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.
In 100 years there may very well be commonly held morals/values that will make today's morals/values look barbaric/cruel. In fact, it's nearly certain.
As an anarchist I believe in a stateless society upheld by the non-aggression principle. Not a new thought. Not an original thought. Lysander Spooner, who was vehemently anti-slavery in the Civil War era, held many beliefs that I hold now.
If anarchy comes to fruition I'll be thrilled (though I can't see it happening in my lifetime). In any event, I would rather try to convince others of my values/theories than "out-moral" them. Life isn't going to be much fun if you need to be right over the experience of trying to get to a better place.
Agree thoughtviews will inevitably change in the future as will the environments that foster them.
One thing that's not as likely to change is that all of us, past present & future, are better off when wisely playing the hand one is dealt.
Mr. Spooner had a plan to abolish race based slavery. Mr. Spooner also defended the Confederacy & its objective to preserve & expand the 'freedom' to own people as property. Those enslaved were wise to be skeptical. They were wise not to enlist their trust in such - they would not be fooled again - even by a good 'poker face'.
We're all dealt a hand in the present day as well. It would be wise to be skeptical of one who would assert:
"Slaves that worked there were well-fed and had decent lodgings provided by the government, which stopped hiring slave labor in 1802. However, the feds did not forbid subcontractors from using slave labor."
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 29 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,592,007 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiehaskell
I agree. Social norms, values and religion are not static throughout history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter
But wasn't the Bible static though?
So people were bigger hypocrites back then?
People back then as a testament in the documentation of the Bible, entered into what is called a covenant with God. Where as they looked at slavery through their conscience it spoke to them and they knew it just wasn't right. However, what is a person to do about it?
Then they thought (prayed) and entered into the covenant, no one says, we have to treat them any different than we would the members of our family. Through the purchase of a slave, they have paid the slave's debt to society, they bring them to their house and make them a member of their home.
Again, liken to that of abortion today being a social acceptable norm. There are those that do not believe it is ever right to take a life, so they find an alternative means in which to deal. However, unlike the Biblical times, there is not a God or a document that gives light to a society's conscience in its decisions.
When social evolution evolves to the point where abortion, like slavery is considered a barbaric custom of those living 3000 years ago, there will be not a God, or a Bible to blame for people's actions living in the 21st Century.
One day people are going to have to wake up and own it. Even knowing some are different than others in a group, they will be judged by future (31st Century) societies just the same as all within the group. Provided this planet holds out that long.
One of the most significant religious movements to affect slavery was Arminianism. The belief that every one and slaves were not doomed to their fate gave rise to the Second Great awaking as well as adding strength to abolitionism. The Women's movement grew out of the new group of abolitionist. Most people may not be aware that some of the most ardent abolitionist were slave holders themselves.
Last edited by thriftylefty; 08-05-2016 at 11:12 AM..
There is no reason to over-simplify the Civil War. And when we do so, we ignore the lessons that that war can teach us.
We agree.
Causes Of The Civil War | History Detectives | PBS
The way history is taught in schools is sanitized and watered down It is no surprise that people assume it was only about slavery or that it was only to free the slaves. Another problem is the PC movement twisting facts and making them the required study.
The average southern soldier never owned a slave and likely never would. For starters they simply didn't have the money required to buy one. Too say they fought to keeps slaves would be a stretch. More like to keep their status. Although poor at least they weren't the lowest class. Most of them believed in states rights and that is what they were fighting for.
"Slaves that worked there were well-fed and had decent lodgings provided by the government, which stopped hiring slave labor in 1802. However, the feds did not forbid subcontractors from using slave labor."
What in the world could this passage mean? Could O'Reilly really thing that how well a slave is fed is a cogent argument - that "cuisine" offered makes slave-holding less of an abomination?
Do some people really think slavery was some kind of entry level job with just a few "perks?"
My understanding is, the slaves were compensated for there work, not sure how. If they were, then it wasn't slave labor.
No, it isn't "kinda wrong," and you might be surprised about the design/blueprints because many black slaves were very skilled artisans and craftspeople.
The problem with the "living conditions" conversation is that it is a distraction and completely beside the point, about as clear as an example of a rhetorical red herring that folks would be able to find.
