Homestead mailing list

[Clansgian AT wmconnect.com]

> 
> Do you know if they felt it was morally wrong?

All the evidence is that it was not held as morally wrong.  By the 1850's it 
was increasingly held as impractical.

Southern culture was basically Celtic and northern culture was basically 
Saxon.  In the south the household was an extended family and all manner of 
folk 
fell within that realm, share croppers, indentured, slaves, and relatives.  
There was a moral obligation all around.  

At that time unmarried children were under the subjugation of their elders, 
women to menfolk, there were all sorts of complicated realtionships of land 
owner and tenent.

The Bible condoned slavery and the status of slavery was only some degree 
removed from all manner of other relationships.

So unlike viewing it from the modern mindset, slavery was not looked upon as 
anything immoral.

However slaves were viewed as by and large as memebers of the extended 
family.  As slavery became more and more unfeasible, the South was not 
willing to 
sweep its problems under the rug, sell the people off to misery and death.  
It 
was on a long slow transition of the social institution of slavery to 
something 
different.

By the bye, take this quizz:  At the end of the War for Southern 
Independence, which famous general still owned saves:  

1) Robert E. Lee
2) Ulysses S. Grant

The answer is (obviously) 2.  The Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves 
in states in "rebellion".  The 13th ammendment took effect on 31 Dec 1865.  
Grant's wife still legally held two slaves and Grant tried to sell them after 
the war to cover some debts.

How, Gene, do you think Grant felt about the morality of slavery?   </HTML>