NationStates Jolt Archive

1. Why was slavery legal for such a long time in the US?

2. Were the slaveowners and traders bad/evil/immoral/ugly/etc... people?

Opinions, please.
I think the traders were worse, but the owners were more justified. Perhaps it is just the difference between action and inaction.

It was legal for so long because people were to afraid to piss off the slaveowners and slave states. That and the fact that slaves worked for free. Otherwise, they wouldn't be slaves, now would they?

It was legal for so long because people were to afraid to piss off the slaveowners and slave states. That and the fact that slaves worked for free. Otherwise, they wouldn't be slaves, now would they?
Slave wages?

no, not slavic...

1. Why was slavery legal for such a long time in the US?

2. Were the slaveowners and traders bad/evil/immoral/ugly/etc... people?

Opinions, please.
I think the traders were worse, but the owners were more justified. Perhaps it is just the difference between action and inaction.

1. Slavery is an ancient practice, which still exists in some forms (illegally) today. When slaves were brought to America, the idea of emancipation was relatively foreign. By the time most of the world was abandoning it, the southern states had become completely reliant upon it.

2. I think the traders were scum. Owners weren't much better, but that varied from person to person. It was the slaveowners who created the demand for slave traders to do their work after all.

slavery lasted so long because it was extremely profitable. money is very corrupting

everything about the slave business was immoral. slave owners were all immoral (but not necessarily evil) to some extent. most of them to a large extent. some few worked to free their slaves. slave laws were increasingly tightened over time to where it was almost impossible to free a slave and absolutely impossible for a freed slave to stay in the state he was freed in. (meaning that if s/he had family that was still enslaved s/he had to abandon them and move far away.)

1. Why was slavery legal for such a long time in the US?

What, it was legal for less than a hundred years-as compared to the thousands it was legal in the rest of the world. As a previous poster mentioned- it was the economics of the tobacco/cotton trade that made the South so dependant upon it.

2. Were the slaveowners and traders bad/evil/immoral/ugly/etc... people?

Opinions, please.
I think the traders were worse, but the owners were more justified. Perhaps it is just the difference between action and inaction.

I agree with Mikesburg- traders = bad, but owners were varied.

What, it was legal for less than a hundred years-as compared to the thousands it was legal in the rest of the world. As a previous poster mentioned- it was the economics of the tobacco/cotton trade that made the South so dependant upon it.
......
I'd say it was legal until specifically made illegal. That is a lot longer time than a hundred years. Anyway, the length of time is not important, the time of abolishment is.

.....
2. I think the traders were scum. Owners weren't much better, but that varied from person to person. It was the slaveowners who created the demand for slave traders to do their work after all.
Any good slaveowners?

1. Why was slavery legal for such a long time in the US?

2. Were the slaveowners and traders bad/evil/immoral/ugly/etc... people?

Opinions, please.
I think the traders were worse, but the owners were more justified. Perhaps it is just the difference between action and inaction.

(1) Because the lawmakers weren't slaves.

(2) Products of environment. Their actions were evil, some of them were evil, but the majority of them were just misguided.

(1) Because the lawmakers weren't slaves.

(2) Products of environment. Their actions were evil, some of them were evil, but the majority of them were just misguided.
Misguided how? By whom/what?

Any good slaveowners?

only those who actively worked to free their slaves. it was sometimes impossible to do -- for example more than half the slaves at mt vernon (george washington's estate) were owned by the custis family who were adamantly opposed to freeing any of them. freeing those he owned meant breaking up families which washington refused to do. in the end all he could do was to free those he owned himself in his will in order to keep some peace in the family (he actually stipulated that they be set free upon marthas death but she became terrified that someone would kill her in her sleep so she let them go after a year or 2)

it was a system that left everyone involved in an immoral position no matter what their desires to do right.

Misguided how? By whom/what?

Calvinism, predestination, misreadings of the old testament, misreadings of the classics, quack science...

we could go on, couldn't we?

Were the slaveowners and traders bad/evil/immoral/ugly/etc... people?

It depends on your definition of bad/evil/immoral/ugly. I think it is obvious that the slavery is immoral/bad/evil, and by our society's standards those who take part fit the description. However, in their day, there were a different set of social and moral norms, and to call them all immoral is difficult to do. They have been trying just as hard as you or I to live a good life, however, the accepted values for what constituted a good life were different.

Because they were all degenerate Europeans that moved tothe US. It took them a little longer to move with the times. :)

It depends on your definition of bad/evil/immoral/ugly. I think it is obvious that the slavery is immoral/bad/evil, and by our society's standards those who take part fit the description. However, in their day, there were a different set of social and moral norms, and to call them all immoral is difficult to do. They have been trying just as hard as you or I to live a good life, however, the accepted values for what constituted a good life were different.
Not very enthusastic about natural law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law), are you? That some actions are immoral/wrong just because?

