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.
The problem is that people want to judge people of the past by the moral standards of today...
Sure, slavery was and has always been an abomination, as far as we humans in the 21st century are concerned, but people didn't view it as harshly back then because they grew up in a world where it was accepted.
It isn't fair to apply todays moral standards to people of the past.
Slavery was a sin by the moral standards of that day.
Abolition began in the US from the very first that blacks were brought specifically as slaves from Africa. Roger Williams (founder of Rhode Island, founder of the first Baptist congregation in America, proponent of the separation of church and state) was also the first Abolitionist.
As the Constitution was being written, even southern slaveholders admitted slavery was a sin--just one they could not economically abandon at the time. Jefferson wrote at the time that slavery would sooner or later bring the wrath of God upon America.
The Southern Baptist Convention was created specifically because the American Baptist convention (founded by Roger Williams) condemned slavery. Baptists of the day weren't even permitted to hire domestic servants.
By the time of the Civil War, all of Protestant Europe had declared it a sin, the Pope had condemned it, and northern Evangelicals were ready to fight a war over it.
Slavery in American is condemnable today because they knew even then it was a sin even as they did it.
Slavery was a sin by the moral standards of that day.
Abolition began in the US from the very first that blacks were brought specifically as slaves from Africa. Roger Williams (founder of Rhode Island, founder of the first Baptist congregation in America, proponent of the separation of church and state) was also the first Abolitionist.
As the Constitution was being written, even southern slaveholders admitted slavery was a sin--just one they could not economically abandon at the time. Jefferson wrote at the time that slavery would sooner or later bring the wrath of God upon America.
The Southern Baptist Convention was created specifically because the American Baptist convention (founded by Roger Williams) condemned slavery. Baptists of the day weren't even permitted to hire domestic servants.
By the time of the Civil War, all of Protestant Europe had declared it a sin, the Pope had condemned it, and northern Evangelicals were ready to fight a war over it.
Slavery in American is condemnable today because they knew even then it was a sin even as they did it.
It still was not viewed as negatively though. You are putting it in the context of the present. Even Jefferson had slaves. It may have been a "sin", but so was cheating on the wife, yet it happened.
Being thought of negatively has many degrees; breaking the law is not just breaking the law, speeding is different than mass murder.
In this case, many people knew slavery was wrong, a sin, but not that serious of one, no more than skipping church, and maybe even less so than stealing. Abolishment movements were already underway in the world at the time the US was founded, but fact is slavery was in place, thought of negatively, but not enough to make the practice an outcast.
Look at gays, merely 20 years ago it was pretty ok and no one thought anything to discriminate against them and deny them equal treatment, even though there were plenty of people who were advocating for them. Discriminating against gays were a norm, even though there were plenty of people and evidence showing that it was wrong to do so.
It still was not viewed as negatively though. You are putting it in the context of the present. Even Jefferson had slaves. It may have been a "sin", but so was cheating on the wife, yet it happened.
Yes. And Jefferson knew it was a moral abomination. His writings make that clear. He understood intellectually that is was an unjust evil. Can we not judge Thomas Jefferson by the same moral code that he himself embraced in theory if not in fact? (because he found it financially inconvenient)
It seems rather bizarre to reproach someone in 2016 for condemning slaveholding 200 years ago, but not reproach those who in 1816 were similarly condemning slaveholding.
Quote:
Being thought of negatively has many degrees; breaking the law is not just breaking the law, speeding is different than mass murder.
In this case, many people knew slavery was wrong, a sin, but not that serious of one, no more than skipping church, and maybe even less so than stealing. Abolishment movements were already underway in the world at the time the US was founded, but fact is slavery was in place, thought of negatively, but not enough to make the practice an outcast.
Look at gays, merely 20 years ago it was pretty ok and no one thought anything to discriminate against them and deny them equal treatment, even though there were plenty of people who were advocating for them. Discriminating against gays were a norm, even though there were plenty of people and evidence showing that it was wrong to do so.
Or marital rape, which was perfectly legal in all 50 states a half century ago. But we shouldn't condemn a man who in 1966 raped his wife, because that would be projecting our 2016 ideas onto them. Right? The same holds for lynchings 100 years ago, no?
How about stoning people to death? It's perfectly normal to do in some places in the world today. Or not allowing women to vote. Or subjecting gays to prison and/or capital punishment. It's the norm in some places. Who are we to object?
Right? Or does this notion only hold when we're protecting the image of revered national figures like Thomas Jefferson?
Key was in fact a lawyer. I suspect that he took those cases because there were paying clients in need of legal services and representation. That's pretty much what lawyers do, you know.
Slavery was a sin by the moral standards of that day.
Abolition began in the US from the very first that blacks were brought specifically as slaves from Africa. Roger Williams (founder of Rhode Island, founder of the first Baptist congregation in America, proponent of the separation of church and state) was also the first Abolitionist.
