Why was Antebellum Southern Slavery Immoral?

[JoeBlam]

There's a huge motorcycle parts yard in Phoenix who hires illegals at $50 a day...paid in cash at 5pm....ten hours out in the sun, wreching parts off derelict bikes.....it's not just the heat, or the scorpions, or the occasional rattlesnake.....it's TEN HOURS of work....tell me a slave on a plantation didn't do that well with his room and board as pay....if the slave screwed up, he got no food, if the illegal screws up, INS comes and gets him.

We went from southern style slavery and all other styles of slaveries found within many different nations, to having now a world slavery that is acceptable as well it seems by those benefiting from it or are being fooled by it. It is just found in many different forms now when being found all over the world as it is, but it is definitely not a myth that these things exist as they do, and it is despicable every time we encounter or see this, even though it is still something that people find they have to do until hopefully some how it all gets better for them under such conditions in which they encounter in their lives.

This thread has turned out quite differently than it's OP intended....I know I've learned things I didn't know about, and that's there's several folks here who really know their stuff. This is a remarkable board; think I'll stick around.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Great Britain, the most power economic system in the world, abolished slavery in 1833 throughout it's entire empire. We were the last industrialized nation to abolish it. Was it moral? Consider that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclaimation put the final nail into the coffin of the South, because Great Britain knew that world opinion would never support their coming in to the war on the side of the South after that. That makes it a moral issue.

Hell, even the Mexicans had abolished slavery long before we did, which was a direct cause of the Texas War of Independence.

 

[oldfart]

Great Britain, the most power economic system in the world, abolished slavery in 1833 throughout it's entire empire. We were the last industrialized nation to abolish it. Was it moral? Consider that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclaimation put the final nail into the coffin of the South, because Great Britain knew that world opinion would never support their coming in to the war on the side of the South after that. That makes it a moral issue.

Hell, even the Mexicans had abolished slavery long before we did, which was a direct cause of the Texas War of Independence.

After the Mexican War there was a real debate over slavery in the newly acquired territories. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 only covered the Louisiana Purchase. The Wilmot Proviso that revealed the deep split which led to the Civil War had as a subtext the problem that Mexico had abolished slavery. Could the United States Congress legislate slavery into a territory it acquired which had not allowed slavery prior to acquisition?

 

[Boss]

I dont know why anyone would want a slave even then, it must have been the "in" thing to have I guess.

The problem so many people have with comprehending history, is this inability to understand life in another era of time. For some reason, they assume life has always been the way things are now, and that is simply not the case. I can't imagine why anyone would want a slave now, being that it's racist and morally frowned upon, and a violation of human rights. Even if it were the "in" thing, that seems enough to dissuade most people. Still, there are probably people would LOVE to have a slave, to do all the shit they didn't want to do, like mow the yard or clean the windows. Nowadays, people just have kids.

Here's the thing about slavery... When the colonists came to America, they found vast and fertile lands in the South, where crops grew well in the climate. This was a pretty big deal to Englanders, who basically lived on an island, with a climate not really great for any type of agriculture. One of the most popular crops at the time, was cotton. It was used for so many things worldwide, and it was hard to find in England, it had to be imported from India or China. So the colonists decided to plant cotton, lots and lots of it. Now, even in China and India, the method by which the cotton was picked, was slave labor. British colonies elsewhere, were using slave labor to harvest cotton, sugar cane, all kinds of things. So there wasn't anything considered wrong or unethical about this, it was how things were done back then. More and more colonists were drawn to the South, and the fertile cotton lands, by the lure of money and wealth. Cotton plantations sprang up all over, and soon, cotton became the leading crop produced in the colonies.

When we declared our independence from England, the question of slavery should have been addressed, and it was to a degree. Adams didn't like it, but decided it was "a necessary evil" and so it was permitted to remain. Besides, what were they going to do, eliminate the #1 crop and source of revenue for the new country? Of course, cotton plantations continued to pop up, and soon, we had millions of slaves in the South. Whenever you have millions of disenfranchised enslaved people, you naturally have horror stories of abuse, neglect, and atrocity. This resonated with the peaceful Quaker people in the North, who were appalled by slavery, so they began a movement to have slavery abolished. After decades of protest, they convinced the politicians to do away with slave trading, the capitalist exchange happening in our ports, where ships full of slaves arrived daily. Of course, this simply eliminated any new slaves from coming, but millions were already here. What could be done about that? Well, the abolitionists pushed to have them liberated from slavery, of course, but in a landmark SCOTUS ruling, the slaves were deemed to be "property" by the court, not human beings.

So now, you have the situation where American citizens owned property, deemed so by the court legitimately, and yet the abolitionists were still fighting to liberate the slaves. The Constitution is clear in the 4th Amendment, the government doesn't have the power to seize or confiscate your property without due cause. Yet that was exactly what the abolitionists sought to do. The government was somewhat caught in the middle, they couldn't outright seize property, and most of them were opposed to the idea anyway, because of what it would have done to their cash cow, Cotton. So we plodded along a few more decades, with court battles and challenges, all the while, with the knowledge and understanding the SCOTUS had ruled the slaves were property. Plantation owners had not disobeyed the law, they made honest purchases in good faith, of slave labor to work the fields. No different to them, than buying a mule or horse. The SCOTUS was on their side, they hadn't done anything wrong, so why should they have to suffer the financial loss for their investment?

