alt.education

"Larry Hewitt" wrote in message
news:fpdm1o$88f$1@news04.infoave.net...
>
> "Joe Irvin" wrote in message
> news:fpcird$31a$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>
>> "Larry Hewitt" wrote in message
>> news:fpai4i$ve$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>
>>> "Joe Irvin" wrote in message
>>> news:fpafmj$u7v$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>
>>>> "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 ... G Washington willed
>>>> that his slaves were to set free after he died. There were slaves that
>>>> owned land and worked their farms. I think most slave holders knew
>>>> that slavery was immoral, but supported because slavery supported them.
>>>>
>>>
>>> well, I dsagree.
>>>
>>> Even the constittuion counted slaves as less than "human", counting them
>>> as 3/5 of a person.
>>
>> It was a compromise ... to get the Constitution ratified. Everyone knows
>> there can be no 3/5 of a person.
>>
> It was not a compromise.

Sure it was: "The three-fifths compromise was a compromise between Southern
and Northern states reached during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 in
which three-fifths of the population of slaves would be counted for
enumeration purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the
apportionment of the members of the United States House of Representatives."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_compromise
I might add that it was proposed by delegates at the convention that one
could consider Northerners. So it was Northerners that proposed what you
call 'less than a person ... it was a compromise.

> The 3/5 was for enumeration in the census, so there _can_ be 3/5 of a
> person.
>
> And the fact that even in the constitution blacks were counted as less
> than a person shows that your "moral man" argument fails.

See above. My argument wasn't that man was only moral, he is both, moral
and immoral.

>>> And laws throughout the country treated slaves as property, not people.
>>
>> True, but there were freedmen.
>>
>
> But even they were in danger.

I just said there were freeman which there were.

> Approaching the civil war a federal law was passed that allowed _anyone_
> to claim that a black person was an escaped slave, thus requiring their
> arrrest. Often, even if they were truly escaped slaves, their :owner"
> could not be found so they, and freedmen caught up in the net, were sold
> at slae auctions.

See above.
>
>
>>> Slaves were alloed abominable housing, poor food and diet, no medical
>>> care other than what they could provide themselves, had families ripped
>>> apart as children were sold to other slave owners, raped and beaten,
>>> denied medical care, and denied equal legal rights with whites ---
>>> again, treated as property rather than as a person.
>>
>> True, this happened and I'm not denying it. My argument was that
>> Southern slave owners knew that owning slaves was immoral.
>
>
> And my argument is that if they knew what they were doing to the slaves
> they would have ameliorated their suffering with better housing, food,
> medical care, kept families inteact, etc.

Some slaves were treated better than others. Probably none as well as their
master. I'm not defending slavery.
>
> The fact that they continued to treat their slaves so abominally is clear
> indicatioin of their lack of aempathy and sense of connection, required
> for your "moral " feeling.

See above to understand my argument. As I said above some treated their
slaves better than others.

> They needed the slaves to
>> maintain there life styles and plantations so they pretended it wasn't
>> immoral ...
>
> They needed them as tools and treated them as tools --- in fact, they
> treated them worse than their tools.

Look, I know some of the slaves were treated very badly ... I'm not
defending slavery. Slave owners also taught their slaves trades ... TJ took
one of his slaves to France to learn French cooking if I remember correctly.
Some slave owners taught their slaves other trades, blacksmithing, carpentry
etc. The slaves become more valuable and could be hired out for more
income. It wasn't to the slaver owners benefit to try and destroy this
expensive capital investment. As I said above some slave oweners didn't
treat their good.

> Plows, saws, wagins, shovels, etc were expensive and difficult t acquire.
> Slaves were cheap and pelntiful, and more were produced virtually for
> free.

Slaves were a large capital investment by the masters. The better trained a
slave the more valuable he became to the owner.

>>the Southern churches backed this. \
>
> The southern churches were very much in line with the plantation owners.

