Why was Antebellum Southern Slavery Immoral?

[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?

 

[pinqy]

Because it was economically inefficient.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Because it was economically inefficient.

So morality is based on economics?

So if slavery were made economically efficient, would it then be moral?

If owning another person is inefficient, for whatever endeavor, then why is it efficient for the US military who actually legally and physically own its enlisted members who are legal property of the US government?

 

[editec]

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?

duh?

Why is the THEFT of another person's life immoral?

Are you seriously asking that question?

 

[pinqy]

Because it was economically inefficient.

So morality is based on economics?

I'm an economist....EVERYTHING is economics.

So if slavery were made economically efficient, would it then be moral?

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

If owning another person is inefficient, for whatever endeavor, then why is it efficient for the US military who actually legally and physically own its enlisted members who are legal property of the US government?

They don't legally and physically own enlisted members, (where on earth did you get that idea, anyway?) and while there are many inefficiencies in the military, any other system would be even more inefficient.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Strange OP, I think, but so far the posting has been interesting.

 

[novasteve]

Why limit it to the south? Union states had slavery too

 

[Katzndogz]

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

Slavery was on its way out at the time of the civil war. There was no way it could have lasted more than a few more years at best.

 

[Nosmo King]

Because it was economically inefficient.

So morality is based on economics?

So if slavery were made economically efficient, would it then be moral?

If owning another person is inefficient, for whatever endeavor, then why is it efficient for the US military who actually legally and physically own its enlisted members who are legal property of the US government?

Most people enter the military of their own free will, unlike those pressed into slavery. Are you asking if slavery was immoral according to modern concepts of morality or the morality of the pre-20th century that actually allowed for slavery?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The abolitionists of the north and west certainly considered American slavery immoral before the Civil War.

 

[Crackerman]

The abolitionists of the north and west certainly considered American slavery immoral before the Civil War.

Yet those same people that were abolitionists from the West and North used slave labor from the Far East to build the rail road from the Northeast coast out West.

 

[Katzndogz]

Lincoln was not an abolitionist.

 

[Katzndogz]

The abolitionists of the north and west certainly considered American slavery immoral before the Civil War.

Yet those same people that were abolitionists from the West and North used slave labor from the Far East to build the rail road from the Northeast coast out West.

The Chinese weren't kidnapped and dragged here. To come closer to "abolitionists" supporting slavery a more precise act of hypocrisy would be the practice of pressmen kidnapping men (white men) off the streets to man merchant ships. That's okay because they were white men.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

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

Slavery was on its way out at the time of the civil war. There was no way it could have lasted more than a few more years at best.

BS!

After reconstruction, the south re-installed slavery for another 100 years with the sharecropping economic system and Jim Crow laws.

Slavery has always been immoral because owning another human being is immoral.

 

[SayMyName]

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?

Depending on your own personal values, it may or may not be immoral. Yet, for the sake of discussion, it was immoral for reasons that no human being should be allowed by a state that claims to value liberty to own other human beings.

 

[eflatminor]

Why was Antebellum Southern Slavery Immoral?

Ironically, because it required central planners (in this case, some States) to enforce by law the ability of one person to force another into non-consensual activity...to make it a right.

Adding to that irony, we sought to end this immorality by imposing even more central planning by ignoring the Constitution and in particular, the enumerated powers and the 10th amendment. We sought to fix a problem of bad central planning with a bigger, more powerful federal government.

Making all this super-ironic, we've gone from central planners legalizing non-consensual activity during slave days to even bigger central planners, who now criminalize consensual activity. Talk about a pendulum swing!

Personally, I don't believe the civil war ever needed to take place. I would have let the Southern states secede and hit them where it really hurts...in the pocket book. I firmly believe slavery/segregation/JimCrow laws would have ended sooner had we not gone to war. Of course, as long as we have a time machine, I would not have supported allowing slave holding states to join the Union in the first place. As you said, it's immoral, no matter why one thinks it so.

 

[squeeze berry]

Why limit it to the south? Union states had slavery too

why limit to the US ?

 

[squeeze berry]

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

Slavery was on its way out at the time of the civil war. There was no way it could have lasted more than a few more years at best.

BS!

After reconstruction, the south re-installed slavery for another 100 years with the sharecropping economic system and Jim Crow laws.

Slavery has always been immoral because owning another human being is immoral.

I'll agree that slavery was immoral by our modern standards.

Slavery was legal almost everywhere prior to the mid 19th century. Who stopped it BTW?

the former slaves were free to come and, more importantly, go.

And sharecropping was never an economic institution restricted to former slaves.

 

[konradv]

Why limit it to the south? Union states had slavery too

why limit to the US ?

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".

 

[Katzndogz]

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

Slavery was on its way out at the time of the civil war. There was no way it could have lasted more than a few more years at best.

BS!

After reconstruction, the south re-installed slavery for another 100 years with the sharecropping economic system and Jim Crow laws.

Slavery has always been immoral because owning another human being is immoral.

Yankee carpetbaggers who bought up the bankrupt plantations re-installed slavery through the sharecropping system.