Why did slave holders in the South comply with the Emancipation?

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by johan_steele

Had I lived in the 1860's I have little doubt that I would have opposed slavery; would I have been an Abolisionist? I don't know. I do see no plus to slavery, economic plusses? certainly there is nothing quite like free labor and profitting upon the back of other men is as old as slavery and yes slavery exists today in other parts of the world it does not exist in the US in anything but a highly illegal form. Are convicts slaves? Tommy boasted that to the four winds... my reply... they receive 3 hots, a cot, a roof overhead and no neck stretching rope.

Ah, yes had we lived in the 1860 we would be shaped by our circamstnces, you would not think or act then as you do now.

Slavery is a legal in the US btw but only acording to law as a punishment, and the 13th is an open amendemt and can be modified, repealled,
as well.

Dont find your Tommy refernce very persausive, hanging is a capital punishment for a crime, not for being a slave per se, state laws list the clothing allowance that owners must provide, the US welfare system only betters it in 1907.

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by unionblue

Hanny,

"Remember those in bonds as bound with them." St. Paul.

"Break every yoke, and let the oppressed go free." Isaiah.

"Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant who has escaped from his master unto thee; he shall dwell with thee; even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best; thou shalt not oppress him." Deut. xxiii. 15, 16.

Unionblue

St Paul ill cover in a post latter on today, but isaih is talking about breaking the yoke,what was refering to?.
Acts 15:10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?


"Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest for your souls. For my yoke is [What?] easy, and my burden is [What?] light." Matthew 11:29, 30

"Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The Scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. For they bind [What?] heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers." Matthew 23:14

What they were all saying has nothing to do with slavery, but the burdens of life, the yoke, is light when you are spirtually attuned, and heavy when you concentrate on the them ,and worry about the yokes of lfe, for that was a passing matter.

Isaiah 3:4,5 And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them. And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbor: the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honorable.

"Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant who has escaped from his master unto thee; he shall dwell with thee; even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best; thou shalt not oppress him."

Does not pertain or apply, its a law that only applies to certain ungodly owners, ie those who do not worship God.
See here.
http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts...s1/CNSH106.HTM

• Colossians 3:22-23 "Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God; And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, … "
• Deuteronomy 15:17 "Then thou shalt take an aul, and thrust it through his ear unto the door, and he shall be thy servant for ever. And also unto thy maidservant thou shalt do likewise."
• Exodus 21:2-6 "If thou buy an hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free … if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: … and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever."
• Joel 3:8 "And I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hand of the children of Judah, and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off:"
• Leviticus 25:44-45 "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession."
• Romans 13:1-6 "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves ****ation. … Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing."
• 1 Timothy 6:1 "Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, … "
• Titus 2:9-10 "Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; … "

Got to run, back later to finish up.

;

[unionblue]

Hanny,

You can't have it both ways. Is the Bible to taken only as a historical text or is it to be used as an inspirational one?

There were sermons given and bible references given by each side of the slavery question. Are the ones that did not justify slavery to be used only in a historical reference sort of way and the ones that justified slavery to be used for justification to continue the institution?

Curious,
Unionblue

[johan_steele]

Originally Posted by Hanny

Ah, yes had we lived in the 1860 we would be shaped by our circamstnces, you would not think or act then as you do now. As I said, HAD I lived in the 1860's I would hope my morals would have been strong enough to have opposed slavery... If I wasn't opposing slavery then I would not be the one living in the 1860's. Judging from the numbers who did oppose slavery, even quietly, slavery was not as popular or as acceptable as you would have us believe.
Slavery is a legal in the US btw but only acording to law as a punishment, and the 13th is an open amendemt and can be modified, repealled,
as well. Are you hoping for a repeal? A convict is not a slave. He cannot be executed on a whim, his wife is not fair game for the warden, his wife & children cannot be sold away from him, he had the right to a fair trial by a jury of his peers.

