Why was Antebellum Southern Slavery Immoral?

[squeeze berry]

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.

I too believe that there never should have been a 3/5 compromise or that a war should have been fought to maintain the union.

Slavery was becoming a burden to the slave holders ( RE: Mary Chesnut's Diary), but there was no feasible plan to end the institution.

Too bad it even got started

 

[squeeze berry]

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".

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

PS

if buying was immoral, so was selling.

Africa sold to all the world.

Africa, most immoral.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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?

Isn't it obvious?

Because all men are created in God's image.

 

[JoeBlam]

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.

Actually slavery lasted well into the Reconstruction. Large plantation owners made deals with local sheriffs to charge freed slaves with imaginary "debts" they'd incurred. The slave in question was then sentenced to a small number of years to work off his "debt" on a chain-gang....on one of the large plantations. If he tried to escape or was a trouble-maker his sentence would be increased....it was several years after the end of the war that this practice was finally outlawed.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Of course it was "immoral" from our perspective, unfortunately, there is no church going slave owner left alive that can present their point of view in the context it should be presented. You'll have dig deep into memoirs and letters for that answer.

 

[squeeze berry]

Of course it was "immoral" from our perspective, unfortunately, there is no church going slave owner left alive that can present their point of view in the context it should be presented. You'll have dig deep into memoirs and letters for that answer.

excellent post

many tend to look at past events through a modern perspective.

 

[PratchettFan]

Because it was economically inefficient.

It wasn't. That was the problem. Once the cotton gin became available, slavery became very efficient.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Because it was economically inefficient.

It wasn't. That was the problem. Once the cotton gin became available, slavery became very efficient.

The cotton gin was one of the primary reasons that led to the civil war. That's a fact few ever think about so I'm glad you brought it up.

 

[PratchettFan]

Because it was economically inefficient.

It wasn't. That was the problem. Once the cotton gin became available, slavery became very efficient.

The cotton gin was one of the primary reasons that led to the civil war. That's a fact few ever think about so I'm glad you brought it up.

Yes. Slavery would probably all but disappeared except for that. As a result, it not only flourished but a huge dispute developed over extending slavery into new territories, which would have expanded the cotton growers influence considerably. It was that dispute which caused the final rift that led to war.

 

[konradv]

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".

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

PS

if buying was immoral, so was selling.

Africa sold to all the world.

Africa, most immoral.

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

 

[PratchettFan]

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?

Treating another human being as a thing is immoral, from my perspective. Morality, however, is entirely personal and it is unrealistic to expect it to cross cultural lines. In terms of the mores of the times, it was an acceptable practice.

 

[Pogo]

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.

^^ Best answer. "Morality" is relative, unquantifiable and evolves through the ages, but the practice of slavery, whether before, after or during the civil war, is abjectly hypocritical in a nation that builds itself on the premise that "all men are created equal" and are endowed with an inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Slavery directly contradicted that as starkly as contradiction can be, so to the extent that hypocrisy is immoral, there you are.

By the way ----- how is this a "Current Event"??

 

[JoeBlam]

It should be noted slaves were purchased from BLACKS who'd captured them in the african bush....so the slave trade wasn't considered "racist" from it's origins. Southern plantation owners considered them little more than livestock to be worked. So it wasn't a lack of conscience on their part....most southerners had little reason to mistreat their slaves; they were too valuable.

 

[Boss]

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?

Ironically enough, it was the religious people who opposed slavery as immoral, and the science book enlightened, who made the argument it wasn't. Essentially all the abolitionist movement was coordinated by Quaker and Unitarian ministers. Yeah, those pesky God believers, who are the source of all our problems in the world these days. While the prevailing "scientific" view of the day was, the African slave was not even a homo sapien. Thank Darwin for this! Because of his theories of evolution, many people simply didn't believe black people were people, they were a step below actual humans. Yes, it's shocking today, we can't imagine such a time, but that was the case in 1860s America.

You can try to have a conversation today about slavery and the Civil War, and people are just so removed from what we used to believe, they can't wrap their minds around it. They assume that we've always considered black people human beings, and we just didn't find it wrong to discriminate against them. We discriminate against horses and dogs everyday, they don't get to vote or have a political representation. But that's acceptable because...well, they aren't humans, right? The same was true for blacks back then, people simply didn't consider them humans, people, citizens. For all intents and purposes, they were akin to livestock. Does anyone think it's wrong to 'enslave' cows? I mean, aside from a few PETA nuts?

