Agreed.
But some things are right or wrong no matter what the century and I'd think "human beings should not be owned like cattle" would be one of those basic things. Especially in a country whose founding document asserts that all men are created equal. So no one can argue that people in that time period just didn't understand the moral questions. And I'm amazed by the attitude of so many here who usually lambast "moral relativism" when practiced by the left.
"But some things are right or wrong no matter what the century and I'd think "human beings should not be owned like cattle" would be one of those basic things."
So it seems to us now, but that was not always the case. There is a partial response to that in note 111.
"Especially in a country whose founding document asserts that all men are created equal."
Among those who didn't think that Negroes were "equal" enough to enter white society was Abraham Lincoln.
"So no one can argue that people in that time period just didn't understand the moral questions."
Actually, you can. You can also argue that, having studied the matter, they came to a different conclusion from us. What you can't argue is that they were motivated by sheer perversity and malice.
"And I'm amazed by the attitude of so many here who usually lambast "moral relativism" when practiced by the left."
Those who oppose you are not engaging in moral relativism; they are simply taking human limitations into account. You can't demand more of people than they were capable of giving.