Calvinism, predestination, misreadings of the old testament, misreadings of the classics, quack science...

we could go on, couldn't we?

Hey, there's the new testament too.

1 Timothy 6:1

All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered.

Titus 2:9

Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them.

1 Peter 2:18

Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.


The rationale is that by being obedient to your betters, you're doing credit to God. Or something.

Not very enthusastic about natural law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law), are you? That some actions are immoral/wrong just because?

I do believe that some actions are intrinsically wrong, however, I don't believe that committing these actions automatically makes someone immoral.

I believe that environment and knowledge goes a long way towards determining morality as well.

It depends on your definition of bad/evil/immoral/ugly. I think it is obvious that the slavery is immoral/bad/evil, and by our society's standards those who take part fit the description. However, in their day, there were a different set of social and moral norms, and to call them all immoral is difficult to do. They have been trying just as hard as you or I to live a good life, however, the accepted values for what constituted a good life were different.
because of its extreme profitability slavery generated its own "morality". those who did not want to lose their position in society learned not to question that morality.

looking the other way and swallowing your own disgust isnt particularly moral in my book.

....................................
I believe that environment and knowledge goes a long way towards determining morality as well.
How far? All the way?

Hey, there's the new testament too.

1 Timothy 6:1

All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered.

Hey, that's not justifying slavery, just saying that if you are already a slave, you should treat your master with respect.

Nothing in the NT says "go make slaves out of those people over there."

And the NT is very explicit that God does not play favorites, so there are no "your betters." It is just referring to the position you find yourself in, whether as a slave or a master.

Masters are also supposed to treat their slaves with respect.

Any good slaveowners?

That's not an entirely fair question. We tend to look on the past and criticize people for a system that was in place for millenia. True, the colonial powers, and to a great extent the US, turned it into a racial divide by only enslaving africans.

Slavery is obviously immoral, but prior to industrialization, a completely legitimate form of enterprise in most parts of the world. So, from the point of view of an 'average' slave owner, there are degrees of propriety, particularly regarding the treatment of slaves.

because of its extreme profitability slavery generated its own "morality". those who did not want to lose their position in society learned not to question that morality.

looking the other way and swallowing your own disgust isnt particularly moral in my book.

Slavery was condoned by the bible, a common perception cast blacks and natives as subhuman.

Doing something that one knows is wrong is a pretty good definition of immorality, however, when one has that negative behavior reinforced by most if not all moral benchmarks, how can one know it is wrong?

That's not an entirely fair question. We tend to look on the past and criticize people for a system that was in place for millenia. True, the colonial powers, and to a great extent the US, turned it into a racial divide by only enslaving africans.

Slavery is obviously immoral, but prior to industrialization, a completely legitimate form of enterprise in most parts of the world. So, from the point of view of an 'average' slave owner, there are degrees of propriety, particularly regarding the treatment of slaves.
Not fair indeed, but I am quite pleased with it nevertheless. Are you saying that there were no good slaveowners?

How far? All the way?

Considering that people need benchmarks from which to base their morality, it is a necessary consideration.

Hey, that's not justifying slavery, just saying that if you are already a slave, you should treat your master with respect.

Nothing in the NT says "go make slaves out of those people over there."

And the NT is very explicit that God does not play favorites, so there are no "your betters." It is just referring to the position you find yourself in, whether as a slave or a master.

Masters are also supposed to treat their slaves with respect.

I edited the post in the meantime, but i'm afraid I don't understand any of it. Why should slaves accept their subservient condition?

Not fair indeed, but I am quite pleased with it nevertheless. Are you saying that there were no good slaveowners?

Some slaveowners treated their slaves very well in fact, like family. Sometimes the slaves were better off with them than anywhere else so they stayed.

But the fact that they were holding them as slaves does not make them entirely good.

.......
Doing something that one knows is wrong is a pretty good definition of immorality, however, when one has that negative behavior reinforced by most if not all moral benchmarks, how can one know it is wrong?
How indeed?

slavery lasted so long because it was extremely profitable. money is very corrupting

Thats a bit of a myth you know - i have said this before, but i'll repeat it - both Marx and Adam Smith showed the uneconomic nature of a slave society.

More evidence could be shown by the fact the North, despite incompetent, bungling generalship, won the civil war...

Slavery was condoned by the bible, a common perception cast blacks and natives as subhuman.

