Of course, I understand all that.
Indeed, back in those days, there were many -- and not all of them slave-holders -- who argued that slavery for blacks was superior to what amounted to "wage slavery" of poor white northern immigrants, since northern employers had no responsibility, and no concern for, their workers beyond paying them the lowest possible wages.
I "get" all that, and such arguments were not necessarily totally invalid.
But the issue in my post #489, responding to jeffersondem's post #449 is whether Jesus specifically, and the Bible generally, condemn slavery?
The answer is that the Bible specifically and categorically condemns slavery for God's people -- that's what Exodus is all about, among other things.
So the only remaining question is whether African slaves could ever be considered God's people?
And the obvious answer is: of course, once they have been baptized Christians, then just like the rest of us, they are as much God's people as anyone.
But, it's sometimes said, the Bible doesn't condemn slavery in every verse, so slavery must be A-OK with God, right?
Noooooooo... as in everything, the Bible sets very high standards, which we are to strive towards achieving.
But it also fully recognizes that humans are morally weak, prone to make wrong choices, and so, if, if, if you live in a land where slavery is the law, and you are a slave, then be a good slave, for God's sake.
And if you are a slave-holder, then treat your slave as a brother, a member of your own family, also for Christ's sake.
Do you disagree, FRiend?
The "peculiar" institution practiced in the South was as "good" as a bad thing can get. Which is a moral conundrum. If an slave owner honestly thinks (wrongfully so in hindsight) that freeing a child to fend for themselves is wrong and holding them in bondage is also wrong, then you find yourself is a very weird predicament. The owner makes the best of it, as so the slave.
Round and round and round we go. They keep chewing away at the rag but to what purpose? The simple truth prevails:
All parties knew that secession wasn’t an enumerated privilege.
All parties knew that any attempt at unilateral secession would be met with resistance, thus no unilateral secession could be ever considered “amicable” or peaceful.
The southern states seceded anyway and seized federal properties in provocative and belligerent fashion.
The north defended itself and the fight was on.
The north prevailed.
SCOTUS declared unilateral secession unconstitutional.
All the other aspects of coulda, shouda, woulda are irrelevant.