I mean, arguments for gradual abolition, instead of a quick? I suppose no... But I may be wrong. I consider myself, among other labels, also an anarcho-abolitionist. I would push that red button. But there certainly are those, who say "well, it's good in theory, but in practice there would be chaos, therefore we can't".
Also I am aware of the fact that slavery hadn't ended over night. It was in fact gradual, despite the floating feeling of abolishing it once and for all.
Originally inteded to post it on reddit, but since it broke, I posted it here.
(this thread is half serious, half a joke, but a circlejerk after all)
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
The biggest argument seemed to be who would compensate the slave owners for their loss of property.
But of course, this was ridiculous. If anyone, it was the slaves who should be compensated and the compensators should have been the slave owners.
That was the real argument??? I though it was a joke, to parodize slavers... Funny.
god loves slavery may be one good argument.
your slaves didn't build that, you built that.
There were defenses of slavery. George Fitzhugh gave arguments for slavery that almost no abolitionist could answer because his arguments were were about how capitalism is worse then slavery for the slave/ worker.
He even accused abolitionists of being racist and not caring about Negroes for to take them out of the protection and care of their owners and to put on the labor market would have not only utilitaristically put them in a worse position (which he backed up by factual miserable state of industrial workers in Britain compared to which americal slaves lived much better lives), but would also from a virtue point of view remove the human relations that slaveowners have with they slaves by being connected with them often for their whole life, and would make people use them mearly as tools which they could rent and not care about.
I consider myself, among other labels, also an anarcho-abolitionist.
This is a pleonasm. Anarchism was born as movement agaist capitalism, state and organized religion, under the banner of being against all hierarchies. Anarchism means "no masters", no taking orders from anyone, but directly controlling your life.
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/our-economic-past/ten-reasons-not-to-abolish-slavery/
george f wanted to expand slavery for peoples own good.
Ten Reasons Not To Abolish Slavery (by Robert Higgs)
Audio version by me...
Government Explained 2: The Special Piece of Paper
Law without Government
I think the form of slavery practiced in the antebellum South was inherently and egregiously unjust. For one thing, it began by capturing people from Africa. For another, the captive's descendants inherited their slave status from birth. Had I been alive back then, I certainly would have considered it an intolerable state of affairs. I would have pushed the red button.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
But the key thing to keep in mind is that there is a right way and a wrong way to go about pushing the Red Button. What most people do is attack the governance which is nearest and easiest to throw off: family, church authority, local authority. The idea is "we'll work our way up the chain." But what this approach misses - in its laziness - is that the lower links of the chain actually do fulfill a protecting role against the bigger, more dangerous links higher up the chain.
If you're going to push the Red Button, you need to push it from the top-down. Get rid of the Federal government. De-fund the UN. Disband all pretenses of an American Union and dismantle the EU. Only after you have done this, should you go after your State and smaller national governments. Otherwise, what you end up doing is just cutting out the middle-man. Sure, you disempower your State and local governments and end up dealing directly with the Feds. You have just made your problem worse, not better.
Clayton -