Pajamas Media

79 Comments

1. ked5:

adult slaves were so cheap to purchase that slave babies were thrown into ditches to die. (The cost of feeding them until they could work failed cost/benefit analysis.)

~~~~

This is an interesting juxtaposition with obama’s position of support for partial-birth abortion and allowing failed aborted babies to die. He’s just as extreme in destorying black lives (based upon percentage of black women who abort their babies) as Jamacian slave owner’s. Imagine what the response in the black community would be. Yeah, they’d just ignore it.

Nov 3, 2009 - 12:36 am 2. Numerian:

I had some ancestors who owned slaves and when growing up often asked the question of how good Christians (as I’m told they considered themselves) could possibly do such a thing. I mean, the answer to the question – “is it moral to keep other people in bondage, yes or no?” – doesn’t exactly seem like a difficult one to answer today, if you see what I mean.
The grandchildren of those slave owners – who had known them when they were children – were alive when I was a kid, and after talking to them on the subject and reflecting on what they told me, I figured out the answer, which is amazingly simple and obvious, if you think about it; as far as slavery went, they didn’t think there was any moral question that needed to be asked or answered.
As near as I can tell, they regarded their slaves in much the same fashion a modern person regards his pet dogs. If an animal rights “abolitionist” walked up to you and demanded you “free” your dogs, you’d think he/she was a nut and ignore them, right? After all, you love your dog, who is happy and has a good life. Do you beat your dog when he’s disobedient? And could you sell him? Or even kill him at your will?
Well…sure. But he’s a dog, you know.

Nov 3, 2009 - 4:01 am 3. Marc Malone:

I rather believe that they simply didn’t know better. Sadly, the Bible seems not very specific on this. There was no 11th commandment, “Thou shalt not have slaves!” There were the stories of the Jews enslaved, but it seems mere background. It was deserved even, for their faithlessness.

It is like the abortion issue, today, which is just another form of slavery. Sure, there is “Thou shalt not Murder!”, but when is it a baby and no longer a fetus? When does it attain human rights? (For those who are confused, slavery is not about economics; it is about human rights.)

The problem is, no one comes out and states in unequivocal terms, “It’s just plain wrong! What kind of sick freak woman murders her own child? It’s just wrong!” It’s the lack of distinct condemnation which allows it to flourish.

We have too many people helping to rationalize abortions. They say that it is just between a woman and her doctor. The implication is that, if she chooses abortion it’s just fine, because it is a personal choice; a matter of personal conscience. Well, it’s not fine! It’s grotesque! It’s profoundly immoral!

It is this which must be clearly stated again and again. One must not become engaged in debate of the rationales. Just declare it to be wrong; simply wrong; just plain wrong! When you do this, the message gets through. They say a lie repeated often enough gets believed. Well, this is even moreso for the truth. They just don’t know it’s wrong, because they haven’t been told with enough conviction.

Nov 3, 2009 - 4:04 am 4. Old Soldier:

Numerian – That pet analogy is probably pretty accurate.

The fact is that slavery is a very old and formerly widespread practice. Everyone reading this post is descended from slaves and slave owners. From the Egyptians, Assyrians, and Hebrews to the Greeks and Romans to the Vikings and Moors – much of the ancient world consisted of slaves and owners. Slavery was legal in Russia until 1723. Enslavement was the natural consequence of bad choices or bad luck on the individual level and lost wars on the tribal / national level. Slavery simply was. The Old Testament encouraged slave masters to be just, not emancipators.

Europe and Japan ran for centuries on lesser forms of slavery with serfs tied to the land and effectively owned by feudal lords.

I find it amusing that “greens” can be so racked with guilt that the comparison is valid.

Nov 3, 2009 - 5:12 am 5. eon:

On the environmentalist side, we see a great deal of “compartmentalization” amongst the “enlightened elite”". Never mind SUVs, think of AlGore or Sting jetting off to Doha to demand that the rest of us stop putting CO2 into the atmosphere.

But a lot of it is less “compartmentalization” than sheer ignorance and stupidity. Witness this quote from a noted environmental advocate:

“In short, if we can rise to the challenge, the permanent abolition of the wheel would have the marvelous synergistic effect of creating thousands of new jobs- as blacksmiths, farriers, grooms and so on- at the same time as it conserved energy and saved the planet from otherwise inevitable devastation.”

-Catherine Bennett, The Guardian (UK), 2004, quoted in “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism”, by Christopher C. Horner, Competitive Enterprise Institute (and formerly a member of the UN IPCC committee).

Anyone here enough of a technology historian or expert on “deep-ecology” dogmas to see the two inherent fallacies in that statement? Try these;

1. “Abolishing the wheel” means that animal-draft vehicles would be at the travois/sledge level. This drastically increases “ground resistance”, requiring more power to move a given load, is harder on the draft animal, and is probably the reason the wheel was invented to begin with. Also, one thing blacksmiths do is make the iron fellowes (think “tires”) for wooden wheels. If Bennett meant “abolishing the internal-combustion engine” (like AlGore) or “abolishing powered vehicles of any kind” (the dream of Greenpeace and the Sierra Club) she should have said so. Such a statement, while extremist and evidence of fanaticism, would at least not be self-contradicting.

2. “Deep-ecology” types, as a rule, are opposed to any use of animals, including as prime movers, as “enslaving” them. As such, the only likely “draft animals” in her Utopia would be humans harnessed to whatever vehicles were permitted by our “enlightened” rulers. Is she visualizing herself as pulling the wagon, or sitting on it holding the reins and the whip? (Three guesses, and two don’t count.)

This well illustrates the general level of thought in “environmentalist” circles. We are dealing with people who are abysmally ignorant of how a civilization works, live by a combination of mystical beliefs and magical thinking, and who have a general dislike/fear of both technology and the rest of the human race that borders on an actual psychosis.

I used to think that their ignorance was due to poor education, but I am now forced to conclude that is deliberate on their part. Simply put, they view actual knowledge of any such subjects as blasphemous, probably because it leads them to the inevitable, logical conclusion that their dogmas are not only factually incorrect, but actually present a danger to humanity. Which rather militates against them “feeling good about themselves” for their “higher degree of consciousness”.

Except, of course, for the ones who enjoy the prospect of “getting back at” humanity on behalf of Holy Mother Gaia, that is.

clear ether

eon

Nov 3, 2009 - 5:37 am 6. Avatar:

Adding to the above comments on “How could Christians own slaves”. An above reader mentioned above that slavery is not expressly forbidden as ’sinful’ in the Bible, however TREATMENT of slaves was talked about several times, especially by Paul. Slaves should be treated well, not abused or maltreated.

This is how a slave owner, especially of that era, could have slaves and a clean conscience at the same time. If I’m not mistaken, many slaves chose to stay and work for their former masters after slavery was outlawed, probably for this reason.

Nov 3, 2009 - 5:47 am 7. Dean:

eon, you forget the most obvious argument. By increasing use of draft animals to do jobs that vehicles do now, it would actually increase carbon emissions. Cows farting produce more carbon emissions than people, can you imagine if we gave everyone a horse?

Nov 3, 2009 - 6:14 am 8. Thomas_L.....:

However, slavery and its horrors existed in reality whereas the horror of Anthropogenic Global Warming is mostly in Al Gore’s head.

Nov 3, 2009 - 6:22 am 9. Anneke9:

‘One student was becoming increasingly upset and asked, “How could Christians hold slaves?”’

More from the compartmentalization file… When early Americans did something bad, they are automatically referred to as Christians. However, when they did something good–like create a nation–it’s vehemently argued that the Founding Fathers were not Christians but deists. So which one is it folks?

Nov 3, 2009 - 6:30 am 10. RKV:

Clayton, I guess since fewer Americans read the Bible today, fewer know that the Bible does not forbid slavery. There is no “Christian” argument to make for abolition, never has been, and those enthusiasts who attempt to make one up out of thin air, stray from the plain text of the Bible. Times then were different, and projecting our modern sensibilities backward leads us into error. Not that such error is uncommon. Marc certainly has it wrong – “not very specific” is most certainly not the case. Clearly slavery was part of the culture during Old and New Testament times. Yes there were some limits on how owners could treat their slaves according to the Bible (see the OT for specifics). Reading the Book of Philemon, we find the Apostle Paul telling a Christian slave to go back to his Christian master. So much for Christian abolitionism.

Nov 3, 2009 - 6:56 am 11. JimB:

If you have access to a law library, take a couple of hours to read the Dred Scott case. As I recall, there were three or four separate opinions. in the course of one (maybe the majority opinion) there is a history of slavery. In the ancient world, slavery was a status and slaves had certain rights; not so in the US…chattel slavery was a circumstance with no rights. I was sobered when I read the case fifty years ago in law school. Most people would be sobered if they took the time to read it today.

Nov 3, 2009 - 6:57 am 12. Clayton E. Cramer:

When early Americans did something bad, they are automatically referred to as Christians. However, when they did something good–like create a nation–it’s vehemently argued that the Founding Fathers were not Christians but deists. So which one is it folks?

A bit of both. There were Founding Fathers who were deists (Tom Paine), and some who were Christians (John Adams), and some who were sufficiently unclear that it isn’t immediately obvious which category they belong (like Washington and Jefferson). Many of those arguing that the Framers were deists are focusing on what appears to have been a minority (a sizable minority, however)–and ignoring the majority of the leadership who were fairly orthodox Christians.