Doing something that one knows is wrong is a pretty good definition of immorality, however, when one has that negative behavior reinforced by most if not all moral benchmarks, how can one know it is wrong?

they used the bible to justify slavery. that is part of the economics of slavery creating its own morality. money corrupts

yeah well, the day you realize that your "maid" is your half sister, you know something is wrong, you just have to swallow your disgust because of your position.

How indeed?

I guess that is a rhetorical question, but I don't know what point you are trying to make.

Are you being sarcastic, or are you saying that I make a good point?

I guess that is a rhetorical question, but I don't know what point you are trying to make.

Are you being sarcastic, or are you saying that I make a good point?
The latter, pardon the vagueness.

they used the bible to justify slavery. that is part of the economics of slavery creating its own morality. money corrupts

They didn't use the bible to justify slavery, slavery was justified because the bible said so.

yeah well, the day you realize that your "maid" is your half sister, you know something is wrong, you just have to swallow your disgust because of your position.

What does that mean?

Slavery wasn't very profitable; was in many ways a false economy, as opposed to cheap industrial labour at subsistence wages, which is very similar in effect, just cheaper and more effective.
I'm not sure the Union's victory in the Civil War is a demonstration of the degeneracy of slave-holding, however. After all, one of the most fearsomely effective military states ever - the Spartans - held the vast majority of the population as slaves.

Not fair indeed, but I am quite pleased with it nevertheless. Are you saying that there were no good slaveowners?

That's like asking someone if there were any good capitalists. I'm sure many on this forum would say NO!, while others would understand that it's the economic situation we live in. Some capitalists are better than others (in some cases, much, much better.)

Slavery ranged from mass profiteering to having a live-in servant, not unlike many people having a live-in nanny living on substandard wages. It's the economics that creates the situation, and how people approach it that determines whether they are 'good' or 'bad'. So, yes, in some cases, by the standards of the day, there were some good slaveowners. But if I owned a slave now, I don't think I would qualify as a good person.

Misguided how? By whom/what?

If it was good enough for Dad, it's good enough for me.

Slavery was condoned by the bible...

Slavery was not condoned by the Bible.

Now, I realize that a lot of people duing the slavery era used the Bible to justify their actions, they were distorting the meanting to do so.

Earlier in the thread someone quoted a few passages from letters from Paul in the New Testament. In them, he counsels slaves to respect their masters and so on. Look at the context:

Paul lived in the Roman Empire, a Government that had legalized slavery. That meant that inevitably, some Christians were slaves. (This was before the hard core persecutino of Christians really got started) Remember that slavery in the Empire was not race-based, so just about anybody could be a slave. Remember that one of the teachings of Christianity is turning the other cheek, and counseling a slave to be submissive would fall under that concept.

To say that all of this was an endorsement of slavery is to twist its meaning.

Slavery was not condoned by the Bible.

Now, I realize that a lot of people duing the slavery era used the Bible to justify their actions, they were distorting the meanting to do so.

Earlier in the thread someone quoted a few passages from letters from Paul in the New Testament. In them, he counsels slaves to respect their masters and so on. Look at the context:

Paul lived in the Roman Empire, a Government that had legalized slavery. That meant that inevitably, some Christians were slaves. (This was before the hard core persecutino of Christians really got started) Remember that slavery in the Empire was not race-based, so just about anybody could be a slave. Remember that one of the teachings of Christianity is turning the other cheek, and counseling a slave to be submissive would fall under that concept.

To say that all of this was an endorsement of slavery is to twist its meaning.

I figured that, but are there any bible verses which explicitly say "slavery is bad", though, or is the biblical attitude to it one of "Slavery is here, nothing you can do about it, so tolerate it"? My issue is more with that attitude than the verses themselves, which I do understand do not explicitly praise slavery - however, they don't do a whole lot to discourage the practice either.

AS stated by other people already I think slavery lasted so long in the USA because it had become a ingrained establishment that could not be disrupted easily without causing considerable economic problems.

I'm always cynical of the North's claim that they were emancipating the slaves. In my view they were just after cheap labour for their newly built factories. And what better way to get cheap labour than by uprooting workers in one part of the country, claim that you are doing it for their benefit, shove them in your factories and still treat them like shit.

As to whether the slave traders were bad/evil/immoral.. well... If I made a move on your partner, but had no idea they were your partner, would that be immoral of me? preceding the renaissance ideas about slavery where much different. Slavery was not only deemed acceptable, but moral in some ways too. Just as democracy was considered to be a very bad form of government. People were viewed as unequal, and some not competant enough to look after themselves. So the aristocracy should rule as they are capable. Slave owners were considered to intellectually superior to slaves, but physicially inferior. Therefore, together as unit, they would work well - the slave owner doing the thinking for both, and the slave doing the work for both. I think that idea was one of Aristotle's. Basically an idea that some people were born natural slaves.

