Oh my! You think that those who put people already stripped from their homes, to work under conditions where they are well cared for--as the vast bulk of the Southern slaves were--are in any sense as wicked as those who snatched them form their homes, and natural social environment, and transported them in chains across the ocean?
You are right that it is a market that feeds the provisioning of anything. But has there ever been a time in human history, when man does not make use of available cheap labor? Instead of insulting the values of those long dead, who gave you the very liberty that you enjoy today, why don't you insult those, living today, who are responsible for our open Southern border, and the steady flow of socially incompatible cheap labor, drawn in by the avarice of those now living in your midst? Or is all this just a parlor game to you?
What? Did you actually read what I wrote before you posted this? I specifically stated that I was not making any comparisons as to the level of moral culpability by the use of "secondary." Moreover, the subject was of the moral culpability of insurance companies, banks, railroads, etc. who made it rich on the slave trade, and who I said were enriched immorally. We were not specifically discussing transatlantic slavers.
Now, if you'd like to discuss the morality of those who kidnapped and enslaved the blacks in Africa, I would tell you that I find that their actions were, surprise, immoral. Was someone who actually stuck the slaves in the boats and transported them to America more moral or less moral than the people who held them bondage?? Gee, I'd say there's enough immorality to go around. But more to the point, even if the slave holders treated their slaves better than the ship captains did (which certainly may have generally been the case.) it does not mean that the slave holders were not immoral in the fact that they held other men as property.
You are right that it is a market that feeds the provisioning of anything.
Which is the entire crux of the statement with which you took issue. If the slave holders had not demanded slaves, there would have been no transatlantic slave trade.
But has there ever been a time in human history, when man does not make use of available cheap labor?
But we are not talking about cheap labor, we are talking about slavery. There may be little difference between paying someone a less-than-decent wage and owning them as you would cattle, but there is a difference.
Instead of insulting the values of those long dead, who gave you the very liberty that you enjoy today,
No, they gave me nothing. As is laid out in the Declaration, God gave me the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness: the very same rights the whip-crackers stole from their slaves.
why don't you insult those, living today, who are responsible for our open Southern border, and the steady flow of socially incompatible cheap labor, drawn in by the avarice of those now living in your midst?
Now you want to change the subject to immigration policy. Fine. Illegals: keep them out and punish the companies and employees who have created a black market of human labor.
If legal immigrants want to come here and take advantage of the opportunities that freedom and liberty provide, I say, more power to them. The beautiful thing about America is that anyone, so long as he believes in the freedom and opportunity that America has to offer - so long as he believes in the American creed - can himself become as American as you or I, regardless of his race, religion, native language or nation of origin.
Or is all this just a parlor game to you?
No. It's serious as a heart attack. When people say that the slaves didn't mind being slaves they are saying that they weren't fully human. And that lie, and ones like it, were responsible for too much human suffering in the last century to casually toss around, as you seem to do.