Dont find your Tommy refernce very persausive, hanging is a capital punishment for a crime, not for being a slave per se, state laws list the clothing allowance that owners must provide, the US welfare system only betters it in 1907. A slaveowner could punish his slaves as he saw fit to include execution w/ no interference from the law. A slaveowner could bed one of his slaves w/ no interference from the law. A slaveowner was entitled to the fruits of his slave labor w/out interference from the law. A slave had NO rights to life libert or pursuit of happiness. To make any kind of comparison between the US welfare sys and 1860's slavery... you are kidding right? As an example my mother spent almost a year on welfare when I was a child... I have never needed to. She managed to get back on her feet and off of Welfare. As you were a 21 year vet, you should be aware of men & women who joined the military to get out of poverty and succeded quite well, CHOOSING, to make the military a career and after their first career of the US military moving on to become IMHO even more sucessul citizens.

The question becomes why the strident defense of slavery? By any stretch of the imagination it is a moral wrong and as Neil has shown their are ample direct quotes in the bible opposing slavery. Exodus in general shows slavery as frowned upon by God, if not then why per se did Egypt suffer the plagues. Frankly, the US got off lightly, we only suffered two plagues: the Civil War and Reconstruction.

I do believe the bible can be twisted and those who espouse the good of slavery are quite adept at quoting the bible... yet to do so is to make the ten commandments an abomination. I believe it is said that the devil can quote scripture and verse as well Christ.

If slavery is not a moral right today why should it be a moral right in 1860? The reverse is also an interesting question. But it poses another question; was slavery ever a moral right? My answer is a simple no.

Incidently, if Christ could forgive a tax collector... who am I to not forgive a slaveowner.

[Will Posey]

Originally Posted by johan_steele

The question becomes why the strident defense of slavery?

Precisely.

Will

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by unionblue

Union Blue

You can't have it both ways. Is the Bible to taken only as a historical text or is it to be used as an inspirational one?

Where did i try and have it both ways?, yes the Bible is a historical text, one one hand you have the word of God giving the laws of slavery to men, regulating the practice etc, and then a millinium later, men saying no thats not what he ment, look at this parrable....he ment slavery was a mortal sin. Mortal sins are inumarated in the Bible, owning slaves is not one of them.


But otoh, the Bible being intpretated by any and all to suit their purpose, is exactly the problem, radical abolitionist wanted to have God on their side when they proposed slavery end, just as did those who wanted it to continue, they cant be both right. We only have God speaking one way about slavery in scripture, and he was not on the side of aboliotion.

Originally Posted by UnionBlue

There were sermons given and bible references given by each side of the slavery question. Are the ones that did not justify slavery to be used only in a historical reference sort of way and the ones that justified slavery to be used for justification to continue the institution?.