Now even though we don't consider animals people, we are still upset with abuse of animals whenever it happens, and so was the case with abuse of the slaves. The majority of abolitionists weren't opposed to slavery because it was wrong to enslave black people, that's a misconception rooted in modern-day thought. They were opposed to the unethical treatment of living creatures, much like people are opposed to dog fighting. Very few people of that time, thought of black slaves as human people on the same level as white human people.

Even Lincoln himself, stated: "I do not believe the negro will ever hold the same station in society as the white." Before the Civil War, Lincoln had actively pursued a plan to repatriate freed slaves (and other free blacks) to a parcel of land the US purchased in Central America, for this purpose. The first black people to be invited to the White House, were invited by Lincoln. They met with the President for about 15 minutes, where they were not allowed to speak. Lincoln informed them that he wanted these black leaders to promote his idea and lead hordes of black followers off to this new land to live free, far away from white American society. Hundreds actually went, and subsequently died.

When the southern states began seceding, Lincoln was actively working with Congress to pass legislation which would have kept slavery legal until 1911. By his own words, the Civil War was not fought over slavery. "If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that."

The victors write the history books, so we are taught the CW was fought over slavery and Lincoln freed the slaves. Generally, liberal teachers like to juxtapose the plight of the abolitionist movement, with the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. As if the prevailing mindsets were the same. It was a completely different time, and the abolitionists of 1860s had more in common with modern-day animal rights activists than anything approaching Civil Rights.

 

[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.

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.

No but treated like slaves once they got here by the same rich RR men that help fund the North war against the South. Or how those same men from the North used the US Army to kill and run the Natives from their lands. The Civil War was more about rich Northers and money than it was about slavery.

 

[JoeBlam]

The question I sometimes ask is if the roles were reversed, would blacks have freed white slaves? Since slavery is still widely practiced in that part of the world, and since white-slavery (prostitution) usually involves a black pimp running the girls, my guess is NO.

 

[pinqy]

Because it was economically inefficient.

It wasn't. That was the problem. Once the cotton gin became available, slavery became very efficient.

A slave will only work hard enough not to be beaten.

A slave must be provided with food, clothing, and shelter (which includes land for the shelter and accomodation) by the master. That is a cost, regardless of how poor the conditions are.

A slave requires more supervision than a wage worker and requires security to prevent escape and guard against slave rebellion.

Using slave precludes almost all skilled labor, including more efficient machinery.

The cotton gin increased productivity...it didn't make slaves more efficient. The reason slavery grew due to the cotton gin was that because the gin improved the effieciency of seperating the seeds, the need for more input was needed and planting and picking were still labor intensive. The cotton gin didn't make slavery more efficient, it just meant an increase in the demand for labor for the growing and picking.

Because of its costs and ineffieciencies, slavery was only good for high profit large scale operations. Slavery died out in the North because the crops grown there didn't yield enough profit to support slavery.

 

[hoosier88]

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.

(My bold)

"Consigned there with a friendly prod,
from Sweeney ... Sweeney Todd!"

 

[PratchettFan]

Because it was economically inefficient.

It wasn't. That was the problem. Once the cotton gin became available, slavery became very efficient.

A slave will only work hard enough not to be beaten.

A slave must be provided with food, clothing, and shelter (which includes land for the shelter and accomodation) by the master. That is a cost, regardless of how poor the conditions are.

A slave requires more supervision than a wage worker and requires security to prevent escape and guard against slave rebellion.

Using slave precludes almost all skilled labor, including more efficient machinery.

The cotton gin increased productivity...it didn't make slaves more efficient. The reason slavery grew due to the cotton gin was that because the gin improved the effieciency of seperating the seeds, the need for more input was needed and planting and picking were still labor intensive. The cotton gin didn't make slavery more efficient, it just meant an increase in the demand for labor for the growing and picking.

Because of its costs and ineffieciencies, slavery was only good for high profit large scale operations. Slavery died out in the North because the crops grown there didn't yield enough profit to support slavery.

Cotton was a high profit large scale operation. The cotton gin made it so. It was the harvesting which made operation labor intensive, and when dealing with that kind of labor having a labor force unable to quit is very nice. You may have to feed and house them, but you don't have to pay them and paid workers need enough to feed and house themselves. So, all in all, not a bad deal for the owner.

This was going on in the mining industry as well a little later on. They would pay workers in company script which was only good at the company store. Essentially forcing the workers to become indebted to the mine owners and having that enforced by the local law.

Slavery is not always inefficient. It's just not pretty.

 

[PratchettFan]

Because it was economically inefficient.

It wasn't. That was the problem. Once the cotton gin became available, slavery became very efficient.

A slave will only work hard enough not to be beaten.

.

Just a thought here... How hard do you think a slave will work for his child not to be beaten?