrifice? They saved a million by killing one?

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

"Morality", like it isn't a real word?

In order to make yourself an opinion about a certain event, practice or action you need to understand the context.

So in order to determine if a human at a certain time acted "good" according to his/her ethic code, you will need to know that code.

An historical action we see as good might actually have been immoral. Thus, commited by an immoral person.

What is it you think I don't understand?

That entire post proves that you don't understand what it is.

 

[ErikViking]

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

"Morality", like it isn't a real word?

In order to make yourself an opinion about a certain event, practice or action you need to understand the context.

So in order to determine if a human at a certain time acted "good" according to his/her ethic code, you will need to know that code.

An historical action we see as good might actually have been immoral. Thus, commited by an immoral person.

What is it you think I don't understand?

That entire post proves that you don't understand what it is.

Fun diiscussing "Morality" with you, "thanks".

 

[Unkotare]

"Morality", like it isn't a real word?

In order to make yourself an opinion about a certain event, practice or action you need to understand the context.

So in order to determine if a human at a certain time acted "good" according to his/her ethic code, you will need to know that code.

An historical action we see as good might actually have been immoral. Thus, commited by an immoral person.

What is it you think I don't understand?

That entire post proves that you don't understand what it is.

Fun diiscussing "Morality" with you, "thanks".

Not really "fun" considering you have no idea what it means.

 

[JoeBlam]

That entire post proves that you don't understand what it is.

Fun diiscussing "Morality" with you, "thanks".

Not really "fun" considering you have no idea what it means.

The one-sentence-wonder strikes again.....try some Midol for your cramps.

 

[whitehall]

The horrible institution of slavery existed for about two hundred years in the Colonies and later the US and the Northern states get a pass because they outlawed it about twenty years before the Emancipation Proclamation. Meanwhile generations of bigots have assumed (or been taught) that it was all about the South.

 

[Unkotare]

Fun diiscussing "Morality" with you, "thanks".

Not really "fun" considering you have no idea what it means.

The one-sentence-wonder strikes again.....try some Midol for your cramps.

What happened to your eye there, gramps? What? Nothing? I thought so.

 

[hoosier88]

Yah, I remember some of this discussion from US history back when. The North provided ships, crews & financing. The ships sailed to Africa, bought slaves, transported them to Caribbean (biggest market) or elsewhere, sold the slaves. Loaded sugar, molasses, rum, maybe fine tobacco. Sailed to US & sold the cargo there. They could load bales of raw cotton (? - not much manufactured goods for Europe - maybe tobacco? - or they could deadhead back to Africa for more slaves.)

Yah, the immediate profit was to whoever gambled & won on the various legs of the ship's travels (assuming that each leg was profitable). Thus captains scrambled to take an ownership position in their ship. This arrangement also delivered profits to the investor who had a good eye for ships & captains - & also disguised/distanced the awful traffic in humans that was a basic component of the profits.

Yah, slavery in the South was accepted. But even though slavery in the North was not economically feasible - plantation-style agriculture wasn't a going propositon - the North financed & facilitated much of the human misery that sustained slavery in the South. So everyone's hands were dirty. But other countries managed to end slavery without convulsive civil wars - the Spanish Empire, the Portuguese Empire & the British Empire. Other countries possibly not, but didn't we always model our more-enlightened policy on the best of UK statecraft?

 

[whitehall]

Yah, I remember some of this discussion from US history back when. The North provided ships, crews & financing. The ships sailed to Africa, bought slaves, transported them to Caribbean (biggest market) or elsewhere, sold the slaves. Loaded sugar, molasses, rum, maybe fine tobacco. Sailed to US & sold the cargo there. They could load bales of raw cotton (? - not much manufactured goods for Europe - maybe tobacco? - or they could deadhead back to Africa for more slaves.)

Yah, the immediate profit was to whoever gambled & won on the various legs of the ship's travels (assuming that each leg was profitable). Thus captains scrambled to take an ownership position in their ship. This arrangement also delivered profits to the investor who had a good eye for ships & captains - & also disguised/distanced the awful traffic in humans that was a basic component of the profits.

Yah, slavery in the South was accepted. But even though slavery in the North was not economically feasible - plantation-style agriculture wasn't a going propositon - the North financed & facilitated much of the human misery that sustained slavery in the South. So everyone's hands were dirty. But other countries managed to end slavery without convulsive civil wars - the Spanish Empire, the Portuguese Empire & the British Empire. Other countries possibly not, but didn't we always model our more-enlightened policy on the best of UK statecraft?

You nailed it hoosier. Pop culture history was so much in love with Lincoln that they never thought that "the great emancipator" might have done a better job in his first term reigning in the southern hot heads instead of going to war.

 

[Unkotare]

Pop culture history was so much in love with Lincoln that they never thought that "the great emancipator" might have done a better job in his first term reigning in the southern hot heads instead of going to war.

The ball that rolled on up into the American Civil War had started rolling long before Abe had ever run for any office.

 

[whitehall]

Pop culture history was so much in love with Lincoln that they never thought that "the great emancipator" might have done a better job in his first term reigning in the southern hot heads instead of going to war.

The ball that rolled on up into the American Civil War had started rolling long before Abe had ever run for any office.

That makes the Lincoln indictment even more obvious. He should have seen it coming. Maybe if he didn't run for a second term the Country would have been spared the horror of a civil war. Sadly it seems that it was true even in the 1850's, the thing a politicians want more than anything else is another term and the Country be damned.

 

[rdean]

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.

Jesus' disciples spoke for him and the third quote was supposedly a direct quote from Jesus.

No, the disciples did not. Jesus taught 12 Apostles in private and they carried on His teaching. St Paul was only informally an apostle and did not ever claim to be repeating teaching from Christ. Again, you prove you complete ignorance about the NT and Christianity. So fuck off you little bitch.



Do we have slavery now, dumbfuck? Can they quit? Do they get beaten?

You are such a fool.



lol, your claim that Paul was quoting Jesus. You lie almost every time you post and you know it.



Because you lied about two quotes that were not from Jesus. Apparently you don't know what a legit quote is.

Fucktard.

Is it the inbreeding?
The propaganda?

No, your level of stupidity goes way beyond inbreeding or agit prop idiocy. You are deep bone dumb.

The disease called racism? Something has fucked them up.

lol, now you think racism is a disease?

Please, go jerk your self somewhere else, ok?

WHAAAAAT??????

Are you saying Paul was NOT an Apostle of Jesus?????

Did Jesus and Paul teach the same thing? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

It was Paul, Tabor argues, who definitively set Christianity apart from its parent faith, Judaism, and put it on the road to becoming a new religion. And it was Paul’s Christianity – not that of Jesus and his closest followers – that helped establish the foundations of Western civilization, from our assumptions about reality to our societal and personal ethics.

PAUL and JESUS: | How the Apostle Transformed Christianity

The Church has always accepted the apostle Paul, not at all as a religious philosopher, but simply and solely as a witness to Jesus.

Paul and Jesus, The Origin of Paul's Religion, Christian Classics books at BibleStudyTools.com

In the book of Ephesians the Apostle Paul expresses his hope "that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, having the eyes of your heart enlightened, that you may know . . . " (Ephesians 1:17,18). He expressed himself in that way because he knew what the real problem was (and is). The Bible—including the New Testament—is the inspired word of God. A vast multitude of people (including the author of this note to you) have been enabled to see that it is.

Q and A

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regardless of the names you call me, today's Christians see Paul as an Apostle and they see the Bible as the "Word of God". And that word doesn't condemn slavery. No, it celebrates slavery. I also missed the part about one man and one women. I found one man and lots of women, but that's another thread.