Never overestimate people's ability to think outside the box. People were brought up surrounding by these ideas and so it was very difficult for them to think another way. It was around two thousand years before the idea of slavery in Europe was successfully challenged.

Therefore a slave owner who treated his slave with kindness (as was required by Aristotle), I think, cannot be considered evil or immoral. Misguided maybe, but not evil or immoral. He is simply living by the cultural standards of his own time.

Slavery was not condoned by the Bible.

Now, I realize that a lot of people duing the slavery era used the Bible to justify their actions, they were distorting the meanting to do so.

Well, you can "distort" (I would call it interpret) the BIble to justify pretty much anything. Same with pretty much every religious text.

Well, you can "distort" (I would call it interpret) the BIble to justify pretty much anything. Same with pretty much every religious text.

Sadly, you are absolutely correct.

Thats a bit of a myth you know - i have said this before, but i'll repeat it - both Marx and Adam Smith showed the uneconomic nature of a slave society.

More evidence could be shown by the fact the North, despite incompetent, bungling generalship, won the civil war...
yeah too bad the southern slave owners didnt read marx eh?

the price of slaves was going up not down and slaves represented a huge amount of an estates accumulated wealth. that it would have eventually become more of a burden than an asset doesnt change the part where it was hugely profitable in the united states before the civil war.

Slavery was not condoned by the Bible.

condone-To overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure.

The scripture concerning slavery abides by the exact definition of condone.


When the bible says that slaves are meant to respect and serve their masters, then a slaveholder can obviously take that to mean that it is moral to demand complete servitude of someone.

They didn't use the bible to justify slavery, slavery was justified because the bible said so.



What does that mean?
if the bible justified slavery the quakers wouldnt have been abolitionists. they would have seen it as a necessary evil.

what that means is that you have to LEARN to accept slavery.

the children of white slave owners grew up with slave playmates. to them, they were just kids. as time went on they learned what those children's status was and what it meant. they had to go from crying when one got sold away from his family to being old enough to do it themselves. to consider the breaking up of black families as just an unpleasant part of the system.

many many many sweet flowers of southern womanhood grew up along side their half brothers and sisters who worked as house slaves. sally hemmings was the half sister of thomas jeffersons wife. martha washington's half sister was part of the household staff at mt vernon. there came a day in every slaveholders daughters life when she found to her horror that her male relatives were siring slave children. she was in no position to object. (although surely some did) she had to learn to hide her disgust and pretend that everything was as morally pure as she had been raised to believe it was.

if the bible justified slavery the quakers wouldnt have been abolitionists. they would have seen it as a necessary evil.

what that means is that you have to LEARN to accept slavery.

Nevertheless, it is learned as a morally acceptable practice.

Nevertheless, it is learned as a morally acceptable practice.
yes

and it takes a particularly thoughtful person to realize that its wrong under those circumstances. as evidenced by how few slaveholders ever did come to that conclusion.

They didn't use the bible to justify slavery, slavery was justified because the bible said so.



Biblical Slavery was not the same as American Slavery.

Biblical slaves could rise to positions of influence, wealth and power, i.e. Joseph was sold into slavery and rose to be second in command of Egypt.
Hebrew slaves were required by Jewish law to be released after 6 years of service.
Slaves injured were required to be given their freedom.
Slaves were left in charge of their master's affairs and conducted business for extended periods of time.
Slaves could owe and be owed money.

Slaves in Biblical times were more like indentured servants than the racial American slaves.

1. Why was slavery legal for such a long time in the US?

2. Were the slaveowners and traders bad/evil/immoral/ugly/etc... people?

Opinions, please.
I think the traders were worse, but the owners were more justified. Perhaps it is just the difference between action and inaction.
Slavery was profitable, but even more than that, it was the best way to maintain white supremacy in the South. That's why whites who didn't have slaves (the overwhelming majority) fought so long and hard against the Union during the Civil War.

Maybe the slaveowners thought slaves would do the jobs Americans wouldn't do (or they didn't want to pay them to do, anyway).

Biblical Slavery was not the same as American Slavery.

Biblical slaves could rise to positions of influence, wealth and power, i.e. Joseph was sold into slavery and rose to be second in command of Egypt.
Hebrew slaves were required by Jewish law to be released after 6 years of service.
Slaves injured were required to be given their freedom.
Slaves were left in charge of their master's affairs and conducted business for extended periods of time.
Slaves could owe and be owed money.

Slaves in Biblical times were more like indentured servants than the racial American slaves.
So bible slavery was good and american slavery bad?

