Replies

Rubbish.

My standard is the Biblical one. Onesimus should have returned to his master; the Egyptians provoked the wrath of God by not letting the people go. Obviously Paul knew more about Exodus than either you or I. He didn't say that Onesimus should escape but that he should return. We can therefore rightly conclude that Onesimus' particular situation was much more like indentured servitude rather than slavery. And we know enough about Rome to know that this was very likely.

Also, as I alread demonstrated, Roman indentured servitude, though hardly desirable, is not intrinsically evil. It is no more intrinsically evil than being a migrant farm worker. That would suck - and in a sense it is a form of "slavery" (ie, hard work, little pay). But it is not the same as race based chattel slavery. The way to get rid of these types of institutions is through the path of liberty: economic growth, the growth of freedom, knowledge, culture, etc.

How about one more chance? Just say yes or no.

Do you agree (without endorsing any particular plan of abolition - which is a whole nuther question) that slavery as practiced in the south was intrinsically evil?

If not, then, you are, in fact, a defender of the institution.

"Do you agree (without endorsing any particular plan of abolition - which is a whole nuther question) that slavery as practiced in the south was intrinsically evil?"

What you run up against with me, and most likely anyone else with a dog in this hunt, is that your question is, in and of itself, biased. Chattel slavery was not practiced exclusively in the south; to reduce the question to such may be politically expedient, but such reductionism has produced going on two generations who honestly believe that chattel slavery was ONLY practiced in the American south, and that southerners in particular and the US in general is intrinsically evil for having participated, with all other history thrown completely out the window. There is no one on this thread saying anything in defense of the practice. But, it did happen, it happened in all of the colonies, and much of the world. You're pinning an intrinsic evil on one geographic locale and the people who resided in that locale, which creates a false impression. And, this false impression is being used, and used, and used again to tear down anything that southerners stand for and have ever stood for... individual rights, freedom of association, private property and on and on. Things that you stand for as well.

So, does this shed any further light on the lengthy, and sometimes strenuous, discussion on the subject?

Do you agree (without endorsing any particular plan of abolition - which is a whole nuther question) that slavery as practiced in the south was intrinsically evil?

Like Onesimus, it would depend on the situation. For those slaves who were abused, yes, I would agree that their situation was intrinsically evil. But for those who were treated with Christian kindness and love, no, I wouldn't say that their situation was intrinsically evil--especially if the alternative was the kind of "freedom" many former slaves endured in the North or what their ancestors went through in Africa.

I guess what I would like to know is how you would have handled the situation. The kind of slavery you deem as evil was around for a long time before the War Between the States. Was slavery so evil that its demise was worth 600,000 battlefield deaths and the thousands of lives lost during "Reconstruction" (which, by the way, did much more to damage race relations than slavery)? Or would the more Christian approach have been gradual (i.e., peaceful) emancipation?

But I guess if slavery on the whole was inherently evil, then I would have no choice but to condemn men like Robert E. Lee, who owned slaves, but willingly freed them, or Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, who started a Sunday School for slave children. What evil SOBs they must have been.