Thank you capn. obvious.
The question is a completely subjective one. There can be no fact placed on any answer.
They probably knew it was morally wrong. But business is business.
The question is a completely subjective one. There can be no fact placed on any answer.
CubicZirconia
Diamond Member
- Nov 24, 2001
- 5,193
- 0
- 71
Yeah, it's entirely wrong to even suggest that the North didn't benefit massively from slavery. And although you have a few northern abolitionists, they were in the extreme minority.
CubicZirconia
Diamond Member
- Nov 24, 2001
- 5,193
- 0
- 71
Whoops, I'm stupid. The point of my statement still stands though. Just because you can't get a definite answer to something doesn't mean it isn't worth discussing.
Edit:
You should probably also mention that when Africans originally enslaved other Africans and sold them to Europeans, they were generally given a choice: a) enslave your neighbor and stay free yourself or b) we'll have you neighbor enslave you. Certainly both Africans and Europeans had their hands dirty though.
Sorry, this thread has probably lost all value now
It probably started with an economic thing. Someone in some village saw a captive from some village war that was about to be sacrificed, and they said "you know what? we'll make him work for free for life" and they got a free worker. Pretty soon, other people caught on and had their own free workers, from prisoners captured in warfare and it grew from there. Eventually someone decided they don't want to wait for warfare to get free workers, so they started taking them. Eventually a racial justification grew from there...something about how "the inferior <insert ethnicity here> make excellent slaves and nothing more, so let's go enslave 'em." Before long economies depended on slavery, so it grew and grew until being technically, at least, abolished in the 19th and 20th centuries.
But that's just a guess.
But that's just a guess.
It's too subjective to even discuss without it turning into a huge argument.
It turns into a question of "what do YOU think about the morality of slavery". The whole "what do you think the persons involved with slavery thought of the morality of it" is moot.
K1052
Elite Member
- Aug 21, 2003
- 51,946
- 44,805
- 136
One of the main reasons for the war was fear of slavery expanding into non-textile industry in the north (of which there was tons) or the south would eventually compete in industry with non-paid labor. The workers feared slaves would replace them.
CubicZirconia
Diamond Member
- Nov 24, 2001
- 5,193
- 0
- 71
I completely disagree. There is a lot of information out there that deals with proposed justifications of slavery. If you really delve into it, you can get into how race was created and why it differs from the old "us vs. them" concept, you can get into whether or not the civil war was about slavery, you can get into how much the north benefitted from southern slavery....the list goes on. All of these topics are in some way relevent to the question of whether or not slaveowners really believed what they were doing was wrong.
And frankly, I don't think anyone is going to come in here and say "I think slavery is morally correct." And I realize that with many historical topics, relevence can be an issue. But at any rate, you can learn a lot about the present day situation of race in american by asking this question.
Edit:
Well, the "north" didn't go into the Civil War hoping to end slavery. At the beginning of the war, Lincoln was not at all set on ending slavery. He feared that ending slavery would make the border states angry, possibly causing more secessions. Plus, while if slavery was ended, the "threat" of slaves taking non-textile jobs in the north would technically be gone, it would simply be replaced by the "threat" of free blacks taking the same jobs. You saw constant tension between poor whites and free blacks over the same jobs. The New York Draft Riots results out of this tension. Many poor whites saw the war as a fight to end slavery- something they didn't want to do. A lot of them figured that if they fought to end slavery, the free blacks would end up taking their jobs, which they didn't want.
We should enslave the descendants of the original enslavers and give them as reparations. See, it all works out in the end!
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Different times, different morals and values.
Slavery has existed since before the beginning of recorded history. Sometimes it has involved different races (like in America), other times it was captives from neighboring tribes/nations, and sometimes it was even people of the same race/tribe/nation (usually debtors, think pre-bankruptcy).
The reasons are certainly economic, although slave labor is NOT free labor as the slave still has to be housed, fed, and clothed (sure, it's cheap labor but it could be argued that it was more expensive than minimum wage labor relative to today).
But it seems certain that most slaveowners didn't think they were doing anything morally wrong. History shows that slaveowners (and many slaves) did not have the same perspective on life that free people have. They believed that a person's place in life was pre-ordained, and that there was no free will. To use an analogy already used in this thread: as a horse is born a horse, and doomed to pull the plow, so a slave is born a slave, and doomed to work the fields.
