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.
If slavery wasn't seen as a problem, why did the federal government pass a law in 1807 to ban slave trade?
Everybody knew slavery presented a moral dilemma but it was economically vital. Abolition sentiments existed in both Europe and here in the United States in the late 18th century. However there was not way Southern states would ratify the constitution without permitting slavery to continue.
Basically the Founding Fathers "Kicked The Can Down The Curb" when it came to the issue of resolving slavery.
Everybody knew slavery presented a moral dilemma but it was economically vital. Abolition sentiments existed in both Europe and here in the United States in the late 18th century. However there was not way Southern states would ratify the constitution would be ratified without permitting slavery to continue.
Basically the Founding Fathers "Kicked The Can Down The Curb" when it came to the issue of resolving slavery.
Yep, and by a generation and acted on it just as soon as they could. They had a different priority at the beginning, and that was to get the Union going. I see Abraham Lincoln's approach to slavery in the same way. He made compromises that were pro-slavery to save the union, but personally detested the institution.
It gets very tricky to judge people of a different era. Times change and many things that seem accpetable today where viewed differently in the past, and sometimes in the not too distant past. Smoking policies are an example. It seems hard to believe that a decade or so ago a person could light-up in public places like offices and restaurants without repercussion. Fifty years ago newspaper want-ads would say such things as "Butler Needed; Clean Negro man preferred". Or "Waitress position; Older women need not apply". What would people of just 50 or 60 years ago think of today's legalized abortion? In an old movie (1938) I recently watched, the white leading lady referred to a black cab driver as "boy". Today that movie scene makes people shake their heads and roll their eyes in wonder. At the time the movie was made the term "boy" was commonly used. Neither the woman or the cabbie thought a thing about it.
Point is, it becomes tricky to judge a by-gone society, and its people, based on today's standards and ethics. Personally, I think it comes down to what the moral attitudes of the majority of the past population in question. That's why I think the Confederacy can be judged more harishly than Colonial America. By the 1860s American attitudes towards slavery had changed. Opposition to slavery had become widespread.
I think this position is a cop-out. If slavery wasn't considered a bad thing, why were people opposed to it? Why did many die in their effort to abolish it? IMO, morality is not a 20th century invention.
You're welcome to think it's a cop out.
Why were people opposed to it?
Many people are opposed to a lot of things that may be quite normal in society.
Why did many die in their effort to abolish it?
Assuming that you're talking about the Civil War, which is a completely different thread, that was about 90 years later. The founding fathers pre-dated the office of the President and Lincoln was the 16th President.
IMO, morality is not a 20th century invention.
Agreed, but would you agree that morality changes over time and generations?
It's gone now though. I'm not going to take the heat for it, I'm not going to apologize for it, and if it's up to me I'm not going to compensate for it either.
In fact, WHITES, not blacks, made slavery end. So it's fine to hate the older generations, but a later one was the one that freed the slaves. I always see folks talk about slavery, but they never talk about all those who fought and died to free the slaves. Instead, many hate all whites.
I have to say though. If I were alive then and I knew what I know now, there is no way in hell I'd lift a finger to go into battle for it. It seems every time throughout history that whites have done something to try and improve the lives of blacks in this country, we're treated even worse. The fact of the matter is slave owners were an extreme minority. Instead of blacks hating whites, they should be thankful. Because without the majority of whites standing up and saying "no more", blacks would still be slaves.
Again, I don't wish slavery on anyone, but I wouldn't lift a finger to fight against it if I was alive then, and knew what I know now.
I see you're pulling out the notion of reparations. Where in this thread is anyone asking for reparations? In fact, when was the last time that you heard a (non-extreme/nutty) Black person saying they wanted reparations for slavery? This stance never fails to amuse me. It's quite possible that my household income exceeds that of many of the folks who are adamant that I want some sort of compensation for the crimes against my ancestors. I wonder how many times we'll have to say that's not so before it's absorbed?
And no one asked you to apologize or take the heat for anything. Where have I asked you to?
Also, I don't know any Blacks who hate all Whites. I know of some who may dislike a person because of their personal experiences with them. Your generalization is unfair and false.
I agree that there were many brave White people who stood up and spoke out against slavery and they are heroes. But please don't fool yourself that the Civil War was all about freeing slaves...that was merely a nice little side bonus.
Why were people opposed to it?
Many people are opposed to a lot of things that may be quite normal in society.
Why did many die in their effort to abolish it?
Assuming that you're talking about the Civil War, which is a completely different thread, that was about 90 years later. The founding fathers pre-dated the office of the President and Lincoln was the 16th President.
IMO, morality is not a 20th century invention. Agreed, but would you agree that morality changes over time and generations?
Not when it comes to slavery. The teachings of Christianity was a major tool in subduing and manipulating the African people into accepting their new life. But even in the bible, God delivered his people from Egypt because they had a harsh and terrible Pharaoh. So, while the Bible does not speak against slavery, it does suggest that God does not tolerate cruel slavemasters. And anyone who has taken even an elementary-level AA history course knows about the many atrocities that slaves endured during their time in bondage. It was a horrible and immoral practice and the FF knew that; it just was not to their benefit to do anything about it.
Not when it comes to slavery. The teachings of Christianity was a major tool in subduing and manipulating the African people into accepting their new life. But even in the bible, God delivered his people from Egypt because they had a harsh and terrible Pharaoh. So, while the Bible does not speak against slavery, it does suggest that God does not tolerate cruel slavemasters. And anyone who has taken even an elementary-level AA history course knows about the many atrocities that slaves endured during their time in bondage. It was a horrible and immoral practice and the FF knew that; it just was not to their benefit to do anything about it.
What makes you think that slavery would be the one thing where there is no evolution of the moral standards? You're citing the Bible as evidence, but then pointing out that the Bible doesn't speak against slavery. Of course there were horrible things done under slavery, but your point was that the Bible spoke against those and not the institution in general, so it's quite possible that there were many people that were against those actions specifically. There were certainly some varied opinions among the founding fathers on the issue.
What makes you think that slavery would be the one thing where there is no evolution of the moral standards? You're citing the Bible as evidence, but then pointing out that the Bible doesn't speak against slavery. Of course there were horrible things done under slavery, but your point was that the Bible spoke against those and not the institution in general, so it's quite possible that there were many people that were against those actions specifically. There were certainly some varied opinions among the founding fathers on the issue.
While I find the concept of owning another human as property as despicable, what makes the practice of slavery in the US even more damning is the cruel way in which Africans were treated. In the Bible, the cruel slave-master was punished and God delivered his people. In the 1600-1700's, who was going to deliver slaves from their cruel masters? In a system that made slavery legal, no one. Which is why in order to protect slaves from the hands of cruel masters, the entire practice had to be outlawed and should have been during the FF whole discussion about equality, freedom, etc.
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.