which ones do you have in mind?,
"Nothing is more clearly written in the book of destiny than the emancipation of the blacks, and it is equally certain that the two races will never live in a state of equal freedom undr the same government, so insurmountable are the barriers which nature built, habit, and opinion have established between them." Thomas Jeferson: writtings. Autobiography.
J Davis "You have among you politicians of a philosophic turn, who preach a high morality; a system of which they are the discoverers.... They say, it is true the Constitution dictates this, the Bible inculcates that; but there is a higher law than those, and they call upon you to obey that higher law of which they are the inspired givers. Men who are traitors to the compact of their fathers -- men who have perjured the oaths they have themselves taken... these are the moral law-givers who proclaim a higher law than the Bible, the Constitution, and the laws of the land.... These higher law preachers should be tarred and feathered, and whipped by those they have thus instigated.... The man who... preaches treason to the Constitution and the dictates of all human society, is a fit object for a Lynch law that would be higher than any he could urge."
On the floor of the United States Senate, John M. Niles of Connecticut said:
Abolitionism consists of two kinds: abolitionism of the old school, and abolitionism of the new school. The former amounts to nothing more than a rational wish and desire for the emancipation of all persons held in bondage, and a disposition to advance that object by the diffusion of knowledge and the progress of society. Of this kind of Abolitionists were Franklin and Jefferson; and there are many such at the North, and I presume at the South....
Very different from these are the abolitionists of the new school. What are their principles? I judge of them from their own publications, which I have examined. They propose an immediate abolition of slavery, and against the will of those interested in it. They, therefore, propose to abolish slavery by violence. And this they design to effect in communities where they do not reside, and have no interests or sympathies with the inhabitants. Whatever may be their intentions, no rational person can have a doubt that the scheme has a tendency to insurrection, massacre, and a servile war.
They regard slavery as a theological question. They say it is a sin and a moral evil in the sight of God and man, and ought to be eradicated from the earth; and that it cannot be wrong to remove an evil. They aver that they have nothing to do with the consequences.
Can men be sane who avow principles like these, who are pursuing an object having the most important bearing on the vital interests of society, which expose it to all the horrors of insurrection, massacre, and servile war, and yet declare that they have nothing to do with the consequences of their own acts? To call such men fanatics is too mild a term. I have no concern with their motives, but like all other moral agents, they must be held responsible for the natural and obvious consequences of their own acts. This principle, true in morals, is no less so in politics. Is it to be wondered at that a scheme, based on a total recklessness of consequences, should have excited the almost universal indignation of an intelligent and moral people? .John M. Niles, speech delivered in the Senate on 15 February 1836
It is against slavery on the whole, and against slaveholders as a body, that we wage an exterminating war. Those persons who, under the infamous slave-laws of the South — laws which have been correctly spoken of as a "disgrace to civilization," and which must be annulled simultaneously with the abolition of slavery — have had the vile institution entailed on them contrary to their wills, are virtually on our side; we may, therefore, very properly strike them off from the black list of three hundred and forty-seven thousand slaveholders, who, as a body, have shocked the civilized world with their barbarous conduct, and from whose conceited and presumptuous ranks are selected the officers who do all the legislation, town, county, state and national, for (against) five millions of poor outraged whites, and three millions of enslaved negroes.
Non-slaveholders of the South! farmers, mechanics and workingmen, we take this occasion to assure you that the slaveholders, the arrogant demagogues whom you have elected to offices of honor and profit, have hoodwinked you, trifled with you, and used you as mere tools for the consummation of their wicked designs. They have purposely kept you in ignorance, and have, by moulding your passions and prejudices to suit themselves, induced you to act in direct opposition to your dearest rights and interests. By a system of the grossest subterfuge and misrepresentation, and in order to avert, for a season, the vengeance that will most assuredly overtake them ere long, they have taught you to hate the abolitionists, who are your best and only true friends. Now, as one of your own number, we appeal to you to join us in our patriotic endeavors to rescue the generous soil of the South from the usurped and desolating control of these political vampires. Once and forever, at least so far as this country is concerned, the infernal question of slavery must be disposed of; a speedy and perfect abolishment of the whole institution is the true policy of the South — and this is the policy which we propose to pursue. Will you aid us, will you assist us, will you be freemen, or will you be slaves? These are questions of vital importance; weigh them well in your minds; come to a prudent and firm decision, and hold yourselves in readiness to act in accordance therewith. You must either be for us or against us — anti-slavery or pro-slavery; it is impossible for you to occupy a neutral ground; it is as certain as fate itself, that if you do not voluntarily oppose the usurpations and outrages of the slavocrats, they will force you into involuntary compliance with their infamous measures. Consider well the aggressive, fraudulent and despotic power which they have exercised in the affairs of Kansas; and remember that, if, by adhering to erroneous principles of neutrality or non-resistance, you allow them to force the curse of slavery on that vast and fertile field, the broad area of all the surrounding States and Territories — the whole nation, in fact — will soon fall a prey to their diabolical intrigues and machinations. Thus, if you are not vigilant, will they take advantage of your neutrality, and make you and others the victims of their inhuman despotism....
As a striking illustration of the selfish and debasing influences which slavery exercises over the hearts and minds of slaveholders themselves, we will here state the fact that, when we, the non-slaveholders, remonstrate against the continuance of such a manifest wrong and inhumanity — a system of usurpation and outrage so obviously detrimental to our interests — they fly into a terrible passion, exclaiming, among all sorts of horrible threats, which are not unfrequently executed, "It's none of your business!" — meaning to say thereby that their slaves do not annoy us, that slavery affects no one except the masters and their chattels personal, and that we should give ourselves no concern about it, whatever! To every man of common sense and honesty of purpose the preposterousness of this assumption is so evident, that any studied attempt to refute it would be a positive insult. Would it be none of our business, if they were to bring the small-pox into the neighborhood, and, with premeditated design, let "foul contagion spread?" Or, if they were to throw a pound of strychnine into a public spring, would that be none of our business? Were they to turn a pack of mad dogs loose on the community, would we be performing the part of good citizens by closing ourselves within doors for the space of nine days, saying nothing to anybody? Small-pox is a nuisance; strychnine is a nuisance; mad dogs are a nuisance; slavery is a nuisance; slaveholders are a nuisance, and so are slave-breeders; it is our business, nay, it is our imperative duty, to abate nuisances; we propose, therefore, with the exception of strychnine, which is the least of all these nuisances, to exterminate this catalogue from beginning to end....
We contend that slaveholders are more criminal than common murderers.... Against this army for the defense and propagation of slavery, we think it will be an easy matter — independent of the negroes, who, in nine cases out of ten, would be delighted with an opportunity to cut their masters' throats, and without accepting of a single recruit from either of the free States, England, France or Germany — to muster one at least three times as large, and far more respectable for its utter extinction. We hope, however, and believe, that the matter in dispute may be adjusted without arraying these armies against each other in hostile attitude. We desire peace, not war — justice, not blood. Give us fair-play, secure to us the right of discussion, the freedom of speech, and we will settle the difficulty at the ballot-box, not on the battle-ground — by force of reason, not by force of arms. But we are wedded to one purpose from which no earthly power can ever divorce us. We are determined to abolish slavery at all hazards — in defiance of all the opposition, of whatever nature, which it is possible for the slavocrats to bring against us. Of this they may take due notice, and govern themselves accordingly....
Henceforth, Sirs, we are demandants, not suppliants. We demand our rights, nothing more, nothing less. It is for you to decide whether we are to have justice peaceably or by violence, for whatever consequences may follow, we are determined to have it one way or the other. Do you aspire to become the victims of white non-slaveholding vengeance by day, and of barbarous massacre by the negroes at night? Would you be instrumental in bringing upon yourselves, your wives, and your children, a fate too horrible to contemplate? Shall history cease to cite, as an instance of unexampled cruelty, the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, because the world — the South — shall have furnished a more direful scene of atrocity and carnage? Sirs, we would not wantonly pluck a single hair from your heads; but we have endured long, we have endured much; slaves only of the most despicable class would endure more. An enumeration or classification of all the abuses, insults, wrongs, injuries, usurpations, and oppressions, to which you have subjected us, would fill a larger volume than this; it is our purpose, therefore, to speak only of those that affect us most deeply. Out of our effects you have long since overpaid yourselves for your negroes; and now, Sirs, you must emancipate them — speedily emancipate them, or we will emancipate them for you! Every non-slaveholder in the South is, or ought to be, and will be, against you. You yourselves ought to join us at once in our laudable crusade against "the mother of harlots" .Richard Hildreth, Despotism in America: An Inquiry Into the Nature and Results of the Slave-Holding System in the United States (Boston: Anti-Slavery Society, 1840

