alt.education

"Joe Irvin" wrote:
>>>... G Washington willed that his slaves were to set free after he died.
>>
>> Again, exceptions.
>
>These were exceptional men and knew from the get go that slavery was
>immoral.

That's fine. If morality was due to a perfect all-powerful God, then
all would know what was moral, without needing a Bible or a thought.
They still might not choose to do what was moral, but there would be
no disagreement over what was moral. Instead, all you can point to
are trivialities like killing and stealing and you can't manage to
admit that even those aren't clear cut in the case of war or
capitalism.

>Its hard for someone to give up there lively hood because someone
>says its immoral ...

That doesn't explain the support for slavery by many who did not own
slaves, or who did not depend on them for their livelihood, Southern
Baptist ministers for one example

>slavery by the time of the war was really on the way out ...

Not hardly. The lead up to the war was whether it should be expanded
into new territories or not.

>it was becoming less and less economical.

Not in the South which made its money by King Cotton which was
unskilled-labor-intensive.

>>>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.
>
>Don't have the exact cite, but I think I read it in a book: "Fame and the
>Founding Fathers", by Douglass Adair. It talked of a vacation TJ took to, I
>think it was Vermont, where he saw an exslave who was farming and I don't
>think there was slavery in Vermont.

You just said "ex-slave". An "ex-slave" is not a slave.

Vermont was in fact the first "state" to abolish slavery, in 1777
before it became a state. Other states were a bit slower -
Connecticut in 1848. Rhode Island never actually eliminated it,
though there were only 5 slaves remaining in the state in 1840.

The fact that several northern states did NOT eliminate slavery by law
for a long time, even though the number of slaveowners present was
small, shows that the moral case against slavery was simply not
considered that strong - at least not until women took up the battle
after the Second Great Awakening.

>>>I think most slave holders knew that slavery was immoral,
>>
>> Your thoughts and historical reality have nothing in common.
>
>I gave two examples, and you blew them off as being exceptional ...

Because they were. They also were in Virginia, which was less insular
and conservative than the rest of the South.

You could present a hundred examples, but your claim was "most". It
isn't true.

>... the US Constitution was
>written in a way that slavery could be abolished, but in order to get a
>Constitution compromises had to be made, putting off the decision on slavery
>to a later date ... unforturately it casued a war.

Yes it did, because attitudes in favor of slavery strengthened after
the Haitian revolution, and even more so as cotton brought wealth.

>as a block Southerns were against doing away with slavery.

Which contradicts your claim about "most". In general, if *most* of
the people want something, they get it.

>> 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.
>
>Just because your cite didn't argue economic self interest doesn't mean it
>wasn't so.

Of course economic self-interest was there. But they didn't consider
it an economic matter, but one of morality.

>Slaves were a very large capital investment. Freeing them meant
>financial ruin ...

Not to most of the people. And if that had been the issue, then
compensated emancipation might have been an acceptable solution. It
wasn't, even in the border states that stayed with the Union during
the Civil War.

>> http://www.southernslavery.com/articles/golden_rule_slavery.htm
>>
>> To many southerners, the northern practice was even more immoral.
>> They called it "wage slavery".
>
>Yes, they did. Did the Northern ship owers who brought slaves to sell think
>it was an immoral practice?

Nope. It didn't even arise as a moral issue in this country until it
arose as a moral issue in Britain, which was miles ahead of us.

>> 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.
>
>This is true, but it doesn't take away from the fact that they didn't think
>the Fed govt had the power to meddel in their states domestic affairs.. One
>doesn't have to agree with ever issue in a State ... they can go to war in
>support of their State.

Some did. But most went to war over slavery.

>>>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.
>
>I disagree ...

Sorry, but words mean what people choose them to mean. If people say
that 'morality' means what "We the people" decide it means, then "we
the people" win.

>was the lynching of slaves moral? The poll of the lynchers
>seem to say it was, so was it moral or immoral ...

To them it was. To us it is not. You keep on trying to pretend that
there is a single morality. There for an example are some people who
did not consider "lynching" to be murder.

>>>There is morality and immorality.
>>
>> Your belief.
>
>Not my belief, a transcendent Gods, by his teaching.

Jesus never used the word "morality".

>>>>>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.
>
>I know, my point is they most likely knew slavery was wrong/immoral.

You can repeat it forever, but it is false.

>Politics getting into religion ... I do believe that some did think slavery
>was moral.

Most.

lojbab