The White House was, in fact, as M. Obama stated, built by slave labor and ingenuity.
Causes Of The Civil War | History Detectives | PBS
The way history is taught in schools is sanitized and watered down It is no surprise that people assume it was only about slavery or that it was only to free the slaves. Another problem is the PC movement twisting facts and making them the required study.
The average southern soldier never owned a slave and likely never would. For starters they simply didn't have the money required to buy one. Too say they fought to keeps slaves would be a stretch. More like to keep their status. Although poor at least they weren't the lowest class. Most of them believed in states rights and that is what they were fighting for.
While I agree 100% with this, it will never reach listening ears because it doesn't fit an agenda. The war was about numerous different things, and slavery was only one of many. Sadly, media throughout the years has minimized the other reasons and focused on the one thing that they knew would sting the most. Then that became the most common discussion had.
We shouldn't trivialize or minimize ANY of the reasons behind the war. We as a whole are performing a great disservice to those around us by only picking and choosing what parts of history we discuss. For an ACCURATE depiction, we must consider ALL aspects of that war.
It ONLY talks about slavery and the name insinuates to the uneducated person that slavery was the only cause of the Civil War. Some won't bother to research any further and will spew "facts" about the Civil War based on one or two articles that they have read in a book.
There were a couple of issues that struck the match.
1.) Economic and social differences.
Cotton was VERY profitable at the time because of the invention of the cotton gin. Because of this profitability, many plantations chose to move to cotton as their sole source of production. That in turn meant that they needed more cheap labor (IE... slaves) to produce the cotton. The North wanted cheap cotton, but didn't want to pay the associated costs with producing cotton minus slave labor. They wanted it just as cheaply as before, but faster. There was not a way at the time to have both. This created the first rift.
This makes the point about slavery right? Not entirely.
The North purchased this cotton picked by slaves and turned it into finished goods. There was a giant disconnect between the South's economic position and the North's. The North focused more on city life and because of the change, people in the North had to work together to maintain their way of life. Before beginning to focus on city life, the Northern States were also slave holders. The South was more about production and didn't have an economic need to have different folks working together. There was no "city life" to speak of so the lack of a need to change from the status-quo led them to believe that maintaining their way of life was all they needed to do.
2.) States rights
There were two trains of thought. One train said the states should have the right to ignore federal laws that did not suit their needs. They wanted to be independent and to decide whether or not they chose to accept federal acts. The second train wanted the Federal Government to have more power over the states and wanted to force all states to abide by federal law.
3.) Fighting between slave and non-slave states. This one is obvious and the main topic that is discussed during Civil War discussions.
4.) The election of Abraham Lincoln. Did you know that there were ALREADY 7 states who had succeeded from the Union BEFORE Lincoln was sworn into office? Those states thought that Lincoln only favored Northern interests and acts and would work to overturn any of the 3 key points above that he could to make the North less dependent on the South and force the South to depend more on the North.
All that was said for one major point. No one wants to minimize the effects of slavery or to minimize the reality that it happened. But most educated on the matter would prefer that slavery not be pushed as the only cause of the Civil War. Here's an interesting fact.... According to the 1860 census, Less than 5-6% of Southerner's owned slaves. MOST Southerner's DID NOT own slaves!!
Did you know Robert E. Lee was an abolitionist? Yep... the very same Confederate general who fought against Ulysses S. Grant during the Civil War. Here's another interesting fact... Grant did own slaves.
Agree thoughtviews will inevitably change in the future as will the environments that foster them.
One thing that's not as likely to change is that all of us, past present & future, are better off when wisely playing the hand one is dealt.
Mr. Spooner had a plan to abolish race based slavery. Mr. Spooner also defended the Confederacy & its objective to preserve & expand the 'freedom' to own people as property. Those enslaved were wise to be skeptical. They were wise not to enlist their trust in such - they would not be fooled again - even by a good 'poker face'.
We're all dealt a hand in the present day as well. It would be wise to be skeptical of one who would assert:
"Slaves that worked there were well-fed and had decent lodgings provided by the government, which stopped hiring slave labor in 1802. However, the feds did not forbid subcontractors from using slave labor."
Lol.
You enjoyed making this post, didn't you?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
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.