The Republicans in Congress, who, in the election of 1858, had nearly doubled in number from the previous election, not only endorsed a later abridged edition of this book, but also paid for the free circulation of one hundred thousand copies throughout the Northern States.(35) Of course, Helper's views were not unique, but had become standard Republican doctrine. For example, Joshua Giddings of Ohio had openly advocated servile insurection in the House of Representatives three years before the publication of The Impending Crisis:
...I see the destiny of this nation wielded by that "higher law".... Sir, it is that higher law that is rolling on the North... which is manifested in ten thousand public meetings throughout the land of the free... which is manifested in the pulpit and on the stump... which must and will shape the destiny of this nation: before that we must bow for it is the voice of God uttered through his people. Sir, we are a people who pray before we fight, and when we have said our prayers and put on our armor, then our enemies had better stand aside than meet us....
When the contest shall come; when the thunder shall roll and the lightning flash; when the slaves shall rise in the South; when, in imitation of the Cuban bondmen, the southern slaves of the South shall feel they are men; when they feel the stirring emotion of immortality, and recognize the stirring truth that they are men, and entitled to the rights which God has bestowed upon them; when the slaves shall feel that, and when masters shall turn pale and tremble when their dwellings shall smoke, and dismay sit on each countenance, then, sir, I do not say "we will laugh at your calamity, and mock when your fear cometh," but I do say, when that time shall come, the lovers of our race will stand forth, and exert the legitimate powers of this Government for freedom. We shall then have constitutional power to act for the good of our country, and do justice to the slave. Then shall we strike off the shackles from the limbs of the slaves. That will be a period when this Government will have the power to act between slavery and freedom.... And let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that that time hastens. It is rolling forward.... I hail it as I do the approaching dawn of that political and moral millennium which I am well assured will come upon the world.