Okay, so now you see where there was a problem here. The government wanted to do something, so they began a program by which, they would purchase the slaves from the plantation owners, then they would take the slaves away somewhere to live free. You see, that was another problem, what to do with these millions of uneducated slaves? We certainly couldn't just turn them loose and let them fend for themselves. The idea was to liberate them by purchasing them from the plantations, then shipping them away somewhere... out of sight, out of mind. Now, this idea worked on a small scale basis, in fact, they all but eliminated slavery in Maryland. But that was only a few thousand slaves, there were millions of them in the South. So this plan wasn't going to be efficient in the long term, we simply couldn't afford to purchase all the slaves, which were estimated in value at the time of the Civil War, at just over a billion dollars (1860 dollars).

Lincoln had the idea, that we could ban future slavery by only allowing states in the union as "free states" and eventually, there would be enough "free states" to have votes in Congress, whereby, slavery as an institution would surely fall. Of course, the Southern plantation owners could see what was happening, they weren't stupid. They knew that Lincoln was onto something here, and if they didn't do something drastic, slavery was about to be a thing of the past. They would never be compensated for their property, it would simply be outlawed through an influx of "free state" votes to do so. Therefore, they decided that secession from the Union was warranted. Under their own flag and constitution, they could retain slavery and their way of life, and the Union would be free to do whatever the hell they pleased.

People today, often draw the misconception that the Civil War was about slavery, it wasn't. It was OVER slavery, but it was ABOUT federal intervention in the rights of individuals and states. It was about the Union's attempt to subvert their own Constitution and render "property" illegitimate, as well as "property rights." I compare this in analogy today, as the following: What if the government decided to deem your car is not property you own? Of course, you bought and paid for your car, you know that, but if the government says you don't have a right to your car because it's no longer your property, what is your argument against that? You say, well, they can't do that because of the 4th Amendment, but that is exactly what they intended to do. This is why the Southern states seceded. From a purely "constitutional" standpoint, they had every right to do so. Remember, the SCOTUS ruled slaves were "property," not the CSA. The 4th Amendment was part of the US Constitution, not something the CSA made up.

People today will sometimes look at history and say... How could they have enslaved people and not realized this was wrong? Well, because the SCOTUS ruled they weren't "people" but rather, "property," and this was upheld in law, and commonly accepted. Very few people saw African slaves as anything more than livestock, and certainly not citizens with constitutional rights. Even most abolitionists, including Lincoln, didn't view the slave as being equal to whites. We have to remember this context when discussing this part of our history, otherwise, we end up thinking... why would anyone want to own a slave?

 

[beagle9]

Great Britain, the most power economic system in the world, abolished slavery in 1833 throughout it's entire empire. We were the last industrialized nation to abolish it. Was it moral? Consider that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclaimation put the final nail into the coffin of the South, because Great Britain knew that world opinion would never support their coming in to the war on the side of the South after that. That makes it a moral issue.

Hell, even the Mexicans had abolished slavery long before we did, which was a direct cause of the Texas War of Independence.

Didn't know this, but interesting stuff.

 

[beagle9]

I dont know why anyone would want a slave even then, it must have been the "in" thing to have I guess.

The problem so many people have with comprehending history, is this inability to understand life in another era of time. For some reason, they assume life has always been the way things are now, and that is simply not the case. I can't imagine why anyone would want a slave now, being that it's racist and morally frowned upon, and a violation of human rights. Even if it were the "in" thing, that seems enough to dissuade most people. Still, there are probably people would LOVE to have a slave, to do all the shit they didn't want to do, like mow the yard or clean the windows. Nowadays, people just have kids.

Here's the thing about slavery... When the colonists came to America, they found vast and fertile lands in the South, where crops grew well in the climate. This was a pretty big deal to Englanders, who basically lived on an island, with a climate not really great for any type of agriculture. One of the most popular crops at the time, was cotton. It was used for so many things worldwide, and it was hard to find in England, it had to be imported from India or China. So the colonists decided to plant cotton, lots and lots of it. Now, even in China and India, the method by which the cotton was picked, was slave labor. British colonies elsewhere, were using slave labor to harvest cotton, sugar cane, all kinds of things. So there wasn't anything considered wrong or unethical about this, it was how things were done back then. More and more colonists were drawn to the South, and the fertile cotton lands, by the lure of money and wealth. Cotton plantations sprang up all over, and soon, cotton became the leading crop produced in the colonies.

When we declared our independence from England, the question of slavery should have been addressed, and it was to a degree. Adams didn't like it, but decided it was "a necessary evil" and so it was permitted to remain. Besides, what were they going to do, eliminate the #1 crop and source of revenue for the new country? Of course, cotton plantations continued to pop up, and soon, we had millions of slaves in the South. Whenever you have millions of disenfranchised enslaved people, you naturally have horror stories of abuse, neglect, and atrocity. This resonated with the peaceful Quaker people in the North, who were appalled by slavery, so they began a movement to have slavery abolished. After decades of protest, they convinced the politicians to do away with slave trading, the capitalist exchange happening in our ports, where ships full of slaves arrived daily. Of course, this simply eliminated any new slaves from coming, but millions were already here. What could be done about that? Well, the abolitionists pushed to have them liberated from slavery, of course, but in a landmark SCOTUS ruling, the slaves were deemed to be "property" by the court, not human beings.

