Posted on 12/12/2004 12:21:53 PM PST by mac_truck
"But some things are right or wrong no matter what the century and I'd think "human beings should not be owned like cattle" would be one of those basic things."
So it seems to us now, but that was not always the case. There is a partial response to that in note 111.
"Especially in a country whose founding document asserts that all men are created equal."
Among those who didn't think that Negroes were "equal" enough to enter white society was Abraham Lincoln.
"So no one can argue that people in that time period just didn't understand the moral questions."
Actually, you can. You can also argue that, having studied the matter, they came to a different conclusion from us. What you can't argue is that they were motivated by sheer perversity and malice.
"And I'm amazed by the attitude of so many here who usually lambast "moral relativism" when practiced by the left."
Those who oppose you are not engaging in moral relativism; they are simply taking human limitations into account. You can't demand more of people than they were capable of giving.
Why not? I can absolutely argue that. The 1800s were not that long ago, you know, and there's little reason to think human beings had no understanding that owning other human beings was wrong. That they chose to ignore that truth can certainly be seen as evidence of perversity and malice, probably allied with the age-old human condition called "greed" and simply getting away with whatever you're allowed to get away with.
And anyway, the whole point about this pamphlet is that it's not a 19th century account of a slaveholder's point of view, read in context along with slave narratives for historical purposes. It's a modern treatise that attempts to argue that slavery was not so bad and slaves were happy being slaves. That has nothing to do with the particular moral viewpoint or motivations of slaveholders in the 1800s. It asserts something that is not only unsupportable by fact but reprehensible.
"The 1800s were not that long ago, you know, and there's little reason to think human beings had no understanding that owning other human beings was wrong."
Not only is there reason to think that, it is demonstrated. Slavery had been in existence for millennia; it was a fact of life. The consciousness that it was a moral wrong did not explode in the minds of every human being simultaneously. It took root slowly, and grew slowly.
When a person was born into a slave-owning society, and brought up to believe all the arguments justifying it, you can argue with him and tell him he's wrong, but you can't point the finger at him and say, "You should have known." That's demanding too much.
"And anyway, the whole point about this pamphlet is that...(it) attempts to argue that slavery was not so bad and slaves were happy being slaves."
Ah, I think I begin to see the disconnect here. It's right there in that phrase "not so bad."
The question of whether slavery is morally wrong and the question of how slaves were treated are separate. The one does not depend on the other.
You seem to think that an assertion that a slave owner treated his slaves well is a justification of slavery. That is not the case. Even if a slave owner treated his slaves like his own children, slavery is still a moral evil.
However, and this is a big however, the truth is the truth. Even if we hate like poison that slaves were not treated as badly as we have been led to believe, if that is the truth, we must still face it.
"That has nothing to do with the particular moral viewpoint or motivations of slaveholders in the 1800s."
The question of whether slavery is a moral evil has nothing to do with that. However, the question of the character and moral standing of slaveholders has everything to do with their particular moral viewpoint and motivations.
"It asserts something that is not only unsupportable by fact but reprehensible."
It does not assert, as far as I know, that slavery is not a moral evil. It does assert that slaves were treated better than many people have been led to believe. And, since that is true, it is not reprehensible to assert it.
Southerners have been demonized as the sort of slavering brutes you seem to think them, by assertions that they treated their slaves much worse than they actually treated them.
From your point of view, Southerners (all the millions of them) were perverse, malicious brutes, abusing their slaves for amusement.
From mine, they bear the moral onus of owning slaves, but they only take the rap for such abuse as actually occurred.
It seems that you can't imagine how a person could own slaves and still be a decent person in other regards. Southerners must be demons.
I don't know what else to tell you, except to try and wrap your mind around the concept that a slaveowner could still feel real empathy for his slaves, without it occurring to him that the institution was a moral evil.
Most Southerners were not slaveowners.
Oh, I'm sure many slaveowners could be decent "in other regards". That's true of many people who engage in wrongdoing. That doesn't, however, excuse what they did. Neither does whitewashing the horrid instutution of slavery, as this pamphlet does.
I've learned a lot here today about some Freepers. I've been here since 1997 but I was still surprised today. We could go back and forth for days on this and not see eye to eye. But it's late here so, G'night.
"There's on this."
Well, if those moral lepers are thrown into convulsions by something I've said...I must be on the right track.
"I've learned a lot here today about some Freepers."
Well, no, I don't think you have. After everything I've written, you're still going on about "excusing" and "whitewashing," even though no one has attempted to do any excusing or whitewashing.
"We could go back and forth for days on this and not see eye to eye."
Apprently. I don't know what it would take. Seems to me you only see case A or case B, but the reality is case C.
"But it's late here so, G'night."
Good night.
Which would be a significant comment if it related to my point even slightly. What I was saying is that the destruction of the spirit of both the slave and the slave owner was as complete irrespective of the care or lack thereof given the slave.
Kinder, more loving, braver, and tougher. Still there was evil going on. Slavery in the South, horrible working conditions in the North, and not just for men. Riots, real police brutality, including kangaroo courts. Children working long hours in dangerous conditions. Slums for immigrants, and even worse slums for Blacks.
For some reason, people want to concentrate only on slavery and only in the American South. The reason is obvious. They aren't really interested in doing good, they are interested in attacking their neighbor while overlooking their own evil.
Apparently, the authors engaged in a fair amount of plagerism when writing it.
As a resident of a "squallid ghetto" in Philadelphia,
my answer is YES, the quality of life is better.
Because I have a CHANCE. Just knowing that, makes a world of difference. As a child, I could still receive an education, even if the public schools were bad. Nothing hindered my education at home. As a slave, anyone teaching me would be punished and I might be killed.
I can save my money and make a better life for myself. I can go where-ever I please, whenever I please. And I can defend myself if anyone tries to lay a hand on me.
Yes, there are many different forms of "slavery". But nothing changes the fact that those of us in the ghetto still have our God-given rights, even if some are not making much use of them.
I'd have to say that the most squalid ghetto in the United States today would pale in comparison to the living conditions faced by mid-nineteenth century immigrant Americans. As far as I know, none of them ever volunteered to move south and become slaves.
Slavery still exists in Africa but is ignored by American black leaders. It seems as if blacks owning other blacks is OK with them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.