[Hanny]

Some detail of Uk Mil punishments, often called the Bloody code, and its important to recall the brutality of the age. flogging was done by a cat of 9 tails, on man tied, spread eagled (scandanavian dark Age punishment of the blood eagle was to, cut open your ribs and pull out your lungs and lay them over your shoulders, so you could watch yourself breath your last, God i miss the old days....) to a tripod of halberds, when one cat become clogged, it was replaced with another, and was adminsiterd by the Reg Farriers who would be among the largest men in the Regiment, if in a Cav Regiment, and by drummers in an Inf Reg, the surgeon was on hand and could end the punishment if the life was threstened and it was not a capital crime, 6-700 lashes seems to be the range for mortality to occur.
Flogging in peacetime was abolished in 1868, and in war time in 1881, but stayed on in Mil prisons untill 1907. There was over 200 offences involving different numbers of lashes, ( one man was flogged when he asked a loan he had made to an officer to be repaid, the officer found its manner to be impertinantint, since he could not call the man on the field of nonour, he had him flogged instead) in 1807 one man got 1500 lashes and George III passd a 1000 upper limit for non capital offences, and 2000 for capital offences. Regimental Courts could not dispense more than 300 lashes, reduced to 100 by 1836 and 50 by 1845, and 25 by 1879.
In the late 1820s the Uk Army was flogging just under one man in 50 of its National Army.

[Hanny]

"Remember those in bonds as bound with them." St. Paul.


Martin Luther told the Swabian peasents who wanted to be free, because Christ had died to make men free, that they had distorted scipture by saying that, and that serfdom was their natural lot, he then gavethem St Pauls Dictum, that "Master and slaves must acept their present stations, for the earthly kingdom could not survive unless some men were free and others slaves". 25th Liviticus tells us that slaves may be purchased from Forgien nations, and that they can be inherited from one generation to another, pretty straight to the point and not a parrable that meerly tells how you treat anyone else is one way to get into the Kingdom of Heaven, just as St Paul in 6th Epistle to Ephesians, and in 3 and 4 Epistle to the Colisianss, Enjions master and slaves to love one another tenderly, to care and honour each other, and in when he speaks of the root of all evill being the love of money, he goes on to talk about those who were of a mind to stir up slaves against their masters, and speaks against them. Christ performed a miracle on a slave to cure him of illness, not because he was ill, but because of the masters love for the slave. St Augistine condoned and acepted slavery, so did T Aquinias, and most Popes, but only for negros and heratics, the first planations in Europe and the canarie islands were set up with muslim negro slaves with Papal authority to use them so.
God directly rebukes Moseses son Aaron and wife Miriam for speaking ill of Moseses black wife who was a slave, when they said such a Union was ungodly, and God told them what he thought, in 12 chapter of Numbers.