As the Constitution was being written, even southern slaveholders admitted slavery was a sin--just one they could not economically abandon at the time. Jefferson wrote at the time that slavery would sooner or later bring the wrath of God upon America.
The Southern Baptist Convention was created specifically because the American Baptist convention (founded by Roger Williams) condemned slavery. Baptists of the day weren't even permitted to hire domestic servants.
By the time of the Civil War, all of Protestant Europe had declared it a sin, the Pope had condemned it, and northern Evangelicals were ready to fight a war over it.
Slavery in American is condemnable today because they knew even then it was a sin even as they did it.
The Southern Churches supported the institution with some of those churches representing sects which had broken with their northern branches specifically over the issue of slavery. (Baptists and Southern Baptists being the most prominent example.) You were not going to attract a congregation in the south by preaching abolition, so instead there came into being a defense of slavery from southern pulpits which used mentions of slavery in the Bible as proof of its divine backing. They preached to the slaves that their duty to God was humble obedience. Slaves were depicted as perpetual children whose permanent care was entrusted to their white masters. Freeing one wasn't moral, it was an abdication of personal responsibility.
It had not always been that way, the pro slavery doctrines came into being as part of the response to the 1831 Nat Turner rebellion which southern propagandists insisted was what all slaves would be doing if they were not constantly watched and controlled. The southern population would not tolerate talk of moral manumission, so the preachers adapted themselves and their dogma to accommodate their congregations.
This continued through the Civil War with the majority of the southern churches backing the Confederate cause right up to the end. After the war there was further fragmentation when newly freed blacks began setting up their own churches free of white domination and influence.
So, if one is born into a society where the religious leaders are telling everyone that slavery is a moral good, are you immoral for failing to rise above your dominating environment? For accepting the word of ones you have been told are God's representatives on earth?
Oh yeah, it's the era of 0bama, and everyone is thoroughly obsessed with race, looking at the world thru racially tinted lens of suspicion and distrust.
This goes both ways....and it goes back MUCH further than the Obama administration....the latest big uptick would have been in the 60's but there have been many periods where it boiled over, and with good reason.
Yes. And Jefferson knew it was a moral abomination. His writings make that clear. He understood intellectually that is was an unjust evil. Can we not judge Thomas Jefferson by the same moral code that he himself embraced in theory if not in fact? (because he found it financially inconvenient)
It seems rather bizarre to reproach someone in 2016 for condemning slaveholding 200 years ago, but not reproach those who in 1816 were similarly condemning slaveholding.
Of course you can judge him, but I think the point of judging, holding a person in today's moral context or even their context is; this is being used by some people not to have a discussion over history, but to undermine any and everything that came from this person, basically delegitimize or minimize the person's contribution to the country/world/whatever.
As I have seen for the recent example with the national anthem, with calls from people saying it needs to change because of who wrote it; an attempt to not discuss the history of the anthem, but to delegitimize it, and remove it from from the US society all together. And this has come up with Jefferson and the Founding Fathers, people wanting to remove and minimize their contribution all together.
And people can condemn things all the time and still do them, many people are all for speed limits, yet breaks these limits. Many people scream for an increase in taxes, yet they do not voluntarily contribute more. In Jefferson's case, he was against slavery, but not to the point he did not participate in it himself. The same in Russia, with Alexander II having serfs, yet he was the one who freed them; a person who had them even though he had the power the entire time to just let them go and did not do so until his decree freed all of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
Or marital rape, which was perfectly legal in all 50 states a half century ago. But we shouldn't condemn a man who in 1966 raped his wife, because that would be projecting our 2016 ideas onto them. Right? The same holds for lynchings 100 years ago, no?
How about stoning people to death? It's perfectly normal to do in some places in the world today. Or not allowing women to vote. Or subjecting gays to prison and/or capital punishment. It's the norm in some places. Who are we to object?
Right? Or does this notion only hold when we're protecting the image of revered national figures like Thomas Jefferson?
There are tons of examples, each of them unique. Marital rape could be viewed as a law thing rather than a moral code, rape is rape, the wording of a law does not change that. Similar to maybe underage sex, where a 21 year old sleeping with a 14 year old is a criminal in one state, but yet not in another; morally the issue is; is it wrong? Which is different than legally.
We (as in the US gov) does not object to what other countries do. We may push our views based on a moral imperative when the opportunity arises, but that is it. The US gov fully supports Saudi Arabia, which does many of those things you described.
But we can project our own morals onto others in the present day, because it is the present day. That is how things like classical liberalism spread and just did not sit with one group of people forever. I can say "yes, slavery is bad, but 200 years ago society morally was not advanced enough to realize this, let lone take steps to eradicate it", and I can say "today slavery is bad, and any government practicing it is in the wrong, and a road map to eradicate it has already been laid by numerous countries over the last few hundred years, so their is no excuse to not know it is bad and not know what to do about it."
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.