So now, you have the situation where American citizens owned property, deemed so by the court legitimately, and yet the abolitionists were still fighting to liberate the slaves. The Constitution is clear in the 4th Amendment, the government doesn't have the power to seize or confiscate your property without due cause. Yet that was exactly what the abolitionists sought to do. The government was somewhat caught in the middle, they couldn't outright seize property, and most of them were opposed to the idea anyway, because of what it would have done to their cash cow, Cotton. So we plodded along a few more decades, with court battles and challenges, all the while, with the knowledge and understanding the SCOTUS had ruled the slaves were property. Plantation owners had not disobeyed the law, they made honest purchases in good faith, of slave labor to work the fields. No different to them, than buying a mule or horse. The SCOTUS was on their side, they hadn't done anything wrong, so why should they have to suffer the financial loss for their investment?

Okay, so now you see where there was a problem here. The government wanted to do something, so they began a program by which, they would purchase the slaves from the plantation owners, then they would take the slaves away somewhere to live free. You see, that was another problem, what to do with these millions of uneducated slaves? We certainly couldn't just turn them loose and let them fend for themselves. The idea was to liberate them by purchasing them from the plantations, then shipping them away somewhere... out of sight, out of mind. Now, this idea worked on a small scale basis, in fact, they all but eliminated slavery in Maryland. But that was only a few thousand slaves, there were millions of them in the South. So this plan wasn't going to be efficient in the long term, we simply couldn't afford to purchase all the slaves, which were estimated in value at the time of the Civil War, at just over a billion dollars (1860 dollars).

Lincoln had the idea, that we could ban future slavery by only allowing states in the union as "free states" and eventually, there would be enough "free states" to have votes in Congress, whereby, slavery as an institution would surely fall. Of course, the Southern plantation owners could see what was happening, they weren't stupid. They knew that Lincoln was onto something here, and if they didn't do something drastic, slavery was about to be a thing of the past. They would never be compensated for their property, it would simply be outlawed through an influx of "free state" votes to do so. Therefore, they decided that secession from the Union was warranted. Under their own flag and constitution, they could retain slavery and their way of life, and the Union would be free to do whatever the hell they pleased.

People today, often draw the misconception that the Civil War was about slavery, it wasn't. It was OVER slavery, but it was ABOUT federal intervention in the rights of individuals and states. It was about the Union's attempt to subvert their own Constitution and render "property" illegitimate, as well as "property rights." I compare this in analogy today, as the following: What if the government decided to deem your car is not property you own? Of course, you bought and paid for your car, you know that, but if the government says you don't have a right to your car because it's no longer your property, what is your argument against that? You say, well, they can't do that because of the 4th Amendment, but that is exactly what they intended to do. This is why the Southern states seceded. From a purely "constitutional" standpoint, they had every right to do so. Remember, the SCOTUS ruled slaves were "property," not the CSA. The 4th Amendment was part of the US Constitution, not something the CSA made up.

People today will sometimes look at history and say... How could they have enslaved people and not realized this was wrong? Well, because the SCOTUS ruled they weren't "people" but rather, "property," and this was upheld in law, and commonly accepted. Very few people saw African slaves as anything more than livestock, and certainly not citizens with constitutional rights. Even most abolitionists, including Lincoln, didn't view the slave as being equal to whites. We have to remember this context when discussing this part of our history, otherwise, we end up thinking... why would anyone want to own a slave?

Ok, but wasn't this situation still connected to the south not having the means to harvest thousands of acres with the men whom they had doing this as slaves, for whom were used as slave labor for the dire economic reasoning in which they had (no tractors or modern day equipment available), and that the U.S. government (the Union) didn't have an answer for their dilemma in which they had concerning such a situation in which they were being placed in, which was to free them, and then to try and work them in such horrid conditions in which they had been conditioned and forced to work in prior to, but now they are free to choose to do this work or not ? Was it the fear of these owners that they couldn't get these workers to work any other way, but that to have total control over them in this way in that period ? These people where superb in their conditioning as a side affect of this period, and it is still evident in them to this very day.

Isn't this the same situation where there is a cry that we hear today, and that cry is in concerns of the illegals who have come here by the millions to work also, and it is yet another cry that we can't harvest our crops anymore or find help in these jobs that the Americans just won't do, otherwise if we don't allow these Mexicans or others to remain doing the jobs that they have been coaxed here to do, America will collapse economically ?

Then look at how these Mexicans were working here (under the table), living off of government assistance (tax payers unaware), while the ones working them weren't showing them on any pay stubs. Then they began to take the Americans jobs from those Americans for whom would work, but because the band wagon was swelling quicker than a sponge filling with water it was overwhelming to resist it, and so next it was like being a crack head getting hooked on crack with these business owners who had become hooked on this labor force, and so they were more than willing to just throw away the Americans or make it undesirable as possible for Americans to work any longer in these jobs or to compete for these jobs as a result of.

I mean why would they when the American workers would demand a structured pay scale with long term advancements and profit sharing just as it had always been in the past within many of the jobs since gone away in these areas that had been taken over ?

Man they had it made with this new uneducated workforce in which they had politicians helping them to work out such a system these days as it were under the table or rather they were given a nod towards this new idea in order to get away with it, and so next it was created this system to discourage Americans from wanting to work as they once did in America not so long ago. Their just doing the jobs Americans won't do is what was shouted from the roof tops when ever challenged. I would love to have heard some of the excuses for slavery back then as well.