Now what i find amusing on Civil war boards, is the premise that everone knows the war was over slavery, but no one knows what that means, an answer to a question must conatain an explanation, simply saying the cause of the war was slavery is no more an explanation than saying the cause of the war was the existance of the Republican party, both are equally accurate but fail to explain anything, they meerly describe the problem.
Ole`s parrable of how a good Christian can get into Heaven by treating all men well, is a case in point, it can be intpretated in number of ways, but does not mention the condition of slavery at all. Unlike when Martin Luther told the Swabian peasents who wanted to be free, because Christ had died to make men free, that "They had distorted scipture by saying that.", and "that serfdom was their natural lot", he then gave them St Pauls Dictum, that "Master and slaves must acept their present stations, for the earthly kingdom could not survive unless some men were free and others slaves". 25th Liviticus tells us that slaves may be purchased from Forgien nations, and that they can be inherited from one generation to another, pretty straight to the point and not a parrable that meerly tells how you treat anyone else is one way to get into the Kingdom of Heaven, just as St Paul in 6th Epistle to Ephesians, and in 3 and 4 Epistle to the Colisianss, Enjions master and slaves to love one another tenderly, to care and honour each other, and in when he speaks of the root of all evill being the love of money, he goes on to talk about those who were of a mind to stir up slaves against their masters, and speaks against them. Christ performed a miracle on a slave to cure him of illness, not because he was ill, but because of the masters love for the slave, application of the parrable here means a slave master gets into heaven because of the love he had for the slave, so its hardly a ****ing parrable about slavery is it. St Augistine condoned and acepted slavery, so did T Aquinias, and most Popes, but for negros and heratics only, the first planations in Europe were set up in the Med with muslim negro slaves with Papal authority to use them so.
God directly rebukes Moseses son Aaron and wife Miriam for speaking ill of Moseses black wife who was a slave, when they said such a Union was ungodly, and God told them what he thought, in 12 chapter of Numbers.
But some say the DOI says that all men are created equal, but that only applied to white and free men in society, the Native Americans were not covered by the Constition as citizens, nor persons who any laws of war need apply to, untill Crook V Standing Bear won them the right to HC and laws of war making it a crime to kill them on sight, take no prisoners because they were not persons in law, and Chinese and Asians were not covered as citizens with the same rights and protections as all men given by the Constition till post WBTS. The more free a society is, the more free you are to demonstrate the unequality of men, my house is bigger and more expensive than yours, your car is faster and more expensive than mine, my job pays be less than your job, my wife wears expensive designer, yours shops at charity shops, you get the picture i hope, in society all men are not equal, for society to function, particulry at the economic level, someone has to exploit and some have to be exploited, the greater the influence of commerce on the national economy, the greater pressure on those who are exploited, by 1860 the US was the worlds producer of cheap cotton, and its negros were the exploited section of society who made this possible and profitted the world, and sufferd a lowering of equality in society, one posters says that no one volunters to be a slave. well thats an unhelfull observation, Roman Empire contained 00s 0f 000s of free people who become slaves by choice, (slaves were exempt from mil service) social mobility in that society was very high, ( the educated Greeks who flooded the Roman Empre with the conquests of the Greek sattes did not go into the mines to be worked to death, but become the beurocracy staff for the Empre and tutors and sop on) conditions of slavery ranged from very good to appalling, the great Sicilian slave Revolt was when the clothing allowance was removed and slaves were expected to go about naked. In the Uk people who wanted to work in any mine, got a gaurenteed job for life, liberal wages, a house gratis, and the job to pass to his son, but entered into a contact that forbad their leaving the job, for life, not covered by the ending of the slave trade in the UK, and part of what become know as the White slave Act in the Uk. Celtic society inclded slavery, and again the social conditions were generally very good, and he moved into and out of the condition, often on the throw of dice to become or be free from slavery in games of chance. The principle difference in all forms of slavery and the US is the mobility issue, slaves for the most part remained slaves, not beacuse the means of emancipation were not in place, 1 in 3 obtain freedom on th death of the master, or your chances of freedom were i in 3 if youn prefer, or that an average hand could earn enough to buy his freedom in 10 years, or the 1830 effort to end slavery by act of Congress, all faillled because of the scalle of the problem, negro population rose by 30% per annum over a century, slave Northern States blocked the emancipation moves because of the cost, they would rather have a TCRR.
Oh thats just ancient and forgien history says another. Ok, when the Northern states freed their negros they had provided them with skills to earn a living and not be a public burden to the State, some states required them to leave the state, 0s of 000s went South and sold themselves back into slavery, haveing been denied citizenship upon manumision they had no protection in law, and could not enter into any contracts for work, others who stated because the state allowed them to do so and had made them citizens, had to enter into vol contracts for life subject to forfiture of all pay, including that of the years in training, social mobility in the North for negros was far lower than in the South.