1. Why was slavery legal for such a long time in the US?

2. Were the slaveowners and traders bad/evil/immoral/ugly/etc... people?

Opinions, please.
I think the traders were worse, but the owners were more justified. Perhaps it is just the difference between action and inaction.


1 Well just in the South, in the North Slavery had been abolished in the 18th century (1700's). The Southern economy was dependant on slavery, they had over $2,000,000,000 invested in slaves, which I believe is in then money. WOuld you walk away from that much wealth?

2. The slave owners genuinly felt it was good for the slaves to be in bondage, that it was their type of work. The slave owners compromised 1.4% (385,000 out of 27 million) of Americans at slavery's height, the percent of people owning slaves in the South numbered about 4.8% (385,000 out of 9 million) according to the US census' in the mid 1800's right before the civil war. In today's money slaves cost about $30,000, and so therefore only the very rich people in the South could afford them. The vast majority of slave-owners owned between 1-3 slaves.

3. The Slave TRADE was banned by the US federal government in 1807, it says so in the Constitution.

It was the slaveowners who created the demand for slave traders to do their work after all.

No. Slave buyers created the demand which gave slave traders incentive. Simple ownership didn't create new slaves.

3. The Slave TRADE was banned by the US federal government in 1807, it says so in the Constitution.
missisippi didn't ratify the 13th until 1995

missisippi didn't formally abolish until 1995

That is correct. That's when they ratified the 14th amendment.

That is correct. That's when they ratified the 14th amendment.
Why not sooner? Were they hoping to go back to slaverizing?

Why not sooner? Were they hoping to go back to slaverizing?
stubbornness.

the ammendment went through without their ratifying it so ratifying it themselves was just submitting to northern aggression.

I believe slavery lasted so long in the U.S. because of several reasons, 1) The economy and agricultural industry had relied on cheap and/or free labor since some of the first colonists reached the shores of America. The lawmakers and majority of citizens in America couldn't see how we could economically survive were we to suddenly and wholly abolish slavery nationwide. 2) A large amount of Americans didn't see slavery as a moral wrong. After all, slavery had been widely accepted as "right" for many millenia.

Now, is it a moral wrong? It seems no one is interested in what is morally wrong until it comes to slavery. To my knowledge, the Bible doesn't say slavery is wrong, although personally I do believe owning another human being, or even cheating them out of proper pay, is unethical. However, if you want to start talking about moral wrongs, you could look to adultery, fornication, homosexuality, abortion, etc. because the Bible does say those are wrong. And, beings that our country was founded on Biblical principles those were long viewed as immoral whereas slavery was not because the Bible does not point it out. Moral rights are absolutes, personal convictions and preferences are not.

AS stated by other people already I think slavery lasted so long in the USA because it had become a ingrained establishment that could not be disrupted easily without causing considerable economic problems.

I'm always cynical of the North's claim that they were emancipating the slaves. In my view they were just after cheap labour for their newly built factories. And what better way to get cheap labour than by uprooting workers in one part of the country, claim that you are doing it for their benefit, shove them in your factories and still treat them like shit.

As to whether the slave traders were bad/evil/immoral.. well... If I made a move on your partner, but had no idea they were your partner, would that be immoral of me? preceding the renaissance ideas about slavery where much different. Slavery was not only deemed acceptable, but moral in some ways too. Just as democracy was considered to be a very bad form of government. People were viewed as unequal, and some not competant enough to look after themselves. So the aristocracy should rule as they are capable. Slave owners were considered to intellectually superior to slaves, but physicially inferior. Therefore, together as unit, they would work well - the slave owner doing the thinking for both, and the slave doing the work for both. I think that idea was one of Aristotle's. Basically an idea that some people were born natural slaves.

Never overestimate people's ability to think outside the box. People were brought up surrounding by these ideas and so it was very difficult for them to think another way. It was around two thousand years before the idea of slavery in Europe was successfully challenged.

Therefore a slave owner who treated his slave with kindness (as was required by Aristotle), I think, cannot be considered evil or immoral. Misguided maybe, but not evil or immoral. He is simply living by the cultural standards of his own time.

Well-said!

Slavery was profitable, but even more than that, it was the best way to maintain white supremacy in the South. That's why whites who didn't have slaves (the overwhelming majority) fought so long and hard against the Union during the Civil War.

Who in heck told you that, or did you just make that up? I've never heard anything so bigoted.

I believe slavery lasted so long in the U.S. because of several reasons, 1) The economy and agricultural industry had relied on cheap and/or free labor since some of the first colonists reached the shores of America. The lawmakers and majority of citizens in America couldn't see how we could economically survive were we to suddenly and wholly abolish slavery nationwide. 2) A large amount of Americans didn't see slavery as a moral wrong. After all, slavery had been widely accepted as "right" for many millenia.