The reason Americans stopped looking at jobs in many areas out in the American landscape, was because the system was now being rigged against them, in which they are or were encouraged not to work in such a system set aside for the illegals or Mexican labor force, so now you have thousands of teens or young American adults living with their parents in America, not knowing what to do or where to get a job next, because all the beginner jobs were taken by the Mexicans who had come here illegally to fill these jobs for cheap.

Now it may not be a return to slavery completely, but rather instead it has become the undermining of the Americans in their own nation is the way I see it, and all for the reason of greed and super wealth at the cost of their own families found somewhere in their futures. What is a man that would sell his own soul, and what will he give in exchange for his soul ? The American business man has sold out his nation, and has undermined it's strength in the process. It is a shame and disgrace is what it all amounts to, including the original slavery that was based on economics of the time period. Hec what has happened today in America, just might be worse than what was going on back then in retrospect, because there isn't a need for field workers today as it were back then, so it is just pure greed in what has happened in this nation or is going on in this nation today in all of this mess.

 

[beagle9]

This nation needs nothing but a good work visa program, that allows workers to come in here as free men wanting to work, and that has them coming across the border as free men willingly, and not across the rio grand as illegals and/or over a fence. Then lets clean up this hellish mess that has been created once again in America.

We should only bring in what we need as workers, and no more period. Others will come here as applied for citizens who want to become citizens, and whom have longed to be American because they want what we have as a culture, and not instead to want to destroy our culture as some have wanted to. This nation has been duped so bad by idiots in power and greedy bastards that it just isn't funny anymore.

 

[rdean]

Republicans don't have a problem with slavery because to them, all slaves are black and all slave owners are white.

 

[Boss]

Ok, but wasn't this situation still connected to the south not having the means to harvest thousands of acres with the men whom they had doing this as slaves, for whom were used as slave labor for the dire economic reasoning in which they had (no tractors or modern day equipment available), and that the U.S. government (the Union) didn't have an answer for their dilemma in which they had concerning such a situation in which they were being placed in, which was to free them, and then to try and work them in such horrid conditions in which they had been conditioned and forced to work in prior to, but now they are free to choose to do this work or not ? Was it the fear of these owners that they couldn't get these workers to work any other way, but that to have total control over them in this way in that period ? These people where superb in their conditioning as a side affect of this period, and it is still evident in them to this very day.

Not really. It was more of a matter of principle. Plantation owners made legal purchases of legal property, just as if they had bought cattle or horses. Now, let's say you were a cattle rancher in Texas, or a horse breeder in Kentucky, and the Federal government comes along and says... beagle, we're going to confiscate your animals because we think it's inhumane to keep them against their will. You've spent your hard earned money on this, it's how you feed your family, are you just going to say... meh... okay, you've got a point?

No, you are going to say... HELL NO! This is MY property, I bought and paid for it legally, and you have NO right to come and seize it, for ANY reason! This was the reasoning of the Southerner, they felt well within their rights to declare independence from the Union.

It wasn't that they were afraid they couldn't replace the cheap labor, or didn't think it would be possible to make as much money, it was a matter of property rights and individuals not feeling compelled to give them up. If the government wanted them, they should have to buy them, like they did the slaves in Maryland and elsewhere.

Isn't this the same situation where there is a cry that we hear today, and that cry is in concerns of the illegals who have come here by the millions to work also, and it is yet another cry that we can't harvest our crops anymore or find help in these jobs that the Americans just won't do, otherwise if we don't allow these Mexicans or others to remain doing the jobs that they have been coaxed here to do, America will collapse economically ?

It's not anything remotely near the same. Illegal immigrants come here of their own free will, and because they are undocumented, they can be paid under the table and not be compensated as well as those who have citizenship. It's illegal to hire workers you know are illegal immigrants, but our government turns a blind eye to it, and in some cases, has instituted special programs (work visas) to allow it to legitimately continue. The only two entities benefiting, are the capitalists and the government. It's draining the economies of the border cities, just in trying to provide emergency services.

Man they had it made with this new uneducated workforce in which they had politicians helping them to work out such a system these days as it were under the table or rather they were given a nod towards this new idea in order to get away with it, and so next it was created this system to discourage Americans from wanting to work as they once did in America not so long ago. Their just doing the jobs Americans won't do is what was shouted from the roof tops when ever challenged. I would love to have heard some of the excuses for slavery back then as well.

But there is your difference, there weren't "excuses" for slavery, it was a legally accepted institution in America. Plantation owners weren't warned, they may have to give up their property someday, it was a perfectly legal transaction and purchase, upheld by the SCOTUS. To make it similar to illegal immigrants today, you'd have to have the Government duplicitous in making it LEGAL to hire illegal immigrants and pay them slave wages... It's NOT legal. The excuse for why nothing is done about it, is what you said... that is true. But that's because an excuse is needed, with slavery, there was no need for an excuse, what was being done wasn't illegal.

It is a shame and disgrace is what it all amounts to, including the original slavery that was based on economics of the time period. Hec what has happened today in America, just might be worse than what was going on back then in retrospect, because there isn't a need for field workers today as it were back then, so it is just pure greed in what has happened in this nation or is going on in this nation today in all of this mess.