Nov 3, 2009 - 7:16 am 13. mitchel44:

Christians did not have a problem with keeping slaves, there was no left hand/right hand disconnect. The bible made it clear that enslaving your fellow man was a natural thing, provides rules on how to mark and treat them, even direction to the slaves to be happy with their lot in life. “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)” “Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)”

The secular humanistic view of life, in defiance of traditional theistic practice, is what made slavery disappear in the western world. The major religions have been dragged kicking and screaming into a modern world, where now of course they will tell you they were always against slavery.

As Twain so aptly put it, “The Christian’s Bible is a drug store. Its contents remain the same; but the medical practice changes…. The world has corrected the Bible. The church never corrects it; and also never fails to drop in at the tail of the procession — and take the credit of the correction. During many ages there were witches. The Bible said so. the Bible commanded that they should not be allowed to live. Therefore the Church, after eight hundred years, gathered up its halters, thumb-screws, and firebrands, and set about its holy work in earnest. She worked hard at it night and day during nine centuries and imprisoned, tortured, hanged, and burned whole hordes and armies of witches, and washed the Christian world clean with their foul blood.
Then it was discovered that there was no such thing as witches, and never had been. One does not know whether to laugh or to cry…. There are no witches. The witch text remains; only the practice has changed. Hell fire is gone, but the text remains. Infant damnation is gone, but the text remains. More than two hundred death penalties are gone from the law books, but the texts that authorized them remain.”

The greens strike me as a “do as I say, not as I do” advocacy, but of course their work to “save” the planet justifies whatever they do. Sure it does.

Nov 3, 2009 - 7:25 am 14. KB:

Every now and then I ask a rather vocal environmentalist co-worker if she still uses her clothes dryer (in effect, burning coal mined by removing mountain tops from eastern Kentucky to dry her linens) instead of simply hanging her clothes out to dry. Recently I’ve been adding that any geographic area where there is sufficient sunlight to heat water or generate power (as there certianly is here in north central Florida) ought to have more than enough sunlight to dry clothes.

Perhaps “compartmentalization” is just another word for “hypocrite”, but this enviro I talk to offers the usual excuses of inconvienence, timing, etc. to continue her wasteful ways.

I say forget Al Gore and his activities…go after your neighbors, co-workers, and family members who champion Gore and his movement. Hold their feet to the fire, put their activities under a microscope, make them justify their actions against their stated beliefs.

Nov 3, 2009 - 7:26 am 15. Avitar:

The question was much more complex in the nineteenth century when we did not have a central New York media to conveniently wipe the memories of how slavery came to America or slaves began to leave Africa

Intertribal warfare has gone on in Africa for more than three thousand years but the wining tribes took the loot, cattle etc and butchered the loosing tribes for entertainment. The Protégées in offering trade goods to take the captives to Brazil as slaves introduced a new concept to Africa – that humans had a value. That the slaver tribes grew rich and better armed against the tribes that did not slave is the immorality. Every educated southerner knew that his slaves would have been dead meat if they were not slave

Nov 3, 2009 - 7:30 am 16. bibio44:

1. ked5: “This is an interesting juxtaposition with obama’s position of support for partial-birth abortion and allowing failed aborted babies to die. He’s just as extreme in destorying black lives (based upon percentage of black women who abort their babies) as Jamacian slave owner’s.”

There’s crazy … and then there’s PJM crazy.

Nov 3, 2009 - 7:41 am 17. Clayton E. Cramer:

In the ancient world, slavery was a status and slaves had certain rights; not so in the US…chattel slavery was a circumstance with no rights. I was sobered when I read the case fifty years ago in law school. Most people would be sobered if they took the time to read it today.

Oddly enough, in the early Republic, there was a bit more willingness to acknowledge that there were a few rights that slaves had. There was a Virginia master in the 1790s who approached a slave with the castrating tool, and the slave killed the master. At trial, he argued that even a slave had a right to protect himself under those circumstances–and the judges who heard the case agreed, holding that a master had the right to a slave’s labor, but not to destroy life, limb, or member.

Successful prosecutions for the murder of a slave were very difficult, partly because juries were disinclined to find a master guilty, and partly because the witnesses to such murders were usually blacks, who could not testify in court against a white person. However, there are still examples of whites being convicted in Virginia for murder of a slave.

Free Frank is a rather amazing (although atypical) situation: a slave who worked nights and Sundays at surveying and saltpeter production, bought his wife out of slavery, bought himself out of slavery, eventually bought his children out of slavery, and after his death, bought his grandchildren out of slavery. At one point after Free Frank bought his wife out of slavery, her master decided that he had been defrauded, because he didn’t realize that she was pregnant. This went to the Kentucky Supreme Court four times–and twice without Free Frank and his wife using any lawyers. They came up with an ingenious strategy: they argued that because Free Frank was still a slave, he had no legal rights, and could not be sued–and his wife, although now free, because of the legal doctrine of femme couverture, could not be sued, either, since she was legally one with her husband. So both of them managed to get out from under the master’s claim.

It is definitely the case that American law, because we had no existing framework upon which to build slavery, was markedly inferior to Roman law based systems. French law, for example, in Louisiana, was surprisingly fair, and would often require masters to sell slaves their freedom. In Brazil, the Catholic Church acted at various times as a form of credit union, assisting slaves in buying their freedom through loans.

Nov 3, 2009 - 7:42 am 18. David S:

Just freeing one’s own slaves is not enough. One must boycott the produce of slave labor as well to be truly philosophically consistent. Even the most fervent abolitionist would probably fail in this task.

I think the analogy to slavery is actually rather apt – we are all enslaved to fossil fuels. But that doesn’t mean that owning a car is the same as owning a slave. The moral outrage of slavery is a direct assault on the humanity of another being.

The moral outrage of pollution is a direct assault on the environment we all share – but this is a categorically different kind of assault than enslaving someone. It is also an outrage that can be corrected gradually – just as the outrage of slavery was not truly abolished in one act of emancipation, but instead lingered for many decades, the abolition of fossil fuels will not occur overnight – but it will occur, for the same reasons that slavery eventually was abolished.

Would I give up my car? If I could, I would, but there are some tasks for which no reasonable alternative is yet available. The struggle over the coming decades will be to make such alternatives available and affordable, and to phase out the polluting and inefficient vehicles of today. Still, I make the best compromise I can afford, driving the most efficient vehicle for the task, and riding a bike when possible. If the fossil fuel industry had not been subsidized for decades, the transition to electric vehicles would be farther along – but there is no reason for further delay.

Cap & Trade is the solution.

Peace.

DS

Nov 3, 2009 - 7:44 am 19. bibio44:

“Do you believe that global warming is a serious threat to the future of mankind and the ecosystem? Yes? Do you still drive a car? If it’s a giant SUV, you are like the slave owner who goes to church on Sunday.”

Yeah, you hypocrite, so if you believe in global warming and still drive an SUV, you”re no better than a Christian slave owner, because here at PJM we don’t recognize trivial differences.

Nov 3, 2009 - 7:47 am 20. Thomas_L.....:

And then there’s the special “Booblio-kind-of-crazy”, where someone, conflates every crazy comment into a indictment of all conservatives and hates us enough to spend every day of their life telling us so. Who’s stupid, again?

Nov 3, 2009 - 8:18 am 21. Jack:

Where do free blacks who were also slave owners fit into this narrative?

Nov 3, 2009 - 8:33 am 22. biblio44:

20. Thomas_L…..: ‘And then there’s the special “Booblio-kind-of-crazy”, where someone, conflates every crazy comment into a indictment of all conservatives….’

Well thank you, Thomas, for at least conceding that I am focusing on crazy comments. As for PJM representing “all conservatives,” even I wouldn’t go THAT far.

PS… Sorry for the bibio/biblio mixups. Damn computers!

Nov 3, 2009 - 8:41 am 23. Old Soldier:

JimB – Roman slaves fell into several classes. A decent farm or household worker might expect decent treatment. Assignment to a galley or mine was a death-sentence within a few years for a young man.

Nov 3, 2009 - 8:45 am 24. Thomas_L.....:

Boobly – How many times do I have to tell you, I know you read what I write but I’ve got you on ignore? Unfortunately, for me, I read quickly. Anyway, I enjoy the articles. My guess is that you just look at the pictures and then add your STPs. Soros Talking Points. Who’s stupid again?

Nov 3, 2009 - 8:58 am 25. Real Deal:

Now I’m going to ask a question and I’m sure some people are going to flip their lids and probably call me a racist to boot, though slavery as a practice throughout human history had little to do with race. This is a exercise in critical thinking and reason.

Why is slavery wrong or immoral?

No, “Slavery is bad” is not an answer.

Nov 3, 2009 - 9:30 am 26. goy:

@18. David S: – Cap & Trade is the solution.

Wow. Stupid AND naive.

Cap-and-tax-and-spend won’t impact mythical global warming in the slightest. Even if humans could substantively cause warming, cap-and-tax-and-spend guarantees that so-called polluters will continue polluting – and likely even increase their pollution – as long as it’s cheaper for them to pay the fines than to implement “eco-friendly” changes. Since the fines mandated by cap-and-tax-and-spend can ALL be passed along to the consumer, we know exactly what will happen. Just as with socialized medicine, the only alternative to passing the cost of fines to the consumer will be to legislate price controls. And those have worked so well in the past.