Some failed to grasp the conection between conscription and slavery, being conscripted/impressed for service was a cause for war between the UK and USA in 1812, and is simply an extension of the social contract in society, when you can be conscripted to fight against your will,or punished if you refuse, your a slave, to a degree to be sure, but the defining aspect of slavery is free choice being denied.
D Webster, destroyed the conscription Act of 1814 with these words.
"is this, consistant with the charcter of free government?.Is this civil liberty?. The Constition is foully libeled, the people of this country have not established for themselves such a fabric of despotism. they have not purchased at vast expense of their own treasure and blood their own Magna Carta to be slaves.Where is it written in the Constition, in what Article is it contained , that you can take children from parents, and parents from children and to compel them to fight the battles in any war in which the follyb and wickidness of the government may engage?.Under what conceralment has this power laid hidden, which now for the first time comes forth with tremedous and balefull aspect, to trample down and destroy the rights of personal liberty?.Who will show me any Constional injunction which makes it the duty of the American people to surrender everything valuable in life and even life itself, not when the safty of the country and its libertys may demand the sacrifice, but whenever the government purposes of an ambitous and mischeous government may require it?"
Former Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Curtis also criticized the EP:
This proclamation... by an executive decree, proposes to repeal and annul valid State laws which regulate the domestic relations of their people. Such is the mode of operation of the decree....
It must be obvious to the meanest capacity, that if the President of the United States has an implied constitutional right, as commander-in-chief of the army and navy in time of war, to disregard any one positive prohibition of the Constitution, or to exercise any one power not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, because, in his judgment, he may thereby "best subdue the enemy," he has the same right, for the same reason, to disregard each and every provision of the Constitution, and to exercise all power, needful, in his opinion, to enable him "best to subdue the enemy."
It has never been doubted that the power to abolish slavery within the States was not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, but was reserved to the States. If the President, as commander-in-chief of the army and navy in time of war, may, by an executive decree, exercise this power to abolish slavery in the States, which power was reserved to the States, because he is of opinion that he may thus "best subdue the enemy," what other power, reserved to the States or to the people, may not be exercised by the President, for the same reason, that he is of the opinion that he may thus best subdue the enemy?...
The necessary result of this interpretation of the Constitution is, that, in time of war, the President has any and all power, which he may deem it necessary to exercise, to subdue the enemy; and that... every right reserved to the States or the people, rests merely upon executive discretion.
But the military power of the President is derived solely from the Constitution; and it is as sufficiently defined there as his purely civil power. These are its words: "The President shall be the Commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States."
This is his military power. He is the general-in-chief; and as such, in prosecuting war, may do what generals in the field are allowed to do within the sphere of their actual operations, in subordination to the laws of the their country, from which alone they derive their authority.
Society makes slaves of most people, unless your finacialy independt your a slave, oh we dont call ourselves slaves, the terms and conditions are very good for the most part, but we are still slaves, only we dont call ourselves such, because the degree of exploitation is now subtle, in part because thats how you get the best out of citizens, just as in US slavery the most productive elements were so by finacial inducemts, not fear of punishments, and the really exploited are those of other countrys who bear the economic burden of exploiation now, where it was formerly sections of your own nation/country/Union.
Post WBTS those Southern citizens were told that they owed taxes, laws passed during the war in which they had no part in forming btw, because they were in rebelion they were assessed at +50% for the income taxes, if they could not pay they lost assets, or went to jail and were used to work on internal improvements, some 35,000 did not survive there terms. Slavery did not end, because the governemt made slaves of men who could not pay taxes they did not formulate in law, and then worked them to death draining maleria swamps etc.
This does have some interesting aplications though, Jewish law applies and is above any other nations laws, and they take no notice of them. lets call that the God supremacy clause, so if a slave from a state enters into the jewish state, he is free in jewish society untill Jewish law makes him otherwise, and is treated as any other, lets call that Lex soli, just as the NWT were free soild and any slave making ity into them was free, untill the FSA changed it.