But slavery wasn't really about economics. There was no other way for cotton to get harvested, other than to be picked by human hands. It wasn't until the cotton gin, there was another actual way to harvest cotton, then it was a matter of economics, plantation owners couldn't justify the increased cost when they had perfectly good (legal) slaves to do the work. You can get upset and say it was about the economics of cotton, but you need to understand that every country has to produce something of value for the world, or it can't survive. I mean.... I would just love to live in a non-capitalist universe, where all of our desires are met, and needs taken care of, and no one ever has to work too hard or produce anything... but that is a utopian fantasy that isn't ever going to happen.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

People ignore the fact, too, that many people in the South wanted an end to slavery. Slavery would've ended without the Civil War. "Freeing" slaves to steal or starve in a ruined economy was hardly doing them a favor. We feel the repercussions today and probably will for another hundred years.

 

[jasonnfree]

We're heading for wage slavery here. Not much better. Remember those chinese factory girls romney was bragging about during the campaign? The wire fence was built to keep willing workers out, not to keep the girls in. Wage slavery. Doesn't matter who's in the white house now. Both parties will make this happen.

 

[jasonnfree]

I dont know why anyone would want a slave even then, it must have been the "in" thing to have I guess.

The problem so many people have with comprehending history, is this inability to understand life in another era of time. For some reason, they assume life has always been the way things are now, and that is simply not the case. I can't imagine why anyone would want a slave now, being that it's racist and morally frowned upon, and a violation of human rights. Even if it were the "in" thing, that seems enough to dissuade most people. Still, there are probably people would LOVE to have a slave, to do all the shit they didn't want to do, like mow the yard or clean the windows. Nowadays, people just have kids.

Here's the thing about slavery... When the colonists came to America, they found vast and fertile lands in the South, where crops grew well in the climate. This was a pretty big deal to Englanders, who basically lived on an island, with a climate not really great for any type of agriculture. One of the most popular crops at the time, was cotton. It was used for so many things worldwide, and it was hard to find in England, it had to be imported from India or China. So the colonists decided to plant cotton, lots and lots of it. Now, even in China and India, the method by which the cotton was picked, was slave labor. British colonies elsewhere, were using slave labor to harvest cotton, sugar cane, all kinds of things. So there wasn't anything considered wrong or unethical about this, it was how things were done back then. More and more colonists were drawn to the South, and the fertile cotton lands, by the lure of money and wealth. Cotton plantations sprang up all over, and soon, cotton became the leading crop produced in the colonies.

When we declared our independence from England, the question of slavery should have been addressed, and it was to a degree. Adams didn't like it, but decided it was "a necessary evil" and so it was permitted to remain. Besides, what were they going to do, eliminate the #1 crop and source of revenue for the new country? Of course, cotton plantations continued to pop up, and soon, we had millions of slaves in the South. Whenever you have millions of disenfranchised enslaved people, you naturally have horror stories of abuse, neglect, and atrocity. This resonated with the peaceful Quaker people in the North, who were appalled by slavery, so they began a movement to have slavery abolished. After decades of protest, they convinced the politicians to do away with slave trading, the capitalist exchange happening in our ports, where ships full of slaves arrived daily. Of course, this simply eliminated any new slaves from coming, but millions were already here. What could be done about that? Well, the abolitionists pushed to have them liberated from slavery, of course, but in a landmark SCOTUS ruling, the slaves were deemed to be "property" by the court, not human beings.

So now, you have the situation where American citizens owned property, deemed so by the court legitimately, and yet the abolitionists were still fighting to liberate the slaves. The Constitution is clear in the 4th Amendment, the government doesn't have the power to seize or confiscate your property without due cause. Yet that was exactly what the abolitionists sought to do. The government was somewhat caught in the middle, they couldn't outright seize property, and most of them were opposed to the idea anyway, because of what it would have done to their cash cow, Cotton. So we plodded along a few more decades, with court battles and challenges, all the while, with the knowledge and understanding the SCOTUS had ruled the slaves were property. Plantation owners had not disobeyed the law, they made honest purchases in good faith, of slave labor to work the fields. No different to them, than buying a mule or horse. The SCOTUS was on their side, they hadn't done anything wrong, so why should they have to suffer the financial loss for their investment?

Okay, so now you see where there was a problem here. The government wanted to do something, so they began a program by which, they would purchase the slaves from the plantation owners, then they would take the slaves away somewhere to live free. You see, that was another problem, what to do with these millions of uneducated slaves? We certainly couldn't just turn them loose and let them fend for themselves. The idea was to liberate them by purchasing them from the plantations, then shipping them away somewhere... out of sight, out of mind. Now, this idea worked on a small scale basis, in fact, they all but eliminated slavery in Maryland. But that was only a few thousand slaves, there were millions of them in the South. So this plan wasn't going to be efficient in the long term, we simply couldn't afford to purchase all the slaves, which were estimated in value at the time of the Civil War, at just over a billion dollars (1860 dollars).

Lincoln had the idea, that we could ban future slavery by only allowing states in the union as "free states" and eventually, there would be enough "free states" to have votes in Congress, whereby, slavery as an institution would surely fall. Of course, the Southern plantation owners could see what was happening, they weren't stupid. They knew that Lincoln was onto something here, and if they didn't do something drastic, slavery was about to be a thing of the past. They would never be compensated for their property, it would simply be outlawed through an influx of "free state" votes to do so. Therefore, they decided that secession from the Union was warranted. Under their own flag and constitution, they could retain slavery and their way of life, and the Union would be free to do whatever the hell they pleased.