Now, is it a moral wrong? It seems no one is interested in what is morally wrong until it comes to slavery. To my knowledge, the Bible doesn't say slavery is wrong, although personally I do believe owning another human being, or even cheating them out of proper pay, is unethical. However, if you want to start talking about moral wrongs, you could look to adultery, fornication, homosexuality, abortion, etc. because the Bible does say those are wrong. And, beings that our country was founded on Biblical principles those were long viewed as immoral whereas slavery was not because the Bible does not point it out. Moral rights are absolutes, personal convictions and preferences are not.
good thing our morality isnt limited to what is in the bible. we can add "the buying and selling of people" to the list and take homosexuality off

freedom is a wonderful thing.

good thing our morality isnt limited to what is in the bible. we can add "the buying and selling of people" to the list and take homosexuality off

freedom is a wonderful thing.

Good luck...try getting that through the church.

Whites who didn't hold slaves fought against the Union because to them it was a war over state's rights, including to withdraw from the Union. The American Civil War was not a crusade against slavery; it was a messy struggle between different factions that was partly triggered by slavery.

Slavery was profitable, but even more than that, it was the best way to maintain white supremacy in the South. That's why whites who didn't have slaves (the overwhelming majority) fought so long and hard against the Union during the Civil War.

Who in heck told you that, or did you just make that up? I've never heard anything so bigoted.

That sounds about right to me. It sounds bigoted because a lot of people at the time were bigoted. To say that a lot of Germans 70 years ago were interested in aryan superiority sounds bigoted but is also true.

And I'm sorry, but we're in a thread that talks about slavery. Surely slavery itself is actually more bigoted than his/her statement? So if you've heard of slavery, then the statement can't be the most bigoted thing you've heard.

Good luck...try getting that through the church.
there are thousands of christian denominations alone. many many of them find slavery wrong and homosexuality OK. all you have to do is start attending one of those.

No, it's nonsense. As just one example - Robert Lee. Great Southern general, deeply opposed to slavery. He fought for the South because he was fighting for Virginia. His state. There were many others like him.

1. Why was slavery legal for such a long time in the US?

Because the Southern ruling class saw it as profitable for a long time.

2. Were the slaveowners and traders bad/evil/immoral/ugly/etc... people?

Yes, they were. Slavery is behind only murder in its immorality. People too callous to see or care about the suffering they imposed upon their slaves - and slavery, however "benevolent," necessitates suffering - are immoral people.

yes

and it takes a particularly thoughtful person to realize that its wrong under those circumstances. as evidenced by how few slaveholders ever did come to that conclusion.

And for that reason it takes more than the act of slaveholding to call someone immoral. Yes, there probably were slaveholders who maintained their slaves simply for economic reasons, but there were likely a great many who also maintained them simply because of ignorance of wrongdoing.

No, it's nonsense. As just one example - Robert Lee. Great Southern general, deeply opposed to slavery. He fought for the South because he was fighting for Virginia. His state. There were many others like him.

Okay, let's tease this apart. For how many people in the confederate army would slavery not have been a motivating factor? How many people would have been fine with giving slaves their freedom? How many would have been okay with what was done in some South American countries. All children of slaves are free and all slaves must be freed after 20 years?

These cartoons published during and leading up to the civil war suggest that slavery was an important factor:

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~cap/SCARTOONS/cartoons.html

2. Were the slaveowners and traders bad/evil/immoral/ugly/etc... people?

Depends. If they wouldn't mind becoming enslaved themselves, or their children becoming enslaved, then no. But if they would object to they or their families being enslaved then that means that they recognize slavery as being a bad thing and theirfore their actions in keeping slaves were bad.

No, it's nonsense. As just one example - Robert Lee. Great Southern general, deeply opposed to slavery. He fought for the South because he was fighting for Virginia. His state. There were many others like him.
oh yes he must have been deeply opposed to himself when he kept his father in laws slaves in bondage for more than 5 years after the old man died. the will did not specify that the slaves be held any longer than necessary to probate the estate.