[Hanny]

So what happened to the negro after the EP?.

7 December 1863, Jefferson Davis stated:
Nor as less unrelenting warfare been waged by these pretended friends of human rights and liberties against the unfortunate negroes. Wherever the enemy have been able to gain access they have forced into the ranks of their army every able-bodied man that they could seize, and have either left the aged, the women, and the children to perish by starvation, or have gathered them into camps where they have been wasted by a frightful mortality. Without clothing or shelter, often without food, incapable without supervision of taking the most ordinary precautions against disease, these helpless dependents, accustomed to have their wants supplied by the foresight of their masters, are being rapidly exterminated wherever brought in contact with the invaders. By the Northern man, on whose deep-rooted prejudices no kindly restraining influence is exercised, they are treated with aversion and neglect. There is little hazard in predicting that in all localities where the enemy have gained a temporary foothold the negroes, who under our care increased six-fold in number since their importation into the colonies by Great Britain, will have been reduced by mortality during the war to no more than one-half their previous number.
Information on this subject is derived not only from our own observation and from the reports of the negroes who succeed in escaping from the enemy, but full confirmation is afforded by statements published in the Northern journals by humane persons engaged in making appeals to the charitable for aid in preventing the ravages of disease, exposure, and starvation among the negro women and children who are crowded into encampments.









Johnson sent 5 former USSC juudges into Southern states in June 65 to look into the loss of life of negros, when he was told the likly agricultural yields that would returned, Judge W Sharkey drew Miss and had this to say.
"I believ ethat there are now in my State little over half the number of freedmen that were formaly slaves, certainly not more than two thirds. They have died off. there is no telling the mortality that has prevailed among them,and they have died of in immense numbers. I should say that very lttle more than half the amount of land that ws undr cultivation before the war will be under cultivation this year."

Miss 1860 negro population was 436,000, if even 30% died off we have a losss of life of 130,000 negros from Miss alone.
simple question, why does no one ever mention the loss of negro life in the war?, surely a war to end slavery that caused a loss of life to those slaves of around 400k is a point worthy of explanation.

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by johan_steele

The question becomes why the strident defense of slavery?

Because thats where the Republicans struck, defeated in the SC and defeated in Congress they attacked where they could, at the support base of the South, slavery and agitated where they could not at that time defeat.

Originally Posted by Johan steele

By any stretch of the imagination it is a moral wrong and as Neil has shown their are ample direct quotes in the bible opposing slavery.

Your mistaken, he has done no such thing at all, and nor have you.

Originally Posted by Johan Steele

Exodus in general shows slavery as frowned upon by God, if not then why per se did Egypt suffer the plagues. Frankly, the US got off lightly, we only suffered two plagues: the Civil War and Reconstruction.

Answered this in above post, because Gods law granted that the isralites bee granted fredom under his law, he was able to punish the Egyptians, and Exodus in no way, shape form, or any other inference shows that slavery was frowned on by God.

Originally Posted by johan steele

I do believe the bible can be twisted and those who espouse the good of slavery are quite adept at quoting the bible... yet to do so is to make the ten commandments an abomination. I believe it is said that the devil can quote scripture and verse as well Christ.

I wait for you to quote some scripture that actually pertains to slavery with baited breath, or anyone else for that matter.

Originally Posted by Johan Stelle

If slavery is not a moral right today why should it be a moral right in 1860? The reverse is also an interesting question. But it poses another question; was slavery ever a moral right? My answer is a simple no.

Answered by theologians centuries ago, moral right to be a slave, is to still be alive, the use of slavery was the alternative to death, and while there is life there is hope, and under Gods laws, slavery was meerly a transitionional phase inhbis earthly kingdom. Locks answer to a slave who wanted to be free, kill yourself, your life has already been forfit by law and every breath you take is by the forbearence of others.

Originally Posted by Johan steele

Incidently, if Christ could forgive a tax collector... who am I to not forgive a slaveowner.

Exellent!, especially sice slavery was inherited by the USA, and no ojne was forced to be a slave owner.