alt.education

"Joe Irvin" wrote:
>"Bob LeChevalier" wrote in message
>news:6dgfr358sd40947nfpunn95213cpuiccqi@4ax.com...
>> "Joe Irvin" wrote:
>>>> What do you mean by "valid"? It can be done, as is evidenced by
>>>> history. It was considered "moral" then, and at the time of the Civil
>>>> War, Southerners justified slavery on Biblical terms. So much for
>>>> absolute morality ...
>>>
>>>That is was done is what I meant by 'valid'. IMO, I don't think, even
>>>most
>>>Southerners, that owned slaves believed it was moral.
>>
>> On the contrary.
>>
>>>T Jefferson, a slave holder believed it was wrong.
>>
>> Jefferson was a rather exceptional person.
>
>New Orleans had a large ex slave population

New Orleans was part of France at the time. Those ex-slaves dated
from before it became American.

>... G Washington willed that his slaves were to set free after he died.

Again, exceptions.

>There were slaves that owned land and worked their farms.

Cite please. I think you will find that they were ex-slaves, or that
their master owned the land and let them use it.

>I think most slave holders knew that slavery was immoral,

Your thoughts and historical reality have nothing in common.

One typical argument:
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1124
< condemnation of tyranny and oppression seem logically to involve, as
< a result, the condemnation of slavery; yet, if slavery is afterwards
< expressly mentioned and treated as a lawful relation, it obviously
< follows, unless Scripture is to be interpreted as inconsistent with
< itself, that slavery is, by necessary implication, excepted.

Here is another essay on the subject. They were clearly NOT arguing
economic self-interest.
http://www.southernslavery.com/articles/golden_rule_slavery.htm

To many southerners, the northern practice was even more immoral.
They called it "wage slavery".


>>>It was economically profitable, at least at
>>>first, so they justified slavery ... using the Bible as you stated.
>>
>> Some justified it because it was profitable. But even those who did
>> not own slaves in the South supported slavery, and in the civil war
>> gave their lives to preserve it, and they weren't doing it for profit.
>
>I don't know if they supported slavery

Historians can tell the difference.

They supported slavery, in the areas where slavery was the norm. In
those areas, a person might be lynched for publically opposing
slavery, and it wasn't the wealthy slaveowners who did the lynching.

>The regular farmer/landowner had no personal interest in supporing the slave holders.

Correct. But he did, anyway.

>Many in western No Carolina and eastern Tenn. supported the North.

Correct. There were areas of the South that opposed slavery,
generally places where cotton wasn't grown.

>> The only way to prevent that situation is if their authority is
>> exactly balanced by some other authority so that they cannot
>> necessarily back their version of "right" with "might".
>>
>> A God who can punish the disobedient is ruling by might-makes-right.
>
>Might makes right, but you have a choice to obey or disobey.

So does a slave.

>In the end God holds those who don't accountable.

So does a slavedriver.

>>>> By definition. Anything else isn't morality.
>>>
>>>True morality isn't negotiable.
>>
>> You are assuming your conclusion. There is no "true morality". There
>> is only what we agree is morality. If we agree that something else is
>> moral, then it is.
>
>You are talking about morality by poll? There is right and wrong/good and
>evil and its not poll driven.

It is if we say it is.

>>>There is right/wrong, good/evil.
>>
>> Only because we think so.
>
>No, because there is good and evil even if there are people who don't think
>so. Man is not the decider

George Bush is. At least he says so. %^)

>There is morality and immorality.

Your belief.

>>>> Of course. And sure enough, slavery has existed, which supports the
>>>> argument. And it was claimed to be good by those who supported it.
>>>
>>>What they claimed doesn't mean that slavery was moral.
>>
>> They obviously disagreed.
>
>No, they knew it was immoral and enslaved anyway for economic reasons.

No. They most of them "knew" it was moral.

>>>They could claim it was for economic reasons and not believe it.
>>
>> But that is not in fact what they did. They did believe it, and they
>> believed that those trying to end slavery were evil.
>
>I'm not trying to get into anyones mind, I cannot. But I do know that they
>were Southerners who held slaves knowing it was wrong, but held them anyway

So? "Southern" wasn't a religion.

Southern Baptists, on the other hand, split off from the other
Baptists specifically over that question. They believed Southern
slavery was moral, and believed it strongly enough to schism a church
over it. And the preachers who made the decision to split mostly
weren't plantation owners trying to preserve their wealth.

lojbab