Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
Dear Terry,
Is the differance between moral and immoral actions in breaking the law: you are breaking an immoral law? A man deciding to ditch slavery and run North is commiting a crime, but the law he is breaking is immoral. But the stealing or killing he might do along the way are immoral because laws against theft and murder are moral laws. The fugitive slave law might be passed or repealed, but laws against murder and theft would always be in force.
But what if the stealing(food or clothes) he does facilitates his escape? What if his escape is impossible without these "immoral" crimes?
Is the differance between moral and immoral actions in breaking the law: you are breaking an immoral law?
Hi Matt: There are consequences for breaking all laws. In my opinion, the consequences for breaking an immoral law, as the Fugitive Slave Act was, would be minimal - on the other side. I'm talking about the afterlife - the effect on the soul. However, one might reap severe consequences on this side, from human civil law and the people who administer and enforce it. The escaped slave would undoubtedly be breaking the laws of some human being. Escape from bondage would have no repercussions on the other side. But, on this side humans have the wherewithal, the will, and the means,to really put the hurt on him. The escaped slave, if recaptured, may face horse-whipping or shackles, or worse, if returned to his master. There would obviously be much suffering involved.
Quote:
But the stealing or killing he might do along the way are immoral because laws against theft and murder are moral laws.
Stealing a chicken or clothing to keep from starving to death while on his perilous journed to freedom is, again, IMO, ok, with minimal if any consequences after death. Murder is not. Killing in self-defense is forgivable, though. If the slave feels that he must slit the throat of a farmer in order to gain access to food, or clothing, then by committing that murder he has gone too far. That is murder. If the escaped slave is forced to severly injure or kill someone to protect his life, or others lives who are with him, and their freedom, due to a direct, unavoidable confrontation, then IMO he creates no problems for himself on the other side. His cause of freedom and a free life trumps the cause of those who would kill or injure him in an attempt to see that an immoral law is enforced, or in some cases a bounty collected.The difference would be that the slave tried his best to avoid contact and capture, but was confronted with a situation where physical violence was unavoidable in order to save his life, the lives of others with him, and/or their freedom.
Slave catchers, on the other hand, by picking up a slave, binding him, and returning him to his owners, and leaving him to their mercies, were acting lawfully, on this side, but I think it would be quite costly for the captors on the other side. Please keep in mind these are my opinions only. Many people will probably disagree. Good questions Matt.
I also want to make clear that nowhere here am I talking about any religion, or the teachings of any religion. The above is what I think happens on the other side regardless of whether it correlates with any religious teachings or not. Again, it is my opinion.
Terry
__________________ "In this great struggle, this form of Government and every form of human right is endangered if our enemies succeed. There is more involved in this contest than is realized by every one." Abraham Lincoln - August 18, 1864 Speech to the 164th Ohio Regiment
Dear Terry,
Is the differance between moral and immoral actions in breaking the law: you are breaking an immoral law? A man deciding to ditch slavery and run North is commiting a crime, but the law he is breaking is immoral. But the stealing or killing he might do along the way are immoral because laws against theft and murder are moral laws. The fugitive slave law might be passed or repealed, but laws against murder and theft would always be in force.
But what if the stealing(food or clothes) he does facilitates his escape? What if his escape is impossible without these "immoral" crimes?
It makes me wonder just how important our Constitution is to us. Is it ok to disregard it at certain times because we feel there is a higher calling that renders parts of the Constitution null?
Who gets to decide which parts are worth honoring and which parts we can sweep under the rug? If we allow the integrity of the Constitution to be breeched in one area, how can we complain if it is breeched in another? But, again, who among us gets to make the decisions if we don't accept the rulings of the Supreme Court as the highest authority?
Rose
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
A most interesting treatment of the "higher law," Terry. It must be noted that the declaration of that philosophy (Sumner, wasn't it?) went a long way toward convincing the slaveocracy that the Republican party intended to end slavery -- one way or another and nevermind the constitution.
That statement did more than John Brown to alarm the south and get on the road to secession.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Dear Rose,
That's the question isn't it? If we disregard the laws for personal conviction where does it end?
Dear Ole,
I think the constant repetition of the phrase "higher law"(as in "higher law fanatics") by slaveowners and their fellow travellers is more of an attempt to stigmatize the abolitionists in the eyes of white voters. I could be wrong about this: I'm basing it on the political tactics of today rather than any research into the 1850s.
Dear William and Rose,
I just had a thought. The slaves, since they were excluded from the political process, and didn't enjoy any political rights, why shouldn't they ignore any law they wished?
In Ancient Greece, the Spartans renewed a declaration of war against their helots(slaves) each year. Since they were officially at war with the helots, it justified and excused any action against the slaves, including killing. Wasn't white society in the 1850s kind of "at war" with the slaves?