My name is Wesley Norris; I was born a slave on the plantation of George Parke Custis; after the death of Mr. Custis, Gen. Lee, who had been made executor of the estate, assumed control of the slaves, in number about seventy; it was the general impression among the slaves of Mr. Custis that on his death they should be forever free; in fact this statement had been made to them by Mr. C. years before; at his death we were informed by Gen. Lee that by the conditions of the will we must remain slaves for five years; I remained with Gen. Lee for about seventeen months, when my sister Mary, a cousin of ours, and I determined to run away, which we did in the year 1859; we had already reached Westminster, in Maryland, on our way to the North, when we were apprehended and thrown into prison, and Gen. Lee notified of our arrest; we remained in prison fifteen days, when we were sent back to Arlington; we were immediately taken before Gen. Lee, who demanded the reason why we ran away; we frankly told him that we considered ourselves free; he then told us he would teach us a lesson we never would forget; he then ordered us to the barn, where, in his presence, we were tied firmly to posts by a Mr. Gwin, our overseer, who was ordered by Gen. Lee to strip us to the waist and give us fifty lashes each, excepting my sister, who received but twenty; we were accordingly stripped to the skin by the overseer, who, however, had sufficient humanity to decline whipping us; accordingly Dick Williams, a county constable, was called in, who gave us the number of lashes ordered; Gen. Lee, in the meantime, stood by, and frequently enjoined Williams to lay it on well, an injunction which he did not fail to heed; not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done
http://radgeek.com/gt/2005/01/03/robert_e

That sounds about right to me. It sounds bigoted because a lot of people at the time were bigoted. To say that a lot of Germans 70 years ago were interested in aryan superiority sounds bigoted but is also true.

And I'm sorry, but we're in a thread that talks about slavery. Surely slavery itself is actually more bigoted than his/her statement? So if you've heard of slavery, then the statement can't be the most bigoted thing you've heard.

The statement he responded to seemed to be more bigoted towards southerners than slaves. To say that much of the Southern's motivation for fighting the war was to prove white supremecy seems (at least to me) to be a dramatic projection of a stereotype.

EDIT: Maybe you know that.

Depends. If they wouldn't mind becoming enslaved themselves, or their children becoming enslaved, then no. But if they would object to they or their families being enslaved then that means that they recognize slavery as being a bad thing and theirfore their actions in keeping slaves were bad.
i dont suppose they would have liked to be slaves themselves but many men had no problem with their children being slaves. the sexual slavery of black women was common and many white men sired black children

some men did do what was necessary to free those children, some didnt. some neglected to get it done and then his free children would end up selling their brothers and sisters away from the plantation.

1. Why was slavery legal for such a long time in the US?

2. Were the slaveowners and traders bad/evil/immoral/ugly/etc... people?

Opinions, please.
I think the traders were worse, but the owners were more justified. Perhaps it is just the difference between action and inaction.
1. Cause no one cared.
2. Yes to all...:upyours: Slaveowners and traders.

Although, the actual trade was made illegal in the 1810s...

The statement he responded to seemed to be more bigoted towards southerners than slaves. To say that much of the Southern's motivation for fighting the war was to prove white supremecy seems (at least to me) to be a dramatic projection of a stereotype.

EDIT: Maybe you know that.

Most Australian soldiers during World War II thought they were white superior to the Japanese. Most German soldiers in World War II thought they were Aryan superior to Eastern Europeans. I find it hard to belive that the Confederate soliders did not consider themselves to be white superior to African decended people and interested in maintaining that superiority.

And for that reason it takes more than the act of slaveholding to call someone immoral. Yes, there probably were slaveholders who maintained their slaves simply for economic reasons, but there were likely a great many who also maintained them simply because of ignorance of wrongdoing.
no it doesnt. that they didnt think it through doesnt make them moral.

people justify their bad behavior all the time. drug dealers, murderers, adulterers have no problem showing why they are not immoral scum.


the 9/11 hijackers all felt that they were giving their lives in a moral fight against the great evil of the united states. moussaoui is going to serve life in prison for his ideals. does this make those who kill innocents moral? i dont think so.

if a man's wife doesnt understand him is he morally correct in having an affair? i dont think so.

some were worse than others. they were all immoral to some extent.

The statement he responded to seemed to be more bigoted towards southerners than slaves. To say that much of the Southern's motivation for fighting the war was to prove white supremecy seems (at least to me) to be a dramatic projection of a stereotype.

EDIT: Maybe you know that.
it does seem a bit dramatic to me too

not that lower class whites didnt feel vastly superior to blacks of any sort and not that they didnt have a vested interest in keeping them in their place. after all they spent the next 100 years keeping black people in their place.

seems to me that most nonslaveholding whites joined the confederate army for the same reason that people sign up for the military today in time of war. when your people need you, you fight. back then people were more identified with their states than with the country as a whole so their "people" were the people of virginia, north carolina, etc. it didnt matter that they would never own slaves, it was war and they fought.

Most Australian soldiers during World War II thought they were white superior to the Japanese. Most German soldiers in World War II thought they were Aryan superior to Eastern Europeans. I find it hard to belive that the Confederate soliders did not consider themselves to be white superior to African decended people and interested in maintaining that superiority.