People today, often draw the misconception that the Civil War was about slavery, it wasn't. It was OVER slavery, but it was ABOUT federal intervention in the rights of individuals and states. It was about the Union's attempt to subvert their own Constitution and render "property" illegitimate, as well as "property rights." I compare this in analogy today, as the following: What if the government decided to deem your car is not property you own? Of course, you bought and paid for your car, you know that, but if the government says you don't have a right to your car because it's no longer your property, what is your argument against that? You say, well, they can't do that because of the 4th Amendment, but that is exactly what they intended to do. This is why the Southern states seceded. From a purely "constitutional" standpoint, they had every right to do so. Remember, the SCOTUS ruled slaves were "property," not the CSA. The 4th Amendment was part of the US Constitution, not something the CSA made up.

People today will sometimes look at history and say... How could they have enslaved people and not realized this was wrong? Well, because the SCOTUS ruled they weren't "people" but rather, "property," and this was upheld in law, and commonly accepted. Very few people saw African slaves as anything more than livestock, and certainly not citizens with constitutional rights. Even most abolitionists, including Lincoln, didn't view the slave as being equal to whites. We have to remember this context when discussing this part of our history, otherwise, we end up thinking... why would anyone want to own a slave?

Of course poor southern white boys were forced to fight for the right of wealthy plantation owners to own slaves. Plantation owners exempt from fighting in the civil war. They had to keep the home fires burning.

 

[hoosier88]

People ignore the fact, too, that many people in the South wanted an end to slavery. Slavery would've ended without the Civil War. "Freeing" slaves to steal or starve in a ruined economy was hardly doing them a favor. We feel the repercussions today and probably will for another hundred years.

(My bold)

There were Southeners who were opposed to salvery. But Plantation Society - the large cotton/slave plantations voting as a block - dominated their states. & thus their newspapers, justice systems, land, religious institutions. Plantation Society blinkered their own self-interest, & spent a lot of time & effort & $ on non-productive state spending - they didn't attend to infrastructure, public education, manufacturing & so on because these would tend to diminish their perceived basic economic & politcal survival - the plantation system.

& they could see capital flows & the flow of political power - immigrants, for instance - going to the industrializing North - because there was no place in the South for those people to go & apply their energy. The North burgeoned with workers, who built up railroads, roads, canals, farms, newspapers, hospitals, universities, public & parochial schools, ships, internal & international trade, finance & administration & insurance, manufacturing, iron & steel-works, coal, telegraph nets, mills, etc. on a massive scale. The South figured that they had to act before all the power & money wound up in the North, but they were already decades too late. The political organization of the North was superior to the South - the North didn't have to invent new hierarchies, they were already in place. The South had to invent new org charts, they perpetuated basically the Articles of Confederation - a v. weak central government, that couldn't command the resources for a long-term defense of the national territory, & never resolved the issue of where soldiers could serve, nor whether officers of other states would command them or not.

The North staggered while it found generals who were bloody-minded enough to win battles. But given the starting points for both sides, I don't think the ultimate outcome was ever in doubt. In a long war, the North was bound to win.

 

[beagle9]

Republicans don't have a problem with slavery because to them, all slaves are black and all slave owners are white.

Why don't you try and be objective or productive in your speak, instead of being full of ignorance in your speak instead ? Why the cheap shot, does it mean that you are just small minded like this maybe ?

 

[Crackerjaxon]

People ignore the fact, too, that many people in the South wanted an end to slavery. Slavery would've ended without the Civil War. "Freeing" slaves to steal or starve in a ruined economy was hardly doing them a favor. We feel the repercussions today and probably will for another hundred years.

(My bold)

There were Southeners who were opposed to salvery. But Plantation Society - the large cotton/slave plantations voting as a block - dominated their states. & thus their newspapers, justice systems, land, religious institutions. Plantation Society blinkered their own self-interest, & spent a lot of time & effort & $ on non-productive state spending - they didn't attend to infrastructure, public education, manufacturing & so on because these would tend to diminish their perceived basic economic & politcal survival - the plantation system.

& they could see capital flows & the flow of political power - immigrants, for instance - going to the industrializing North - because there was no place in the South for those people to go & apply their energy. The North burgeoned with workers, who built up railroads, roads, canals, farms, newspapers, hospitals, universities, public & parochial schools, ships, internal & international trade, finance & administration & insurance, manufacturing, iron & steel-works, coal, telegraph nets, mills, etc. on a massive scale. The South figured that they had to act before all the power & money wound up in the North, but they were already decades too late. The political organization of the North was superior to the South - the North didn't have to invent new hierarchies, they were already in place. The South had to invent new org charts, they perpetuated basically the Articles of Confederation - a v. weak central government, that couldn't command the resources for a long-term defense of the national territory, & never resolved the issue of where soldiers could serve, nor whether officers of other states would command them or not.

The North staggered while it found generals who were bloody-minded enough to win battles. But given the starting points for both sides, I don't think the ultimate outcome was ever in doubt. In a long war, the North was bound to win.