Rose, that's the rub. You've hit the nail on the head. Do we obey a law that we consider unjust just because it is the law? Or do we disobey it, following our consciences, taking the consequences, as unpleasant as they may be? I think its up to the individual to decide for himself when the time for that critical decision arrives. Most of us have a pretty good idea of what's right and what's wrong. Its up to us to follow our hearts. I don't know which part of the Constitution you're referring to, but I believe the above "rule" or "conscience guide", might apply for just about every situation. It's not a fool-proof guide. People can go to the extremes with the "heart over law" idea, like John Brown, and anti-abortion activists who murder doctors.
And ignorance is no excuse. Going back to the slave-catcher example, if the slave-catcher has been led to believe from childhood that catching slaves and returning them to their owners and bondage is an honorable thing, then chances are his conscience will leave him alone, and he will be proud of himself. The fact that he sees no wrong in it does not, however, let him off the hook after he finds himself on the other side, and the replay of the life-tape begins. He will have to answer for that action, regardless of whether he knew it was wrong or not. It may mitigate his predicament somewhat that he was unaware of the moral wrong he was committing, but I doubt that is enough to let him off the hook completely.
Those who would catch the slave, return him, collect the bounty,and know in their hearts that it's morally wrong, and have justified or rationalized their decision to make it seem honorable or just ok, would have more to worry about later on, IMO.
Terry
__________________ "In this great struggle, this form of Government and every form of human right is endangered if our enemies succeed. There is more involved in this contest than is realized by every one." Abraham Lincoln - August 18, 1864 Speech to the 164th Ohio Regiment
And in this discussion, we have civil disobedience. You have every right to disobey according to your conscience. But you may not complain when the law puts your protesting, righteous physical being into the pokey.
This is how bad laws are changed. It's not a perfect system, but if you have a better one, the laws allow you give it a shot.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
It must be noted that the declaration of that philosophy (Sumner, wasn't it?) went a long way toward convincing the slaveocracy that the Republican party intended to end slavery -- one way or another and nevermind the constitution.
Ole, it may have alarmed the slaveocracy, and convinced them that the Republicans intended to end slavery. I really am unfamiliar with Sumner and whatever statement he may have made at that time. The Constitution and its clause allowing slavery, is a perfect example of an unjust law and therefore subject to civil disobedience. If "Thou shalt own slaves" was carved into the 10 commandments, it would still be ripe for disobedience.
Quote:
That statement did more than John Brown to alarm the south and get on the road to secession
I'm not sure which statement you're talking about. The one from the Sumner guy perhaps? Regardless, I doubt that a philosophy condoning civil disobedience would cause half as much alarm in the south as a crazy like John Brown riding around killing in the name of God and the abolition of slavery. Maybe I'm not understanding your statement.
Quote:
And in this discussion, we have civil disobedience. You have every right to disobey according to your conscience. But you may not complain when the law puts your protesting, righteous physical being into the pokey.
If you're going to disobey the law, then I would say you'd need to be ready for the pokey. You can't have it all - disobey an unjust law, feel good about yourself, and be immune from any negative consequences of that action. You can complain all you want in the pokey but nobody's gonna listen.
Terry
__________________ "In this great struggle, this form of Government and every form of human right is endangered if our enemies succeed. There is more involved in this contest than is realized by every one." Abraham Lincoln - August 18, 1864 Speech to the 164th Ohio Regiment
The slaves, since they were excluded from the political process, and didn't enjoy any political rights, why shouldn't they ignore any law they wished?
Because they didn't have any rights, political or otherwise. They were property and could be punished by their masters anytime, on a whim.
Quote:
In Ancient Greece, the Spartans renewed a declaration of war against their helots(slaves) each year. Since they were officially at war with the helots, it justified and excused any action against the slaves, including killing. Wasn't white society in the 1850s kind of "at war" with the slaves?
White southern slave owners didn't have to declare war on their slaves to legitimize, rationalize, or justify any punishment to a slave, or even causing death. Slaves were property. Sold back and forth, not fully human, and were treated as such, generally.
Terry
__________________ "In this great struggle, this form of Government and every form of human right is endangered if our enemies succeed. There is more involved in this contest than is realized by every one." Abraham Lincoln - August 18, 1864 Speech to the 164th Ohio Regiment
"Nobody" was intentional hyperbole. Given that I had acknowledged a nut-case fringe, I didn't think I needed to modify the statement. "The overwhelming, law-abiding, majority" now replaces it.
There is no doubt that some otherwise moderate people of influence said kind things about John Brown's raid -- it must have been viewed as a positive, however horrible, indication of a turn towards the abolition of slavery.
I will note that the same kinds of things as you quoted above were said by similar southern moderate people of influence about the border ruffians and Lawrence.
Ole
Ole, I see what you are saying, but when a fellow like John Andrew raises funds for John Brown's legal defense fund, calls what he did an example of the irrepressible conflict, and says he was right, then, he gets overwhelmingly elected as a delegate to the Republican National Convention and then wins the office of Governor of Massachusetts, it is hard to make the case that he was a lunatic fringe. Andrew was main-stream Republican.
Did any Southerner praise the (first) sack of Lawrence? I'm not saying nobody expressed approval, I just have never seen it.
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
Last edited by JohnTaylor; 03-14-2006 at 08:33 AM.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