And I've said the same thing also. IMO, church leaders knew slavery was
wrong but went along with it because of its economic value to the South. If
you remember it was religion that helped push the anti-slavery movement:
"As with much of the events of the period (the late eighteenth century to
the early nineteenth century), the anti-slavery movement was largely
propelled by religious influences."
http://cghs.dadeschools.net/slavery/anti-slavery_movement/religious_origins.htm
>
> People in the North did the
>> same ... they brought slaves over here to sell. It was a bleak time in
>> US history.
>>
>
> yes
>
>>>>>>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 or they didn't want the North to
>>>> tell them what to do ... maybe some of both.
>>>
>>> They supported slavery. Read the letter published by South Carolina
>>> explaining why tey seceded.
>>
>> Sure they did, so did the whole country ... many of the slave trading
>> ships were out of the North.
>>
>
> Not all in he north. And the slave raiders were ended by the sivil war.

I said *many* of the slave trading ships were out of the North. It seems
you are trying to absolve the North of any of the blame for slavery ...
slavery went on before the Civil War when the US was one country. The north
benefited indirectly from the free labor of the slaves.
>
>>> The regular farmer/landowner had no
>>>> personal interest in supporing the slave holders.
>>>
>>> Except that throughout much of hte south the "regular" farmer was not an
>>> independet person, but was employed/in debt to the major plantation
>>> owners
>>
>> I don't think this was the rule though ... I'm sure it happened.
>>
>
> It was very much the rule

Could you give some cites that most of the white land owners who didn't own
slaves were 'employed/in debt to major plantation owners" I'm sure this
happened some but I don't think it was the rule.

> For ex., in soutch carilina up til the war it was law that plantation
> owners and other land owners were _requireds_ to carry a gun Sundays ---
> most slaves had Sunday off and they were terrified that the slaes owuld
> spend their free time organizing and revolting.

Your point?
>
> Note, though, that it was landowners only. Whites who did not own land
> were feared, too, and so wre prohibited from carrying.
>
>
>>> And they made tup the bulk of he confederate army. In south Carolina at
>>> the tim, for ex., sl;aves made up more than half the population.
>>
>> I know that, I'm not arguing for slavery ... see above. The South didn't
>> think it was a power of the Fed Govt to control what the States did
>> domestically.
>>
>
> No no no no.
>
> Again, read the statement of the SC convention explaining why they
> seceded. States rights was not mentioned, it was all slavery. And not the
> economic effects of ending slavery, but the social changes that it wouls
> entail..

Read some about the tariffs/taxes. I'm not saying slavery wasn't important,
but it wasn't the only reason. There were many reasons. Read some of them:
http://ngeorgia.com/history/why.html
South Carolina wasn't the only state that left the Union.


>> Wealthy
>>> plantation owners were less than a fifth, the rest free white men,
>>> mostly craftsmen, tradesmen, and journeymen. An army of only plantation
>>> owners would have been very small.
>>>
>>> And when, for ex., Sherman made his march tothe sea through atlanta most
>>> of the able bodied white men were elsewhere fighting leaving hte defense
>>> of the state to their women.
>>>
>>>
>>> Many in western No
>>>> Carolina and eastern Tenn. supported the North.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But the regions at that time were very sparsely populated.
>>
>> What does the size of population have to do with it ... my point is that
>> some in the South didn't support the South.
>
> And my points are:
>
> 1. you give too much credit to slave holders.

I give no credit to slave holders ... as I've said many times slavery was
wrong. I've tried to explain his rationalization/reasons for slavery.

> 2. Slavery was _the_ political issue of the time.

It wasn't the only one ... Taxes and tariffs were very big issues. The
Constitutional relationship between the States and the Federal Govt. These
were some of the big issues, besides slavery.

> 3. SLavery was so imprtant to the south, and not just for economic
> reasons, that they pushed in Congress for its expansion (see kansas
> nebraska act, f

It was important for the North also ... Northern slavers sold slaves ...
High taxes and tariffs brought more money into the Federal treasury.

> ex..)
> 4.and your positing about the people in western NC an TN being against
> slavery/secession is meaningless. No population ever goess 100% for
> anything, and a small, unimportant region largely ignored by the rest of
> the country has no influence on the rest of the region.

It was still important as you've implied all Southern people were pro
slavery. I pointed out one part of the South that wasn't. An as you say no
population goes 100% for anything ... I'm sure they were other Southerners
who were against slavery. All Southerners had to pay the artificially high
prices for tariff protected goods manufactured in the North.
>
> Larry
>
>>>
>>> Larry
>>>
>>
>>
>
>