Silly generalizations. Plantation owners knew that slavery was ending. They were naive enough to believe that they could leave the United States peacefully and end slavery gradually through manumission.

Bottom line is that the North invaded the South and did its level best to turn the former CSA into a vassal state. It largely succeeded. There was not a Southern-owned bank in the South until 1920. Ex-Confederates were not franchised to vote.

If you want to understand the roots of the Civil War, start with the conflict between Burr and Hamilton.

 

[beagle9]

Ok, but wasn't this situation still connected to the south not having the means to harvest thousands of acres with the men whom they had doing this as slaves, for whom were used as slave labor for the dire economic reasoning in which they had (no tractors or modern day equipment available), and that the U.S. government (the Union) didn't have an answer for their dilemma in which they had concerning such a situation in which they were being placed in, which was to free them, and then to try and work them in such horrid conditions in which they had been conditioned and forced to work in prior to, but now they are free to choose to do this work or not ? Was it the fear of these owners that they couldn't get these workers to work any other way, but that to have total control over them in this way in that period ? These people where superb in their conditioning as a side affect of this period, and it is still evident in them to this very day.

Not really. It was more of a matter of principle. Plantation owners made legal purchases of legal property, just as if they had bought cattle or horses. Now, let's say you were a cattle rancher in Texas, or a horse breeder in Kentucky, and the Federal government comes along and says... beagle, we're going to confiscate your animals because we think it's inhumane to keep them against their will. You've spent your hard earned money on this, it's how you feed your family, are you just going to say... meh... okay, you've got a point?

Hmm, it's interesting how you use the animal analogy in your examples, in which sort of suggest that you feel that the slave owners saw these men as property in the same light as they would their animals in which they had purchased for work and other purposes, but I think that you are wrong on this, and that they knew these were men and women just like the illegals today are also seen as men and women in the eyes of their employers, but what they are seen as is very intense laborers who will get the job done under just about any circumstances that they are placed into, and that is what makes them so valuable to these employers/owners of the new and old time periods.

Isn't this the same situation where there is a cry that we hear today, and that cry is in concerns of the illegals who have come here by the millions to work also, and it is yet another cry that we can't harvest our crops anymore or find help in these jobs that the Americans just won't do, otherwise if we don't allow these Mexicans or others to remain doing the jobs that they have been coaxed here to do, America will collapse economically ?

It's not anything remotely near the same. Illegal immigrants come here of their own free will, and because they are undocumented, they can be paid under the table and not be compensated as well as those who have citizenship. It's illegal to hire workers you know are illegal immigrants, but our government turns a blind eye to it, and in some cases, has instituted special programs (work visas) to allow it to legitimately continue. The only two entities benefiting, are the capitalists and the government. It's draining the economies of the border cities, just in trying to provide emergency services.

So the slaves were brought here against their own free will yes we know, otherwise yes of course they were, but what does it matter, because it does not lesson their value as extreme workers to their masters or employers found in either time periods , and this whether they were brought here against their will or swam here across the Rio Grande to perform a similar work task in the fields where as the end results are similar to them if not almost the same. The only difference was the type of work or work load that was expected of them back then and today, and the type of conditions that existed in each time period that surrounded them, and the most important was their treatment either as free men or as slaves at the hands of their masters or their employers during both time periods in which we have mentioned.

Man they had it made with this new uneducated workforce in which they had politicians helping them to work out such a system these days as it were under the table or rather they were given a nod towards this new idea in order to get away with it, and so next it was created this system to discourage Americans from wanting to work as they once did in America not so long ago. Their just doing the jobs Americans won't do is what was shouted from the roof tops when ever challenged. I would love to have heard some of the excuses for slavery back then as well.

But there is your difference, there weren't "excuses" for slavery, it was a legally accepted institution in America. Plantation owners weren't warned, they may have to give up their property someday, it was a perfectly legal transaction and purchase, upheld by the SCOTUS. To make it similar to illegal immigrants today, you'd have to have the Government duplicitous in making it LEGAL to hire illegal immigrants and pay them slave wages... It's NOT legal. The excuse for why nothing is done about it, is what you said... that is true. But that's because an excuse is needed, with slavery, there was no need for an excuse, what was being done wasn't illegal.

Matters not, because as the laws were being revamped and/or attempted to be changed, then it was either produce a good enough excuse for the nation to continue on in slavery as it were, or be ready to fight if don't give it up finally. This was the ultimatum given them eventually right? Sadly they chose to fight instead of end slavery peacefully, but as was said I think they were being faced with the thinking upon how does one work these people in those hot fields in the ways they were being worked, if they became free agents ?

It is a shame and disgrace is what it all amounts to, including the original slavery that was based on economics of the time period. Hec what has happened today in America, just might be worse than what was going on back then in retrospect, because there isn't a need for field workers today as it were back then, so it is just pure greed in what has happened in this nation or is going on in this nation today in all of this mess.

But slavery wasn't really about economics. There was no other way for cotton to get harvested, other than to be picked by human hands. It wasn't until the cotton gin, there was another actual way to harvest cotton, then it was a matter of economics, plantation owners couldn't justify the increased cost when they had perfectly good (legal) slaves to do the work. You can get upset and say it was about the economics of cotton, but you need to understand that every country has to produce something of value for the world, or it can't survive. I mean.... I would just love to live in a non-capitalist universe, where all of our desires are met, and needs taken care of, and no one ever has to work too hard or produce anything... but that is a utopian fantasy that isn't ever going to happen.