The rest of your naive little screed is a perfect example of the hypocrisy discussed in this article. Just like your claim that don’t have a choice but to own a car, slaveowning farmers didn’t have a choice but to own slaves. The demographics, logistics and economics of the times precluded any other immediately available option – just like we don’t have any feasible alternative energy options we can switch to… today. The economic depression in the post-bellum South, caused by the abrupt restructuring of the extant labor force, is clear evidence of this.

Nov 3, 2009 - 9:39 am 27. goy:

@25. Real Deal: – Why is slavery wrong or immoral?

*raises hand*

Something to do with that Natural Law business, I think: depriving another of their liberty… something silly like that.

Nov 3, 2009 - 9:43 am 28. Tom Perkins:

@ biblio44 “There’s crazy … and then there’s PJM crazy.”

Causing an ineffectively aborted live-birth baby to die by witholding care is an equivalent ethical grotesquery to throwing an unwanted baby into a ditch to die.

It is what Obama has personally supported.

He’s evil scum.

So are you.

Nov 3, 2009 - 9:53 am 29. Old Soldier:

Real Deal: yes it is wrong and immoral.

1. According to the Bible, man was made in God’s image (spiritually not physically). We are supposed to love our fellow man. Slavery requires a threat of extreme violence to work. Obviously a major contradiction.

2. I value freedom and liberty beyond all other political considerations. Valuing my own freedom while completely depriving another person of all liberty is the height of hypocrisy and indefensible.

3. To enslave another person would require me to somehow assume a superiority to that person – could be based on race, religion, or divine province. While I have no problem with criminals being sentenced to hard-labor, I lack the arrogance to assume that I deserve other people to serve me against their will.

Nov 3, 2009 - 9:55 am 30. edna cramer:

Clayton: Exceptionally well done piece. Your thinking is rational and kind. I am sure that each and every slave owner had different situations with which to deal.

Nov 3, 2009 - 10:07 am 31. Brian:

“If the fossil fuel industry had not been subsidized for decades, the transition to electric vehicles would be farther along ”

Now that was INSANE! And funny to boot!! Never mind the first electric car was made 90 years ago… AND failed for obvious reasons.. And never mind the fact that 70% of electricity in the country in made with coal! Which would be used to create electricity for your electric car which has EXTREMELY toxic batteries. Do you actually think this stuff through? Oh sure… we will just put up some windmills and make electricity… never mind that if you started doing nothing but installing wind turbines as fast as possible it would take about 50 years to replace the consumption we currently demand…. not to mention the increased consumption of the future.

Nov 3, 2009 - 10:15 am 32. Drew Kelley:

“…adult slaves were so cheap to purchase…”
On another blog, someone recounted stories from his family’s past, where their slaves were used to harvest and bundle cotton, and transport those bales to cliffs overlooking the river, and push them over. At the base of the cliff were hired Irish laborers to “catch” the descending bales of cotton, and to load them on the riverboats for transport to market.
They used hired Irish laborers for this very dangerous work because slaves were too valuable to be put at such risk.

His words, his family history.

Nov 3, 2009 - 10:36 am 33. Grace O'Malley:

Actually Mr. Cramer, I think you’re a fairly lousy historian.

Your answer to how a Christian could hold slaves is simplistic at best, because it assumes that all those who call themselves Christians hold the same doctrinal beliefs when of course nothing further could be the truth.
In the arguments leading up to the Civil War there were Pastors who argued that to hold slaves was against Christianity, and there were those who argued the opposite. In large part those differences could also be reflected in the differences in doctrine as well.

You might also have noted that indentured servants had no more rights than slaves in many cases, particularly in early America and asked what part religion may have played in that.

You might also have noted that John Browns deep religious fervor against slavery lead him to use shocking violence in his crusade against slavery, and that violence was the spark to the Civil War. You could have noted that David Thoreau was an avid supporter of Brown, even when other abolitionists did not following Browns raid on Harper Ferry, and that Thoreau used the imagery of a crucified Christ as imagery for Brown. Odd for a man who rejected Christianity though isn’t it? And while you were at it you could have noted that Frederick Douglass meant with John Brown as he became disenchanted with non violent action and soon after was telling abolitionist audiences that he would be pleased to hear that slaves had revolted and “were spreading death and destruction.”

In other words you could have actually given this student a chance to learn something besides pap, and a chance to do some deeper inspection into the issues of faith and morality.

But you didn’t. You took the opportunity to instead do a bit of indoctrination instead of inviting this student to do some critical thinking or learn how to learn.

And people wonder why we home school.

I also am not being critical of Christianity, we are believers ourselves, I am being critical of what you didn’t bother to teach.

Nov 3, 2009 - 10:37 am 34. M. Report:

Compartmentalized Morality

Benjamin Franklin was the
Indentured Servant of his
own brother.
Bro: We have a bargain;
I have the right to strike you.
BF: Here is one bargain that
will not be struck again.

“A society has the morality
it can afford.”
Larry Niven – or maybe Pournelle;
Hard to tell those two apart.

One more reason not to let the US
become poorer but more “moral”;
Argentina.

Nov 3, 2009 - 11:05 am 35. Delia:

I see where you were going with this but…

Slavery really happened.

Global warming is a myth of epic proportions that will benefit the likes of Soros/Gore and all of the other ‘green’ phonies/cronies.

You might have been better off comparing slavery to abortion as Marc Malone did in comment #3. which is more along the lines of human rights and equality.

What is the value of human life?

Unfortunately, slavery still exists in other parts of the world to this very day, including child labor and child prostitution.

Sad.

Nov 3, 2009 - 11:19 am 36. goy:

@35. Delia: – You might have been better off comparing slavery to abortion…

I don’t know, Delia. It doesn’t hurt to demonstrate how Climate Crisistians amplify their utter lack of credibility by piling hypocrisy on top of fantasy.

Nov 3, 2009 - 11:57 am 37. Real Deal:

Old Soldier: First, you really should read the question. I did not ask IF it was wrong but rather WHY thus rending your first statement irrelevant to the question.

1. The Bible can also be said to endorse slavery as in the Old Testament where Ham and his descendants are cursed to be “servants of servants” for witnessing the nakedness of his father Noah. This occurs a mere 7 chapters after the whole “made in God’s” image thing.

2. Much better argument, however many of our Founding Fathers did just that. So your premise here is that the denial of ones liberty & self determination is why slavery is wrong. Does not our government also deny me my liberty and self determination? Does not the forced removal of the fruits of my labor not equate to slavery? How is taking a percentage, in many cases nearly 50%, of a person’s income upon the threat of incarceration and loss of remaining “freedom” and different from working in the fields for a plantation owner? What about being subject to laws and restrictions I had no say in? You mention freedom and liberty however we are subject to many and ever increasing laws and taxation we really have no say in, is not this loss of self determination not the same a slavery?

3. How does slavery relate to religion, race, or divine providence? Throughout history it has been related to power and militaristic dominance. Slaves are typically taken from a defeated enemy, occasionally debtors, or criminals as was the case in Africa, the Roman Empire, Greece, Persia, and even Europe. Europeans called it “Indentured Servitude” but it is still pretty much slavery. Peasants were little more than slaves in Europe and Asia. Religion or society has on occasion been used to defend or perpetrate slavery, but in essence it arose from one tribe’s ability to dominate another. Slavery continues in many countries to this day, even though it is officially illegal.

Nov 3, 2009 - 11:57 am 38. Michael McNeil:

There were Founding Fathers who were deists (Tom Paine), and some who were Christians (John Adams), and some who were sufficiently unclear that it isn’t immediately obvious which category they belong (like Washington and Jefferson). Many of those arguing that the Framers were deists are focusing on what appears to have been a minority (a sizable minority, however)–and ignoring the majority of the leadership who were fairly orthodox Christians.

Clayton, I think that while your point in general is well taken, your specific examples are largely mistaken.

As historian Frank Edward Manuel (Emeritus Professor of History, Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts; author of Shapes of Philosophical History and others) writes in the article “Systems of Religious and Spiritual Belief” in Encyclopædia Britannica:

“By the end of the 18th century, Deism had become a dominant religious attitude among intellectual and upper class Americans. Benjamin Franklin, the great sage of the Colonies and then of the new republic, summarized in a letter to Ezra Stiles, president of Yale College, a personal creed that almost literally reproduced Herbert’s five fundamental beliefs [of Deism]. The first three presidents of the United States also held Deistic convictions, as is amply evidenced in their correspondence. ‘The ten commandments and the sermon on the mount contain my religion,’ John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson in 1816.”

And what were those “five fundamental beliefs” of Deism? Continuing to draw from Manuel’s article:

“In Lord Herbert’s treatises five religious ideas were recognized as God-given and innate in the mind of man from the beginning of time:

“* the belief in a supreme being,
“* in the need for his worship,
“* in the pursuit of a pious and virtuous life as the most “desirable form of worship,
“* in the need of repentance for sins,
“* and in rewards and punishments in the next world.

“These fundamental religious beliefs, Herbert held, had been the possession of the first man, and they were basic to all the worthy positive institutionalized religions of later times. Thus, differences among sects and cults all over the world were usually benign, mere modifications of universally accepted truths; they were corruptions only when they led to barbarous practices such as the immolation of human victims and the slaughter of religious rivals.”

These then were the beliefs that Benjamin Franklin enunciated almost exactly, while above was quoted the simple religion that the second president of the United States and hero of the Revolution, John Adams maintained. Doesn’t sound much like the severe God and personal Christ (with adherents of all other, non-Trinitarian religions condemned to Hell) of modern Christian fundamentalism, now does it.

