Quote:
Originally Posted by stan in san diego
A brief correction...it WAS a moral issue to nearly 5 million blacks and many, many northerners. That issue was based on Scripture. Southern and northern Christians and blacks both slave and free used scripture to bolster their positions. Their are numerous accounts of Christian folk freeing their slaves based on the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule. In an odd sense it was a moral issue with white southerners, who were convinced that God created blacks to be the burden bearers of the world. BTW, 'Time On the Cross' conclusions are hotly disputed and mostly not accepted. The conclusion that slaves were better off than white workers is total crap because the whites were...FREE!  |
Hey Stan! I was wondering what had kept you so long! But the same could be said about me, so don't worry, I haven't forgotten your latest post nor that of the other fellow (who I will address tomorow). It is just that I am so busy during the workweek, I have to wait for weekends to really read and reply. But, I will be rejoining shortly!
Meanwhile, let me just leave you with that you are simply fooling yourself if you think all blacks in the South, saw slavery as a "moral issue" in the way we all think of it today. Matter of fact, as they came from a continient/culture where slavery still exists today in some form or fashion, it is highly doubtful, until they were exposed to western culture with its moral concerns about the institution, most ever gave it a thought at all in those terms, originally.
Of course it goes without saying none wanted to
be slaves. Who
would want to? Yet it is also a fact the concept of slavery itself was
nothing foriegn to most in a moral sense, either in the old
or new country. And like it or not, the blunt fact is, many blacks who were allowed to buy their "freedom"
became slave holders themselves, and had aspired to be just such.
[/i]
Black Slave Owners Civil War Article by Robert M Grooms
So far as the conclusions of "
Time on the Cross Goes"? As I said earlier, of
course it is hotly debated...just like any other book on such an historical controversial book will be, regardless of position on whatever the issue. Soooo...present the counter-points...? All I have seen thus far from a few extreme South-bashers, is that if one disputes that the emotional canard of routinely abusing blacks (by either white or black slaveholders) in the ante-bellum South was a seeming sport, then the only remaining alternative is that the person must be "defending slavery." Such is patently ridiculous and insulting. It is merely a rhetorical ploy and an obvious one at that.
Sorry, but that dog wont hunt. It merely steers the whole thing into a ditch and upsets the vision some have of a morality play of a righteous north and an evil South. As it is, the book
Time on The Cross was
extremely critical of slavery (as is only proper)...yet was scholarly enough to present some strong evidence that, in terms of living conditions and mortality rates, the average factory worker in the North was worse off
in that realm than the average black slave in the South.
This has NOTHING to do with defending slavery and it is silly to assume otherwise, fer gosh sakes...
Finally, back to the original way this all came up? I never said slavery was not a moral issue in some realms and for many centuries. Of course it was. What I said was, as to the general topic, the
morality of it all -- as in the plight of slaves and its existence where it existed -- was NOT a motivating factor -- not in the least -- as to why the war itself started...
But anyway, time to call it a night. Again, will resume all this over the weekend. Have a good evening!
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