Did you just contradict yourself here, but didn't realize it ?

 

[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.

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.

Are you here on vacation from Bizarro World? The inevitable rift was fundamental and born of the inherent contradiction between the principles this nation was founded upon and the perpetuation of the evil institution of slavery (driver, when all is said and done, of the many other factors that played a role). Compromise after compromise was attempted since the very beginning, but it was just a matter of time. Lincoln preserved the Union and put the issue to bed (or at least turned down the sheets).

 

[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.

You really do not think the two entwined?.

Not if you understand what "morality" means.

 

[Unkotare]

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

Well Popeye? Have you bothered to look yet? Or did you freeze up in your kitty-cat stance and can't reach your 'Life Alert' button?

 

[Boss]

Hmm, it's interesting how you use the animal analogy in your examples, in which sort of suggest that you feel that the slave owners saw these men as property in the same light as they would their animals in which they had purchased for work and other purposes, but I think that you are wrong on this, and that they knew these were men and women just like the illegals today are also seen as men and women in the eyes of their employers, but what they are seen as is very intense laborers who will get the job done under just about any circumstances that they are placed into, and that is what makes them so valuable to these employers/owners of the new and old time periods.

I don't "feel" they saw the slaves as property, that was the ruling by the US Supreme Court, it was law of the land. They weren't merely "valuable" to a cotton plantation, they were "essential" ...as I said, it's how cotton was harvested, there was no other way. To make the analogy with illegal aliens work, you have to make it legal to own illegal aliens as property. That's obviously not the case. If the SCOTUS rules that illegal aliens are property and not people, then you have a valid point.

So the slaves were brought here against their own free will yes we know, otherwise yes of course they were, but what does it matter, because it does not lesson their value as extreme workers to their masters or employers found in either time periods , and this whether they were brought here against their will or swam here across the Rio Grande to perform a similar work task in the fields where as the end results are similar to them if not almost the same. The only difference was the type of work or work load that was expected of them back then and today, and the type of conditions that existed in each time period that surrounded them, and the most important was their treatment either as free men or as slaves at the hands of their masters or their employers during both time periods in which we have mentioned.

If you can't acknowledge the difference between slavery and voluntarily coming to work, I don't know what to say. If you don't see a difference between a master who owns you as property, and an employer who pays you a wage, I don't know what to say. You just have some bizarre understandings, and I can't do anything with that. There is also the matter of something that was legal and upheld by SCOTUS and something that is illegal and not permitted by law. Huge major difference there.

Matters not, because as the laws were being revamped and/or attempted to be changed, then it was either produce a good enough excuse for the nation to continue on in slavery as it were, or be ready to fight if don't give it up finally. This was the ultimatum given them eventually right? Sadly they chose to fight instead of end slavery peacefully, but as was said I think they were being faced with the thinking upon how does one work these people in those hot fields in the ways they were being worked, if they became free agents ?

The laws weren't being revamped. Every challenge to the law, slavery was upheld by the SCOTUS. This is another misconception, people think the South rebellious over not wanting to give up slavery. It was never an ultimatum, as I said, the court continued to side with the plantation owners, and upheld slavery. The South was not fighting to keep slavery against the will of the United States, the government was trying to get around the courts by adding enough "free state" votes to outlaw slavery, that was the plan. Southern plantation owners, who had the SCOTUS on their side, saw they were about to be royally fucked by government, and they rebelled.

I've often said, the Civil War could have been averted if Congress, at any point, had simply voted to outlaw slavery in the US and make it illegal. They didn't do that, instead, the SCOTUS continued to side with the plantation owners, and deem them property. Every president up to and including Lincoln, allowed slavery to exist, never campaigned against it, never promised to end it. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the Southern states, which he technically had no jurisdiction, since they had declared independence. It wasn't until AFTER the Civil War, and passage/ratification of the 13th and 14th Amendments, that slavery was ended in the US.

But slavery wasn't really about economics. There was no other way for cotton to get harvested, other than to be picked by human hands. It wasn't until the cotton gin, there was another actual way to harvest cotton, then it was a matter of economics, plantation owners couldn't justify the increased cost when they had perfectly good (legal) slaves to do the work. You can get upset and say it was about the economics of cotton, but you need to understand that every country has to produce something of value for the world, or it can't survive. I mean.... I would just love to live in a non-capitalist universe, where all of our desires are met, and needs taken care of, and no one ever has to work too hard or produce anything... but that is a utopian fantasy that isn't ever going to happen.

Did you just contradict yourself here, but didn't realize it ?

Uhm.. no, I don't think so. Slavery didn't exist because of economics, it existed because there wasn't another way to get cotton out of the fields. If there had been another way to do it at the time of our nation's inception, I'm quite sure Hamilton and Adams would have insisted we do that instead of slavery, and it would have never been allowed in America. It wasn't about economics, it was about doing what you had to do to harvest cotton.

Now, I supposed that you could argue our economics were tied to cotton, because it did pay for pretty much everything we did as a nation, and we couldn't have survived without it. But again, this wasn't something that was only realized by cotton plantation owners, a LOT of people were making money from cotton trade. This is why Congress never was able to get rid of it, and ONLY got rid of it after the Civil War, when the Southern states were essentially disenfranchised.