I have no doubt that a great many confederate soldiers considered them superior to a black man. However, to say that southerners signed up to fight merely to protect slavery or to prove white supremecy is nonsense.

there are thousands of christian denominations alone. many many of them find slavery wrong and homosexuality OK. all you have to do is start attending one of those.
Those states that were pro-slavery the longest, are they in any way less religious than others?

I have no doubt that a great many confederate soldiers considered them superior to a black man. However, to say that southerners signed up to fight merely to protect slavery or to prove white supremecy is nonsense.

I don't think any said that. But now you've mentioned it, let's run with it and see if that makes any sense.

1. There is slavery in South.

2. Slavery leads to succession.

3. North fights to keep Union intact.

If we change the first statement so that:

1. There is no slavery in South.

2. There is no seccession.

3. There is no fight.

So it seems to me that we can say that slavery led to civil war, or at the very least was a very important factor. Personally I don't see how this can be realistically disputed.

Now we have the admittedly odd suggestion that southerners signed up to fight merely to protect slavery or to prove white supremecy.

In practice they certainly fought to protect slavery, even if that wasn't their intention. I believe it was accepted in the South that the North would end slavery, even though the North took a long time to get around to it. There is no evidence I can think of that shows that the South was about to give it up or would have given it up upon obtaining victory. So they did fight to protect slavery, however, we can't logically say Southerners signed up to protect slavery.

As for fighting to prove white supremecy that sounds a little odd. Shouldn't they be fighting against black people to prove that? And who would they prove it too? Even Abraham Lincon didn't believe that Negros were the equal of the white man. Those who believed that blacks were equal to whites were a very small minority in those days, so I think that we can confidently say that Southerners didn't fight to prove white superiority.

Those states that were pro-slavery the longest, are they in any way less religious than others?
neither then nor now.

So bible slavery was good and american slavery bad?


No, it means that while there may be some similarities, there are substantial differences, enough to make a distinction and to rule out using Biblical statements about Biblical era slavery to support Early American slavery practices.

No. Slave buyers created the demand which gave slave traders incentive. Simple ownership didn't create new slaves.

?

Either one of two things are going to happen here...

a) You don't own a slave, so you go to a slave trader to buy one.

b) You own slaves already, and they breed new slaves.

So yes, ownership creates new slaves. The point, is that slave traders wouldn't exist if it weren't profitable. The demand for slaves creates the slavery market. That's like cursing drug dealers while snorting a line of coke.

[QUOTE=Brains in Tanks]I don't think any said that. But now you've mentioned it, let's run with it and see if that makes any sense.

1. There is slavery in South.

2. Slavery leads to succession.

3. North fights to keep Union intact.

If we change the first statement so that:

1. There is no slavery in South.

2. There is no seccession.

3. There is no fight.
QUOTE]

I don't believe slavery is what led to secession. Sure, some fire-breathers prefered secession against free blacks, but to say it was the reason for secession is stretching the truth. Secession had many factors leading up to it, and had there been no slavery, I believe secession and the War would still have occurred. There were way too many factors to dilly up to just single out one as the "cause" of the war/secession.

Namely the growing divide between industrial north and agricultural south, their interests in foreign and domestic were growing far apart. The political power of the north generally lead to punitive economic policy placed on the south.

The civil war did not start over slavery the north made slavery an issue after the war started to keep england and france (both anti-slavery at this oint in history) from helping the south.


I don't think any said that. But now you've mentioned it, let's run with it and see if that makes any sense.

1. There is slavery in South.

2. Slavery leads to succession.

3. North fights to keep Union intact.

If we change the first statement so that:

1. There is no slavery in South.

2. There is no seccession.

3. There is no fight.

So it seems to me that we can say that slavery led to civil war, or at the very least was a very important factor. Personally I don't see how this can be realistically disputed.

Now we have the admittedly odd suggestion that southerners signed up to fight merely to protect slavery or to prove white supremecy.

In practice they certainly fought to protect slavery, even if that wasn't their intention. I believe it was accepted in the South that the North would end slavery, even though the North took a long time to get around to it. There is no evidence I can think of that shows that the South was about to give it up or would have given it up upon obtaining victory. So they did fight to protect slavery, however, we can't logically say Southerners signed up to protect slavery.

As for fighting to prove white supremecy that sounds a little odd. Shouldn't they be fighting against black people to prove that? And who would they prove it too? Even Abraham Lincon didn't believe that Negros were the equal of the white man. Those who believed that blacks were equal to whites were a very small minority in those days, so I think that we can confidently say that Southerners didn't fight to prove white superiority.