Nov 3, 2009 - 12:03 pm 39. myth buster:

The Bible does permit indentured servitude, that is true, but to suggest that the Bible condoned the type of slavery that existed in America is absurd on its face. The Bible requires that a slave be set free after seven years, and the entire concept of being born into slavery is anathema to the Bible. Therefore, neither lifelong servitude nor being enslaved due to the circumstances of one’s birth have any Biblical basis.

Nov 3, 2009 - 12:06 pm 40. Clayton E. Cramer:

Clayton, I guess since fewer Americans read the Bible today, fewer know that the Bible does not forbid slavery.

Classical civilization’s slavery wasn’t quite as harsh as American slavery.

Nov 3, 2009 - 12:43 pm 41. Clayton E. Cramer:

The Protégées in offering trade goods to take the captives to Brazil as slaves introduced a new concept to Africa – that humans had a value.

By the time that Africans started to cross the Atlantic, black Africans had been sold into slavery for a thousand years not only in Africa, but into the Muslim world. And Muslims were still heavily involved in the black African slave trade into the 20th century.

Nov 3, 2009 - 12:47 pm 42. Clayton E. Cramer:

“…adult slaves were so cheap to purchase…”
On another blog, someone recounted stories from his family’s past, where their slaves were used to harvest and bundle cotton, and transport those bales to cliffs overlooking the river, and push them over. At the base of the cliff were hired Irish laborers to “catch” the descending bales of cotton, and to load them on the riverboats for transport to market.
They used hired Irish laborers for this very dangerous work because slaves were too valuable to be put at such risk.

Sowell mentions that. But that was in America, where slaves became pretty expensive, especially after the ending of the African slave trade to America in 1808.

Nov 3, 2009 - 12:49 pm 43. Clayton E. Cramer:

Actually Mr. Cramer, I think you’re a fairly lousy historian.

Based, from your complaints below, about what I didn’t say–but you don’t know what else I said, do you? You are just making assumptions.

Your answer to how a Christian could hold slaves is simplistic at best, because it assumes that all those who call themselves Christians hold the same doctrinal beliefs when of course nothing further could be the truth.
In the arguments leading up to the Civil War there were Pastors who argued that to hold slaves was against Christianity, and there were those who argued the opposite. In large part those differences could also be reflected in the differences in doctrine as well.

And the aggressive defense of slavery was something that largely developed after Turner’s Rebellion in 1831. Not that it was there before, but it grew substantially afterwards. The supposed doctrinal differences? Sorry, but you are going to have to do better than that. Much of the divide of denominations (into Southern Methodists and Northern Methodists, Southern Baptists and Northern Baptists, etc.) was driven by the increasing need of Southern slave owners to defend slavery. Doctrinal differences north and south are largely related to the development of liberal schools of theology in the postbellum period.

You might also have noted that indentured servants had no more rights than slaves in many cases, particularly in early America and asked what part religion may have played in that.

Not generally true. Once slavery as a hereditary system becomes the norm (largely solidified by statute in the 1660s in Maryland, and in the 1640s in Virginia), there is a very dramatic difference in the rights that indentured servants enjoyed vs. slaves. Before that, of course, the differences weren’t that dramatic; black Africans appear to have been treated as indentured servants, and some of them end up masters themselves by the mid-17th century.

You might also have noted that John Browns deep religious fervor against slavery lead him to use shocking violence in his crusade against slavery, and that violence was the spark to the Civil War. You could have noted that David Thoreau was an avid supporter of Brown, even when other abolitionists did not following Browns raid on Harper Ferry, and that Thoreau used the imagery of a crucified Christ as imagery for Brown. Odd for a man who rejected Christianity though isn’t it? And while you were at it you could have noted that Frederick Douglass meant with John Brown as he became disenchanted with non violent action and soon after was telling abolitionist audiences that he would be pleased to hear that slaves had revolted and “were spreading death and destruction.”

The book that discusses the role of all this is The Secret Six. You should also read Nat Brandt’s The Town That Started the Civil War, which covers some of this as well.

So because I had 900 words to make a point–and I didn’t make the points that you wanted made–I’m a bad historian?

In other words you could have actually given this student a chance to learn something besides pap, and a chance to do some deeper inspection into the issues of faith and morality.

But you didn’t. You took the opportunity to instead do a bit of indoctrination instead of inviting this student to do some critical thinking or learn how to learn.

Again: you don’t know what I said in that classroom. Why do you make these assumptions?

And people wonder why we home school.

I also am not being critical of Christianity, we are believers ourselves, I am being critical of what you didn’t bother to teach.

Except that you don’t know what I taught and didn’t teach. I know why you home school: so that you can feel arrogant and self-righteous.

Nov 3, 2009 - 12:57 pm 44. Delia:

36. goy:

“I don’t know, Delia. It doesn’t hurt to demonstrate how Climate Crisistians amplify their utter lack of credibility by piling hypocrisy on top of fantasy.”

Yes, goy…

But, I don’t think of Jesus as a ‘myth’ and ‘global warming’ is a Leftist myth. Yes, Christians can be hypocritical but that doesn’t negate Christ whereas Global warming is a farce from the outset and the hypocritical idiots who use it to control the masses and make buko bucks off of it is another thing altogether. Even if people don’t necessarily believe in Christ as God’s only begotten son, there is documentation that he did exist.

Gah. Anyway, slavery was wrong, is wrong, always will be wrong and fortunately America resolved that and abolished slavery here for good.

Well, except that ‘taxing us to death’ thing…

Nov 3, 2009 - 12:59 pm 45. Clayton E. Cramer:

These then were the beliefs that Benjamin Franklin enunciated almost exactly, while above was quoted the simple religion that the second president of the United States and hero of the Revolution, John Adams maintained.

Don’t confuse the religious beliefs of John Adams of 1776 with those of 1816. Adams definitely moved theologically into Unitarianism, as did many Congregationalists at the start of the 19th century. (Hence the great schism in the church at Plymouth, whose more orthodox members left a church that my ancestors started.) Franklin definitely sounds more Deist than orthodox Christian, although few of the Framers left detailed theological statements, which creates so much opportunity for historians to fit whoever they are examining into whatever framework fits their thesis.

I am familiar with Franklin’s letter to Ezra Stiles.

Nov 3, 2009 - 1:03 pm 46. Clayton E. Cramer:

Now I’m going to ask a question and I’m sure some people are going to flip their lids and probably call me a racist to boot, though slavery as a practice throughout human history had little to do with race. This is a exercise in critical thinking and reason.

Why is slavery wrong or immoral?

John Locke justified slavery because those sold into slavery were prisoners of war or convicted criminals; they had been enslaved as an alternative to death (the traditional punishment for the losing side in war). Locke’s argument was that those considered slavery an unreasonable exchange for their lives were free to kill themselves.

The problems with Locke’s justification are:

1. Hereditary slavery. Even if you were a convicted felon who deserved death, your children were not–and starting in 1664, Maryland made slavery a hereditary condition.

2. Africans were often enslaved not just for criminal conduct, but as payment of debts. In addition, the demand for slaves caused wars to be fought specifically for the purpose of taking prisoners to sell into slavery.

3. We have generally accepted that being on the losing side of a war doesn’t justify death.

Nov 3, 2009 - 1:07 pm 47. Clayton E. Cramer:

The Bible requires that a slave be set free after seven years, and the entire concept of being born into slavery is anathema to the Bible. Therefore, neither lifelong servitude nor being enslaved due to the circumstances of one’s birth have any Biblical basis.

Old Testament slavery was a lot more indentured servitude than hereditary chattel slavery. There are several different forms of what is usually called slavery in the Old Testament. Not surprisingly, apologists for slavery cherry-picked what they needed to justify American slavery.

Nov 3, 2009 - 1:12 pm 48. Kirk Parker:

RKV,

Have you actually read Philemon? Just because Paul chose to convey his argument with subtlety doesn’t mean it’s not there.

Nov 3, 2009 - 1:15 pm 49. Grace O'Malley:

@ #38, Michael McNeil, as kindly as possible, that’s such a load of BS. It makes lots of people comfortable, but it is none the less BS.

I would suggest instead of reading what a historian says the founders believed, read those founders own words instead. By attempting to place various founders as Deists, certain historians attempt to downplay their basic Judeo-Christian beliefs.

To see what a historian with an ideological bent can make hay with may I suggest you read the Education of Henry Adams and then read what Garry Wills writes about it. You will find that Wills simply interprets what he wants Henry Adams to say, not what he actually says. In fact you will find the same over and over and over. If you really want to know history and what historical figures believed go to the source.

Nov 3, 2009 - 1:18 pm 50. goy:

@38. Michael McNeil: – Doesn’t sound much like the severe God and personal Christ (with adherents of all other, non-Trinitarian religions condemned to Hell) of modern Christian fundamentalism…

Geez… you wrote all that just to argue a straw man? At least that what it looks like, since I can’t find where anyone mentioned “Christian fundamentalism”.

Or are you asserting that Deism and 18th century Christian orthodoxy were somehow mutually exclusive? I think Jefferson’s writings alone would pretty much demonstrate the opposite, no? If not, then I’m not sure you understand where the Natural Law underpinnings of the Constitution derive.

There’s a critical aspect of the Founders’ beliefs that few people get a clear handle on. It’s reflected by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, arguably the most important element of the entire Constitution. The Founders’ individual personal religious beliefs didn’t prevent them from accepting a ‘highest’ common denominator (if you will) as the basis for Natural Law and unalienable rights, which were the justification for the Declaration and the basis of the Constitution.

In that light, context matters very much when it comes to the Founders’ writings on religion. In discussions regarding the Constitution you will typically find argument that is more Deist, and espouses exactly the 5 ideas enumerated above, primarily because it is largely generalizable to all religions. The religious aspect of Natural Law was seen as universal – not just Christian – in nature.

In personal correspondence – Jefferson’s writing about Christ and the “Jefferson Bible” in particular – you will find something closer to the orthodox Christianity (i.e., a set of morals) of the time.

Neither of these – Deism or 18th Century Christianity – can be easily aligned with what we know as contemporary “Christian fundamentalism”; especially as caricatured by those who feel threatened by it.

Nov 3, 2009 - 1:19 pm 51. Clayton E. Cramer:

Where do free blacks who were also slave owners fit into this narrative?

Shhhh! You aren’t supposed to talk about them! (They are about 4% of slave owners at the 1830 census.)

Actually, there are at least two major categories of black slave owners. There were slave owners just as harsh as their white equivalents. Read the book Black Masters for a detailed history of the William Ellison family–whose fellow white slave owners thought unusually harsh as a master.

And there were blacks who owned slaves because there was no easy way to get a family member or relative free in many of the slave states after 1820. You could buy your wife or child from another master–but short of moving into the North (where free blacks were distinctly not welcome), there was no easy way to get them freedom. Complicating this matter is that free blacks sometimes had decent jobs in the South, but would have had a heck of a time transporting that job to the North.

Nov 3, 2009 - 1:30 pm 52. Clayton E. Cramer:

Neither of these – Deism or 18th Century Christianity – can be easily aligned with what we know as contemporary “Christian fundamentalism”; especially as caricatured by those who feel threatened by it.

One of the difficulties is that many aspects of what we now call fundamentalism were generally accepted by not only orthodox Christians in the 18th century (such as a 6000 year old Earth, Creation) but even by deists. The areas of difference (the divinity of Christ, trinitarianism vs. unitarianism, whether there were multiple paths to God) are Christian values in many mainstream denominations today. In any case, many of the state governments of the period impose surprisingly “fundamentalist” requirements for holding office: believing in the literal truth of the Old and New Testament, for example.

Nov 3, 2009 - 1:37 pm 53. Clayton E. Cramer:

I would suggest instead of reading what a historian says the founders believed, read those founders own words instead. By attempting to place various founders as Deists, certain historians attempt to downplay their basic Judeo-Christian beliefs.

I’ve seen Franklin’s request for his epitaph used as evidence that Franklin believed in reincarnation:

The body of
B. Franklin, Printer
(Like the Cover of an Old Book
Its Contents torn Out
And Stript of its Lettering and Gilding)
Lies Here, Food for Worms.
But the Work shall not be Lost;
For it will (as he Believ’d) Appear once More
In a New and More Elegant Edition
Revised and Corrected
By the Author.

It is very clear from reading Franklin’s letter to Ezra Stiles, that while he might not have been completely orthodox in his beliefs, Franklin had some sort of Christian afterlife expectation. Hence his remarks about never having spent much time thinking about whether Jesus was the Son of God, but expected to know the answer for sure quite shortly.

Nov 3, 2009 - 1:41 pm 54. Dwight:

Pretty good discussion so far, with only a few outrageous shots taken. Comparing global warming, slavery, and abortion is an ambitious task.

Right to life folks often demonstrate the fervor of the abolitionists when they try to make us see what to them is the simple and obvious fact that abortion is murder. I don’t happen to agree; it seems to me more like foetus-slaughter, or egg slaughter, a significantly more minor offense. History “proved” the abolitionists right and it may prove the the right to lifers correct; I don’t think so, but it wouldn’t be the first time I’ve been wrong.

As for global warming, it is clear that the earth has been warming for a while. That may or may not have ceased, and the warming may or may not have been contributed to by man.

At any rate, I line dry whenever I can, although my wife gripes about the wrinkles all the time. I burn wood, which is not helping much on the CO2 front, but it does make me feel more self sufficient and is not supporting the wahbees.

The paradox of our birth as a nation is that we asserted our freedom…for some to hold slaves, which is a lot better than no freedom at all, but clearly needed some adjusting.

This phenomenon brings me to my central point that while the Bible and the Constitution are great documents, they are obviously both limited by their time and place. Fundamentalists and strict constructionists want to stick with the sublime documents ONLY, but I am more with Thoreau in Civil Disobedience, who said we have to derive our truths from the SOURCE of these documents(and I would add the detritus left behind by both.) Of course, Thoreau was not a big fan of common sense, as commonly applied, whereas I am.

Eventually we could get to the discussion of how something as economically beneficial as slavery was to southern planter, HAD to be moral to THEM, because that is simply how most humans think. How their truth, the truth of the market, which is certainly a common sense “truth” holds up day in and day out, is what we are usually sparring about, isn’t it?

Nov 3, 2009 - 2:20 pm 55. Grace O'Malley:

Struck a nerve huh? Your article states explicitly what you taught does it not? Otherwise why did you write it? You explicitly linked people who declared themselves as Christians but kept slaves to those who drive SUVs but believe in global warming. Gosh, I wonder why I would make an “assumption”. Maybe because you wrote what you wanted your point to be? I didn’t have to make any assumptions, you told me what you wanted your main point to be. Uh, but I’m the one whose being self-righteous.

You will also tell me that Old School Presbyterians and New School Presbyterians had no doctrinal differences previous to the Civil War? You will also tell me that the Episcopal church did not apologize for supporting slavery and that just perhaps Episcopal doctrine is just a bit different than say Congregational?

I, like so many others, home school because the education my child was getting was wholly inadequate and there was too much indoctrination instead of actual teaching going on. Your reaction simply proves that.

Nov 3, 2009 - 2:35 pm 56. goy:

@52. Clayton E. Cramer: – … many of the state governments of the period impose surprisingly “fundamentalist” requirements for holding office: believing in the literal truth of the Old and New Testament, for example.

My recollection from… somewhere… is that CT and another State (MA?) didn’t need to rewrite their original Constitutions to conform to the U.S. Constitution (as ratified) because they’d based them on Jewish (Old Testament) law. Does that ring any bells?

Anyway, slavery and AGW aside, it’s difficult to argue that at least some States weren’t founded as “Christian” when we find passages like the following in the original CT Constitution:

Forasmuch as it hath pleased the Almighty God by the wise disposition of his divine providence so to order and dispose of things that we the Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield … well knowing where a people are gathered together the word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union of such a people there should be an orderly and decent Government established according to God, … to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess, as also the discipline of the Churches, which according to the truth of the said Gospel is now practiced amongst us; as also in our Civil affairs to be guided and governed according to such Laws, Rules, Orders, and Decrees as shall be made, ordered, and decreed as followeth:– …

Nov 3, 2009 - 2:44 pm 57. Beth just south of Berkeley and just east of San Francisco:

13 mitchel44:

“The secular humanistic view of life, in defiance of traditional theistic practice, is what made slavery disappear in the western world.”

Speaking as a theist, but not an apologist for Christianity:

I think Mr. Wilberforce would be baffled at having been labeled a secular humanist. Unfortunately, the more militant the secularist, the more prone he or she is to enslaving other people. See, e.g., Stalin, Mao …

In my fair city, in the parts that are much less fair, slavery is practiced today by people who think religion is for chumps. The terminology is a little different: the slaveholders and overseers are called “pimps” while the slaves are called “bitches” and “hos.”

Nov 3, 2009 - 3:30 pm 58. Sam:

Clayton:

Your responses in 46 and 47 are right on target. (I was preparing to dredge them up myself as I read through the comments.)
In fact I think they are so on target, you should have made them an integral part of your primary presentation. They are the history and religion that should form the key portion of the answer as to how Christians (and Jews as applicable) could own slaves, and under what circumstances.

However, your reply is 40 is not as good.
Slavery in classical civilization could be every bit as savage as slavery in the American South and then some, with people condemned to the mines with the full intent of being worked to death (something that resurfaced later with galley slaves), and sexual abuse of slaves was ubiquitous. Spartacus did not lead his brutal rebellion as a casual indulgence, and the Spartans used Klan tactics to keep their helots under control.

Nov 3, 2009 - 4:46 pm 59. Old Soldier:

Real Deal: I didn’t realize this was a test and you were critiquing answers.

As to religion, race, or divine providence – it’s justification of morally reprehensible actions. Muslims still enslave non-believers in parts of the world but never other Muslims.

Nov 3, 2009 - 4:56 pm 60. Clayton E. Cramer:

Slavery in classical civilization could be every bit as savage as slavery in the American South and then some, with people condemned to the mines with the full intent of being worked to death (something that resurfaced later with galley slaves), and sexual abuse of slaves was ubiquitous.

Sexual abuse of free servants was ubiquitous in 19th century America, too. And yes, POWs assigned to the mines were sent there with the expectation of death. While the classical period isn’t my specialty, I have read that the galley slaves are an invention of Ben-Hur Slaves in other contexts enjoyed a number of protections of Roman law.

Nov 3, 2009 - 5:46 pm 61. Clayton E. Cramer:

Struck a nerve huh? Your article states explicitly what you taught does it not? Otherwise why did you write it?

Unless you think I spoke for about three minutes….

There are about 400 words about slavery in this essay. That’s about three minutes of lecture.

You will also tell me that Old School Presbyterians and New School Presbyterians had no doctrinal differences previous to the Civil War? You will also tell me that the Episcopal church did not apologize for supporting slavery and that just perhaps Episcopal doctrine is just a bit different than say Congregational?

No, I won’t say that. Nor did I. I pointed out that the divisions of denominations over slavery (many of which happen around 1845) were driven by slavery–it wasn’t that doctrinal differences caused some denominations to support slavery and others not. The Quakers are perhaps the strongest exception, having committed themselves to ending slavery by the time of the Revolution.

I, like so many others, home school because the education my child was getting was wholly inadequate and there was too much indoctrination instead of actual teaching going on. Your reaction simply proves that.

That you are responding this way to what I wrote tells me that you are arguing with someone other than me.

Nov 3, 2009 - 5:55 pm 62. Clayton E. Cramer:

My recollection from… somewhere… is that CT and another State (MA?) didn’t need to rewrite their original Constitutions to conform to the U.S. Constitution (as ratified) because they’d based them on Jewish (Old Testament) law. Does that ring any bells?

No, they wouldn’t have needed to do that to conform to the U.S. Constitution, which allowed states to continue supporting state establishments of religion. However, many of the Colonial New England legal codes actually have references to the Old Testament to remind you where the laws come from. For example, New Haven Colony’s 1656 capital statutes.

Nov 3, 2009 - 5:59 pm 63. Clayton E. Cramer:

The secular humanistic view of life, in defiance of traditional theistic practice, is what made slavery disappear in the western world.

Wrong on all counts. Slavery went away in America because of:

1. Quakers–who regarded slavery as fundamentally denying the brotherhood of mankind (fatherhood of God, you know).

2. Abolitionists of a variety of religious persuasions, from pretty traditional sorts like John Brown, to more liberal, Unitarians.

There must have been some humanist, non-theistic abolitionists of prominence in America, but I’m hard pressed to think of any. When I search for references to abolition of slavery, I find works like this 1836 collection by the Rev. La Roy Sunderland that starts:

If Slavery is ever abolished from the world, it will be done by the influence of the Christian Religion. Men never will abandon slave-holding, till they feel it to be a sin against God ; and the reason why all who are now concerned in the support of this system, do not feel and act under this conviction is, because they have not examined it in the light of God’s word.

Or perhaps Rev. Charles Elliott’s 1851 THE SINFULNESS OF AMERICAN SLAVERY: PROVED FROM ITS EVIL SOURCES; ITS INJUSTICE; ITS WRONGS; ITS CONTRARIETY TO MANY SCRIPTURAL COMMANDS, PROHIBITIONS, AND PRINCIPLES, AND TO THE CHRISTIAN SPIRIT; AND FROM ITS EVIL EFFECTS; TOGETHER WITH OBSERVATIONS ON EMANCIPATION, AND THE DUTIES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS IN REGARD TO SLAVERY.

In Britain, of course, as others have pointed out, the movement for abolition was driven by highly religious activists such as John Newton, Wilberforce, and the like.

Argue if you want that there were Christians prepared to defend slavery; it is certainly true. But Christians led the movement to abolish slavery–and its abolition has been one continuous campaign by narrow-minded Christians imposing their views on this through European imperialism from the 1830s onward. British imperialism in Africa was at least partly driven by the effort to abolish the slave trade, both to the Americas, and to the Muslim world. And those who argued against Wilberforce in the British Parliament often expressed their opposition to having religious beliefs influencing laws.

Nov 3, 2009 - 6:24 pm 64. DavidN:

One thing you left out (probably for reasons of space) is that in the South, the view of slavery and the feelings towards blacks hardened some as time passed. In the early years of the Republic, virtually every slave-owning founding father freed some or all of his slaves on his death. By the time of the Civil War this practice was actually illegal in most Southern states, as was teaching the slaves to read. One interesting sidenote for those believing Christians to be completely hypocritical on the situation: in 1858 or 58 Lexington, VA, Thomas Jackson (not yet “Stonewall”) was an instructor at the Virginia Military Institute. He was very religious, and on his own decided to start Sunday School for local slave children. He was informed by one of the town’s leading figures that this was illegal according to State law, and supposedly responded: “Do what you must. This is God’s will.” or something to that effect. Nothing was ever done, though of course the school stopped a few years later when the professor went off to fight the Yankees. Oh, and yes, he definitely was pro-slavery, not anti.

Nov 3, 2009 - 7:45 pm 65. RKV:

“Classical civilization’s slavery wasn’t quite as harsh as American slavery.” Tell that to a galley slave Clayton. I think not. You’ve made a good point or two, don’t push your luck.

Old Soldier you have no idea what you’re talking about. None. Zilch. Jesus didn’t free the slaves, nor did any of the Apostles tell Christians to free their slaves. And I’m not in favor of slavery. Your logic is flawed by the very text of the Bible.

Kirk, Yes I have, at least three times. He tells the Christian slave Onesiumus to go back to his Christian master and remain a slave. Brothers in Christ, but one still owns the other. That’s all the subtlety you need.

Grace, you haven’t a clue. How many published history books do you have? Clayton’s got at least 6. He happened to be one of the first to bring down a liar who happened to win a Bancroft Prize named Bellesiles. You know what the Bancroft is? I thought not. Most historians would give their eye teeth to get one.

Nov 3, 2009 - 7:53 pm 66. Sam:

“Sexual abuse of free servants was ubiquitous in 19th century America, too. And yes, POWs assigned to the mines were sent there with the expectation of death. While the classical period isn’t my specialty, I have read that the galley slaves are an invention of Ben-Hur Slaves in other contexts enjoyed a number of protections of Roman law.”

For galley slaves, they were not an ancient thing but a late medieval to Renaissance thing. (Ben Hur was only 1,200 years premature.) Check a report about the Battle of Lepanto, and the number of freed galley slaves for a sample. France sentenced people to the galley during that period, with even a sentence of a year being close to an acknowledged death sentence.

Yes, sexual abuse of ordinary servants was common, it has always been just that bit more vicious with slaves.
Not merely POWs, but any general war captives (meaning whoever could not afford a ransom when a city was sacked) could be sent to die in the various Greek mines. The Romans added the atrocities of the latifundia (plantations).
Classical civilization is a secondary field for me, but the end result is that slavery was far from a sweet thing back then, even compared to the depths of American chattel slavery.

Nov 3, 2009 - 8:48 pm 67. Marc Malone:

I guess I should have gone into more detail with my post.

There is a reason the Bible condemns not slavery: economics. Look at Islam and Sharia Law. Note how brutal is the punishment for crime. They cut off hands for theft. Look at how they treat those who won’t convert. They kill them. The reason is economics. They could not afford to keep jails. Jails are VERY expensive. Only a wealthy society can afford them. Primitive societies cannot.

This leads to the practice of slavery. You enslave a man to make him pay for his crime (or defeat in war). He works off his debt to society. Same for debtors. If one has this not in a primitive society, the punishments become very brutal, like Shariah Law. Savage. Christians would rather you live, even in temporary bondage.

In Babylon, slaves had very specific rights. They made money. They could own property. Even own slaves. Manumission was codified in the Law. There were many wealthy slaves who simply never paid their manumission, because it was simply meaningless to them. Slavery was simply an economic status. This was the reality of the Jews. Slavery was life. No slavery provision meant laming and murder, as with Islam.

America took this to a new extreme. Why? Economics. Cost/benefit analysis. It cost a LOT of money to bring someone to these far shores. The trip from Europe was roughly 9 weeks, thus, 18 weeks round-trip. Thus, indentured servitude to pay one’s own passage. The trip from Africa was FAR longer. The investment far greater. Thus, permanent slavery. Raising the children of slaves was equally as expensive. It is many years of feeding to make a child a worthwhile worker. Attrition rates are high. Thus, continued permanent slavery.

Slavery was on the way out by the time of the Civil War, as someone posted earlier. Why? Economics. It was becoming too expensive, when there were just so many immigrants available to do the labor (at less expense), seeking escape from their even harsher lives back home, and dreaming of a better life here, at least for their progeny.

The problem was, slavery was a poor thing for the Americas to adopt. It worked in the old world, but the economic equation had changed, but the rethinking did not happen. Free men and indentured servants were less expensive,. After their servitude was up, you might still keep them in your employ at far less expense than a new one. Furthermore, society had become more efficient and wealthy, and so, could afford jails.

Essentially, the practice moved from a moral one, to an immoral one, when the underlying economic reasons for it no longer existed. Then it became about human rights. It became also about race. Slavery was no longer justifiable economically, but racial superiority made it okay.

As a final note, watch what our society starts to do to criminals, now that we can no longer afford to keep them in such lavish ways. Watch CA. Before the crash, jails were 10% of the CA $100B budget. Now, it is far more. So, they are releasing criminals and not prosecuting small crimes. Eventually, there will be a huge backlash. Watch for the return of chain-gangs, for proof of my assertions here.

Nov 4, 2009 - 12:22 am 68. Dwight:

MM wrote,
“Essentially, the practice moved from a moral one, to an immoral one, when the underlying economic reasons for it no longer existed. Then it became about human rights. It became also about race. Slavery was no longer justifiable economically, but racial superiority made it okay.”

You assert that it was no longer justifiable economically, but are we then left with the implication that they stayed with the system even though it was in their best interests economically NOT TO? That seems odd, to say the least, doesn’t it?

But I will grant you that their pride in their liberty, their “rights” to do what they wanted to and not be told by some yankee do-gooders to give up their slaves, certainly was capable of pushing them to irrational behavior. But God, or common sense, in the unlikely guise of the Federal Government, certainly PUNISHED them for their excessive pride, a pride which melded into their concept of slave-holding, courageous, liberty.

I belabor the obvious to say that the Civil War changed our culture permanently in many ways, just one of which was the relationship between the Federal Government, the states, and the individual. If only those damned southerners had been more reasonable and not given Lincoln the reason to become super-daddy, we might have more of what many of you call liberty and freedom today…but we don’t. We have a much more narrowly proscribed liberty, but it is still plenty for me.

I don’t brood over every restriction or possible restriction on my “liberty.” I just do what I want to do or need to do most of the time and it works out. Some say flaunt and protect your liberties jealously, or you will lose them. Use up extra gasoline just to show those greens a thing or two; wear your guns in public. I say use them sparingly and as necessary, and the tyrannical, but “legal” majority will “let you keep them” longer.

What a concept, eh?

Nov 4, 2009 - 2:48 am 69. Clayton E. Cramer:

One thing you left out (probably for reasons of space) is that in the South, the view of slavery and the feelings towards blacks hardened some as time passed.

Very true. The economic importance of slavery, after Eli Whitney perfected (but did not invent) the cotton gin, increased. After Turner’s Rebellion in 1831, intellectuals began to develop justifications for a system that had previously been primarily based on, “It’s not a wonderful system, but it’s our property!”

In the early years of the Republic, virtually every slave-owning founding father freed some or all of his slaves on his death.

That overstates the case substantially. There are a lot of slaves who receive their freedom during and immediately after the Revolution, sometimes while the master lived, sometimes after the master died, in what was known as testamentary manumission. (You can’t take it with you.) Many of the Northern states either by statute or by judicial decision abolished slavery. But there were still plenty of masters who did not free their slaves in the South.

By the time of the Civil War this practice was actually illegal in most Southern states, as was teaching the slaves to read.

Yes. Contrary to the attempt of some to imagine the Old South as some proto-libertarian society (low taxes, almost no public schools, protections of property rights, opposition to tariffs), it was not. It was a society that strongly opposed property rights, when exercise of those rights (such as freeing your slaves) would create a bad example for other slaves.

Nov 4, 2009 - 8:24 am 70. Clayton E. Cramer:

“Classical civilization’s slavery wasn’t quite as harsh as American slavery.” Tell that to a galley slave Clayton. I think not. You’ve made a good point or two, don’t push your luck.

As others have pointed out, the galley slave is apparently not a classical civilization thing. While I wouldn’t count on Wikipedia as a terribly trustworthy source, it also confirms what I have read elsewhere: classical civilization generally preferred freemen to row.

[S]lavery was far from a sweet thing back then, even compared to the depths of American chattel slavery.

I don’t think that I ever called it a sweet thing–only that Roman slave law recognized certain rights that slaves had, and many of the continental legal systems based on Roman law were generally better than American slave law for that reason.

Nov 4, 2009 - 8:28 am 71. Clayton E. Cramer:

America took this to a new extreme. Why? Economics. Cost/benefit analysis. It cost a LOT of money to bring someone to these far shores. The trip from Europe was roughly 9 weeks, thus, 18 weeks round-trip. Thus, indentured servitude to pay one’s own passage. The trip from Africa was FAR longer. The investment far greater. Thus, permanent slavery.

Except that permanent slavery developed decades after the first Africans arrive on slave ships–and appear to have been treated as indentured servants when they first arrived in Virginia and Maryland. There is a statute passed in Maryland in 1664 that clarifies that Africans are slaves for life, and that the children of slave mothers are also slaves for life. (White women who marry slave men become slaves as long as their husband lives, and their children become slaves as well.) Virginia is less clear, but the 1639 and 1640 militia statute exclusions suggest that African servants are changing status from the equivalent of white indentured servants to some lower status.

Raising the children of slaves was equally as expensive. It is many years of feeding to make a child a worthwhile worker. Attrition rates are high. Thus, continued permanent slavery.

This is an interesting claim, but I have not seen any strong evidence for this. At least in America, slave children start working (although at fairly trivial tasks) at about eight years of age. Unlike the sugar plantations of the West Indies, attrition rates were NOT high in America. At least part of why African slaves eventually end up in high demand is that they are far less likely to die of malaria, because of the sickle-cell anemia gene’s protective benefits. (Malaria kills whites at astonishing rates on the Chesapeake into the 19th century.)

Slavery was on the way out by the time of the Civil War, as someone posted earlier. Why? Economics. It was becoming too expensive, when there were just so many immigrants available to do the labor (at less expense), seeking escape from their even harsher lives back home, and dreaming of a better life here, at least for their progeny.

This was a fashionable claim in some circles. Time on the Cross, for all the criticism it received (and deserved), does suggest that slavery remained economically viable right into the 1850s. For the most part, immigrants bypassed the South–because they perceived that they would be competing with black labor. A recurring complaint in the 1850s from the relatively small class of skilled white workers in places like Charleston was the number of slaves that were working cheap, and making their own contracts, giving a portion of their pay to the master.

Nov 4, 2009 - 8:42 am 72. Clayton E. Cramer:

The problem was, slavery was a poor thing for the Americas to adopt. It worked in the old world, but the economic equation had changed, but the rethinking did not happen. Free men and indentured servants were less expensive,.

Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations makes this point: that free men are more productive than slave labor, because everything you get out of a slave beyond his own subsistence must be beaten out of him. There is still considerable argument about exactly why American slavery developed when it did. One argument is that the shortage of whites willing to indenture themselves to the New World declined mid-17th century, and at that point, Africans made more economic sense. The Africans lacked any substantial political voice, because only free blacks were allowed to vote. (A free black man was actually elected to the Maryland legislature in 1642.) It was therefore easy to pass laws that permanently degraded their status.

Another argument that I find persuasive (at least partly because it fits into gun rights so beautifully) is that it was difficult to keep distributing the best lands to the people at the top without producing a huge population of discontented and armed poor whites. As Governor Berkeley explained, “How miserable that man is that Governes a People where six parts of seaven at least are Poore Endebted Discontented and Armed.” Slavery enabled poor whites to rise up one rung on the socioeconomic ladder. They had someone to look down up, and to exploit. The alternative would have been disarming poor whites–which would have put the colony at the mercy of Indian attack, and attack by European navies and pirates.

Nov 4, 2009 - 8:50 am 73. Clayton E. Cramer:

Dwight writes:

You assert that it was no longer justifiable economically, but are we then left with the implication that they stayed with the system even though it was in their best interests economically NOT TO? That seems odd, to say the least, doesn’t it?

But I will grant you that their pride in their liberty, their “rights” to do what they wanted to and not be told by some yankee do-gooders to give up their slaves, certainly was capable of pushing them to irrational behavior.

Yes, pride plays a big part in this–especially for that majority of Southern whites who did not own slaves. No matter how poor they were, at least they weren’t slaves! There was someone below them.

In addition, while slavery did not make economic for the region as a whole, it could make enormous economic sense for the larger planters. There were substantial costs that slavery imposed on each state: maintenance of slave patrols and of state militias as useful military forces well past the point where they were anything but social clubs in the North; discouraging of free labor for the same reason that slavery did so in the classical world; encouraging immigrants to go to the North; retarding manufacturing. Yet the benefits of slavery were largely falling on the owners–especially the large owners.

The analogy to the current illegal immigration situation is quite strong: employers hire cheap, easily frightened illegal immigrants, while the rest of the society gets stuck with medical care costs at the emergency rooms.

Nov 4, 2009 - 8:57 am 74. Gerald:

I am a black man from the deep south (and not surprisingly at least one of my male ancestors was the white slave owner of at least one of my black female slave ancestors). I am also a fundamentalist Christian who has had a bit of theological training. Neither the Old Testament or the New Testament outlaws slavery. It doesn’t even call slavery a bad idea (as compared to, say, polygamy which the Bible also never outlaws but makes clear in numerous narrative examples i.e. Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon etc. that nothing good can come from it).

However, the particular slave system that existed in America was specifically forbidden by the Old Testament. However, the Old Testament laws were never for Christians in any sense whatsoever other than to teach them about Jesus Christ (despite those who would assert otherwise). Still, it can be definitely stated that a great many Christian leaders failed to heed the command of Paul in Philemon concerning the ethical treatment of slaves (which incidentally the Jewish legal code concerning slavery, while not theologically binding, should have acted as a guide). Of course, this failure was clearly sin on the part of people who should have – and to be quite honest did – know better. However, let it be said that we are all sinners, and therefore all in need of Jesus Christ for salvation, whether black or white, slave or free, Jew or Gentile.

As a side note, environmentalism is a rejection of doctrines of God’s providence and sovereignty over creation. Man cannot destroy the earth and its environment, only God can. So, the idea that any Christian – especially any evangelical or fundamentalist Christian – would align himself with an environmentalist movement speaks precisely of how few Christians take the Bible seriously. They merely hear things like “God gave man dominion over creation so we should become creation care evangelicals” without even bothering to do study of the Bible themselves, or even to study what good theologians have written on the topic.

Finally, the comparison of dumping slave babies into the ditch for economic reasons and abortion (due to people not wanting to be financially or personally responsible for babies) was an outstanding one.

Nov 4, 2009 - 1:50 pm 75. Clayton E. Cramer:

Still, it can be definitely stated that a great many Christian leaders failed to heed the command of Paul in Philemon concerning the ethical treatment of slaves (which incidentally the Jewish legal code concerning slavery, while not theologically binding, should have acted as a guide).

And this, by the way, was the basis on which Christian abolitionism argued: that regardless of whether slavery as an institution was right or wrong, no Christian should mistreat or abuse another person, because it violates how we would want to be treated ourselves. We would not want to be whipped for failing to harvest “enough” cotton during the day; we would not want to have our family torn away from us where we could not see them; we would not want our wives or daughters to be sexual slaves; therefore there was an obligation to not do these things.

Solomon Northup’s Twelve Years a Slave recognized that some of his masters, without abandoning the system of slavery, were prepared to treat their slaves by the high standard that Christianity requires–and made a point of expressing his admiration for that. One can make the case that an employer should treat his employees as he would want to be treated. Inevitably, some of our laws in practice require employers to treat employees worse than the CEO would want to be treated; but there are employers who do their best to do the best that they can for their employees within the framework we have. I have had employers who clearly did the best that they could do (for example, many of the startups that I worked for in California); and I have had the other type of employers, such as Hewlett-Packard.

Nov 4, 2009 - 8:10 pm 76. Dwight:

Coming back to conservation issues, whether or not man-made global warming is a real threat, what does it mean to be a good steward of the earth? I consume less, rather than more, because it feels right to me, even if the economy and I suppose, some of my fellow men and women would benefit if I consumed more.

Do good conservatives conserve?

Nov 5, 2009 - 5:21 am 77. Beth just south of Berkeley and just East of San Francisco:

68. Dwight:

“But I will grant you … God, or common sense, in the unlikely guise of the Federal Government, certainly PUNISHED them for their excessive pride, a pride which melded into their concept of slave-holding, courageous, liberty.

“I belabor the obvious to say that the Civil War changed our culture permanently in many ways, just one of which was the relationship between the Federal Government, the states, and the individual. If only those damned southerners had been more reasonable and not given Lincoln the reason to become super-daddy, we might have more of what many of you call liberty and freedom today…but we don’t.”

I certainly hope this was meant to be ironic rather than just plain vicious, which is how it comes across. I don’t know where you get your stereotypes of antebellum Southern attitudes, but they are unrecognizable to this descendant of Tidewater Virginians. “Pride” at being better than slaves (or black people in general) was a Northern phenomenon as well, which got combined with pride at being better than “backwards” Southerners.

Folks in my “down home” didn’t equate liberty with the right to own slaves. Well before the Revolution, Virginians petitioned the Crown to stop subsidizing the slave trade, and the Colonial legislature to find a way to phase out slavery. Yes, the holders of vast numbers of slaves wielded their clout against the local movement. But, even wealthy plantation owners like Washington and Jefferson agonzied over the contradition between their beliefs and their actions (and fudged this by providing for post-mortem emancipation). One of my family’s neighbors, Robert Carter III, went ahead and emancipated the people he held while he was still alive.

Churches and other institutions in our parts went back and forth between integration and segregation from Colonial times well into the 20th century. Arrogant people don’t engage in that type of dialog.

Granted, large slaveholders and the politicians dependent upon their support ratcheted up the pro-slavery rhetoric like crazy. None of their rhetoric, however, matched that of the abolitionists (a radical anti-slavery faction): they spoke, throughout the War (and some of them before the War) of killing Southern whites, slaveholder and non-slaveholder alike. John Brown massacred a family in Kansas, then raided a Federal arms depot with further massacres in mind. Southerners never spoke of killing Yankees till it was a matter of self-defense against armed invasion.

I pity you for your belief that being too proud to lie down and take death threats meekly, and to submit to outrageous taxation instead, is some kind of fault that must be “punished.” Lincoln was already out to be “super-daddy,” as were Henry Clay and a number of Congresses before his administration, as is Barack Obama today. Blaming Southerners for Lincoln’s actions is like blaming the Tea Party activists for Obama’s statist legislation.

What is with all this knee-jerk Southern-bashing? When the chips were down, we said NO to Lincoln, the statist “American Program” of the Whigs before him, and the punitive taxation both demanded. Can’t you appreciate that?

Wasn’t it enough to kill hundreds of thousands of us and lay waste to our region? What is this inexplicable need to get us to say you were right to do that? How can you be left unsatisfied unless we do, yet still claim to oppose large statist government?

Nov 5, 2009 - 3:01 pm 78. Grace O'Malley:

Ah, dear Beth, you made me want to stand up and cheer! Seriously.

My reaction against Mr. Cramer’s article is in large part based on the knowledge that he overtly puts those abolitionists on the right and moral side, yet those same people are the very largest reason we are where we are in terms of the slow slide into statism. The progressive movement in America can very easily be called Secular Calvinism. In my opinion those “green polluters” are the intellectual heirs of abolitionists, who still see themselves as the epitome of morality and who therefore have the right to tell the rest of us how to behave.

It is not all that difficult to trace those Progressive Lincoln Republicans after the Civil War, in large part they developed and supported the Social Gospel, enthusiastically supported Teddy Roosevelt, marched against alcohol bringing us prohibition and by and large enthusiastically supported WWI and various of Woodrow Wilson’s foreign excursions. In large part the connections come through liberal Protestantism, led by the very Progressive Calvinist Congregational church. In time they became THE ESTABLISHMENT. As the Progressive power moved from the Republican party into the Democratic party, the religious aspects of the Progressive movement began to be watered down. By the late 1950’s secular Progressives had more power than the religious Progressives, but they most certainly never lost their zeal in telling the rest of us how to live our lives. And have no doubt that today the religious Progressives and the Secular Progressives find a great deal of common ground, including saving the earth from “climate change”.

Progressive politics were not particularly friendly towards people of color, black and otherwise. They might not have wanted others to own slaves, but they sure didn’t want blacks in their drawing rooms except as servants either. Not to mention the whole eugenics movement was primarily one with the Progressive movement.

While Mr. Cramer wishes to gloss over the difficulties the issue of slavery caused in American churches, it most certainly DID exist and the issue did cause splitting within some denominations. Great Book-Religion and the Antebellum debate over Slavery. I may not have written any history books RKV, but I can certainly read, and I don’t give a tinkers damn about the Bancroft as I see it as little more than a bunch of liberals giving other liberals prizes to reinforce each others opinions. The incident in which Mr. Cramer was involved certainly speaks to that belief I would wager.

I care deeply about intellectual and history integrity, and willingly give kudos to Mr. Cramer regarding his debunking of Bellesiles, that does not preclude me from being critical the subject of this article. The history of Progressives have by and large been whitewashed, including the very religious nature of it. Old newspaper writings described the political meetings involving Teddy Roosevelt when he ran under the Progressive Party as having the atmosphere of a Tent revival and there was a good reason it was described thus.

Consider this-Of the total southern white population of 8,099,760 in 1860, only 384,000 owned slaves. Of these, 10,780 owned fifty or more. It was calculated that about 88 per cent of America’s slave-owners owned twenty slaves or less. To stop those 384,000 from owning slaves, the religious radical John Brown sparked the war that killed some 620,000 as well as economically devastating the south for generations. In their moral superiority those non slave holding Christians managed to bring about the deaths of a great many people. I in no way defend slavery, but since this is an article about morality, I think it is fair to ask those hard moral questions, and that includes the actions of those who started a war, as well as examining their role in this nation post Civil War. John Brown has a great deal in common with Bill Ayers not withstanding their religious differences.

The green polluter is not to be compared to the slave owner but instead to be compared to their intellectual ancestors the abolitionists who saw themselves as morally superior despite all the death and destruction they had wrought. But that, me thinks, brings a bit of discomfort to Mr. Cramer given his ancestral Calvinist history.

Nov 5, 2009 - 10:11 pm 79. Dwight:

Grace wrote,
Consider this-Of the total southern white population of 8,099,760 in 1860, only 384,000 owned slaves. Of these, 10,780 owned fifty or more. It was calculated that about 88 per cent of America’s slave-owners owned twenty slaves or less. To stop those 384,000 from owning slaves, the religious radical John Brown sparked the war that killed some 620,000 as well as economically devastating the south for generations. In their moral superiority those non slave holding Christians managed to bring about the deaths of a great many people. I in no way defend slavery, but since this is an article about morality, I think it is fair to ask those hard moral questions, and that includes the actions of those who started a war, as well as examining their role in this nation post Civil War. John Brown has a great deal in common with Bill Ayers not withstanding their religious differences.”

You and Beth probably both feel that you “in no way defend slavery” but you both spend so much time defending it, or defending the people who fought to save the culture wic endorsed it. Is the point that most southerners were fools to defend the institution of slavery because most of them did not own slaves, or what?

Oops, no, it the fault of the damned abolitionists. It’s true that they were pesky, self righteous folks who wanted to intrude into other people’s business. But when what they were interfering with was the right and liberty to buy and sell a human being and his and her family etc….well, then I guess you hate them even more, because they were right on that one.

Essentially, you are both making my point that if the south had been more “reasonable,” or just pragmatic, we wouldn’t have to kowtow so much to the modern abolitionists. But pragmatism got trumped by pride, and, of course, honor. Lee’s honor complelled him to fight for his state, and hence the South and its lost cause.

Damn, we human beings are funny folk, and sometimes the funniest when we think we are being the most serious.

Nov 6, 2009 - 4:31 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: