[fuser]

Britain abolished slavery before USA not because of some sort of moral beliefs.
They could afford to do so because of Britain's large colonial possession was providing a vast amount of cheap labor...

Any where in the world slavery had hardly been abolished on purely moral grounds....

[Ombrageux]

It's not an excuse... just the reality of the times.

The Holocaust was "a reality of the times".

[DanDaMan]

It's not an excuse... just the reality of the times.

The Holocaust was "a reality of the times".

Not sure what your point is but slavery had been ingrained as normal for generations.

[ThereBeDragons]

Mass murder of civilians has been standard practice for thousands of years.

[Scartol]

The Holocaust was "a reality of the times".

Not sure what your point is but slavery had been ingrained as normal for generations.

The point, Dan, (if I may be so bold as to hypothesize about Ombrageux's probable intention) is that human history is filled with hideous atrocities against decency and human dignity. And just because these are "realities" of the time does not make equanimity toward them acceptable. As moral beings, we have a right and a responsibility to challenge unjust actions, laws, tendencies, etc. And it's hideously disingenuous for us to pretend that certain historical figures were more active in their challenges to said atrocities than the evidence suggests.

We all know that slavery had been ingrained as normal for generations -- that's why abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison and Thomas Clarkson were such visionary individuals. Those who went along with the status quo because it would have cost too much to resist it, meanwhile, show a reprehensible moral weakness (even as they lit the way for sensible democratic governance in their day jobs).

[Ombrageux]

Not sure what your point is but slavery had been ingrained as normal for generations.

Rule by King and Parliament was a lot more "normal" for the British Empire than was rebellion by a few North American slave masters.

[Quantum]

Britain abolished slavery before USA not because of some sort of moral beliefs.

That's true and Britain imported Indian indentured servants to its colonies to work on the sugarcane fields straight after slavery was abolished. The British were also sympathetic to the Confederacy as it meant securing the cotton for their mills but obviously didn't recognise them, as that would entail war with the United States. As for the American Revolution, tell me which belligerent did most of the slaves side with during the war? That should tell you what the slaves thought of the Patriots.

[Wolfman]

The majority had no choice. However, their was the claim that slaves who fought for a year would be freed, and then if for another 6 months would be paid a certain amount. I don't think they lived up to that.

[DanDaMan]

The point, Dan, (if I may be so bold as to hypothesize about Ombrageux's probably intention) is that human history is filled with hideous atrocities against decency and human dignity.

I agree.

And just because these are "realities" of the time does not make equanimity toward them acceptable.

I gree 100%

As moral beings, we have a right and a responsibility to challenge unjust actions, laws, tendencies, etc.

Most definetly.

And it's hideously disingenuous for us to pretend that certain historical figures were more active in their challenges to said atrocities than the evidence suggests.

We are human and sometimes fail at doing the right thing.

I would add that you are all forgetting that it took civil war, that killed more Americans than any other war, to free the slaves in the South.

[Meslocusist]

You were so close. You got to 1+1+1+1, but apparently now that equals -5

There is an even more direct proof that the founding fathers, as a whole, supported slavery: The transatlantic slave trade, a nasty, nasty thing that even slaveowners found objectionable, was constitutionally legalized until the year 1808.

The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight.

Referring implicitly to slaves.

[DanDaMan]

The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight.

Referring implicitly to slaves.

True. But which states wanted that?
Which states would have walked out if abolition was a condition in the Constitution?
And aren't you overlooking the fact that the Constitution is calling for abolition in twenty years?

[Ombrageux]

Stopping importation is not "abolition".

[DanDaMan]

Stopping importation is not "abolition".

Correct.
The "three fifths" is the political method of the time for abolition so the South doesn't leave the table.

[Meslocusist]

Which states would have walked out if abolition was a condition in the Constitution?

The founding fathers could easily have gone on record proposing abolition without writing it into the constitution. The fact is, in their personal lives the founding fathers weren't very abolitionist at all, as in their political lives.

[DanDaMan]

The fact is, in their personal lives the founding fathers weren't very abolitionist at all, as in their political lives.

Care to show a list of signers that had slaves at the time of signing?

[Ombrageux]

Care to show a list of signers that had slaves at the time of signing?

I would almost all of those from slave states owned slaves at the time of signing. And what exactly makes it "OK" for them to be come slavers if its after signing?

[DanDaMan]

Care to show a list of signers that had slaves at the time of signing?

I would almost all of those from slave states owned slaves at the time of signing. And what exactly makes it "OK" for them to be come slavers if its after signing?

List them by state then and let's see.

[Ombrageux]

What difference does it make if they acquired slaves after signing?