As a free person, who enjoys being a free person, I think slavery is a terrible evil. I'm just trying to answer the question and grant some perspective here. Just because our culture has taught us a certain perspective does not always mean that other cultures in the past saw things the same way. Once upon a time, people allowed evil tyrant kings to rule over them, and the people allowed it and the king thought nothing wrong of it because every one thought the king had a "divine right" to be the king. Realizing that doesn't make it right from our modern and enlightened perspective, but it does help one to get a better understanding of the slippery nature of reality and perspective.
Slavery has existed since before the beginning of recorded history. Sometimes it has involved different races (like in America), other times it was captives from neighboring tribes/nations, and sometimes it was even people of the same race/tribe/nation (usually debtors, think pre-bankruptcy).
The reasons are certainly economic, although slave labor is NOT free labor as the slave still has to be housed, fed, and clothed (sure, it's cheap labor but it could be argued that it was more expensive than minimum wage labor relative to today).
But it seems certain that most slaveowners didn't think they were doing anything morally wrong. History shows that slaveowners (and many slaves) did not have the same perspective on life that free people have. They believed that a person's place in life was pre-ordained, and that there was no free will. To use an analogy already used in this thread: as a horse is born a horse, and doomed to pull the plow, so a slave is born a slave, and doomed to work the fields.
As a free person, who enjoys being a free person, I think slavery is a terrible evil. I'm just trying to answer the question and grant some perspective here. Just because our culture has taught us a certain perspective does not always mean that other cultures in the past saw things the same way. Once upon a time, people allowed evil tyrant kings to rule over them, and the people allowed it and the king thought nothing wrong of it because every one thought the king had a "divine right" to be the king. Realizing that doesn't make it right from our modern and enlightened perspective, but it does help one to get a better understanding of the slippery nature of reality and perspective.
"Official" justifications mean crap. Actions speak infinitely louder than words.
Frankly, racial lines were drawn long before the concept of race was even coined. So, attributing the creation of "race" to such a micro incident as slavery is pigeonholing it.
Though, I can see your points, but they seem very common sense. The north benefitted of course, how could they not?
Slavery wasn't a completely racially motivated action. That should be evident from the long history of humans enslaving humans.
That and keep in mind, just cause the north didn't have plantations and the such (since they didn't need them), they still disliked blacks, and used them in other ways.
Lest we forget the draft riots in which blacks were beaten to death and lynched.
some prolly knew it was wrong and others did not. i dont think you can generalize that they ALL knew it was wrong or they ALL knew it was ok
brigden
Diamond Member
- Dec 22, 2002
- 8,702
- 2
- 81
Racism isn't bred. Ultimately, acceptance of all races is bred. Perhaps a racist attitude in modern times could be considered inbred. Racism is innate, whether you believe it or not. It's human nature, animal nature, to segregate from other species (to an extent). Our differences are what define us; groups, naturally, attempt to ensure their continued existence, and, as a result, distrust those that are different.
Of course, we're all very enlightened and the racism is, well, barbaric.
K1052
Elite Member
- Aug 21, 2003
- 51,946
- 44,805
- 136
That was a quick and incomplete comment on my part. Let me clarify.
First and foremost the reason for the war was the question of state power vs. federal power. Who had the ultimate authority to make the laws of the nation and to what extent? Most of the northern states thought the power should rest with the federal government, while most of the southern states thought the opposite. Slavery was the issue that crystallized this difference of opinion.
There are several other side issues related to the justification for the war. I quickly mentioned one of them already. Industry in the north would not have been able to compete with slave labor, so the abolition of slavery was preferable to the alternative. Low paid workers would dilute the labor pool. Slaves would have flooded it.
This concern had grown out of the south's continuing actions to spread slavery to the western territories. Several compromises had already been made to exclude slavery from those territories, but they continued to push for it (violently at times). The south perceived these actions as a first step in the abolition of slavery to be forced by the federal government.
I know that Lincoln would have kept slavery in the southern states if it could keep Union intact. The southern states assumed that his election would threaten that right.
Slave owners did not see blacks as equals so slavery, in their times, was well justified. The owners did not know whether it was right or wrong because it was neither right nor wrong at the time.
I know this may sound stupid but let's say one day animals were no longer considered inferior to humans. They can look back on the days of when men used animals for farming and other labor purposes. I'm sure there are some that will say it is wrong to use animals in such manner (which goes the same for whites and slavery) but the general consensus is that animal usage acceptable (and sometimes expected). Sorry, stupid analogy but that's the first thing that came to mind.
- Nov 19, 2001
- 27,727
- 16
- 81
I guess this is really the answer I was looking for. Alot of people say that there is no way to accurately answer this question, that's not at all true. Any student of the history of this time period (USA Pre=Civil war), which I am not, should be able to describe the general feeling of the vast majority.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter