The idea that it is generally moral to break the law just because you find it wrong conflicts with the principles of democracy and ordered society. (This is the individual’s obligation under the social compact.) So the burden there, for a private individual, is unconscionable acts which you couldn’t bring yourself to commit unless under duress.
Public officials are entrusted with power for the specific purpose of upholding the law, and in pursuit of that goal they are assigned more responsibilities than private individuals. It must be granted that in a democratic society the law is the embodiment of the public will; it is the same instrument from which officials draw their power and authority. In matters of conscience I may excuse a public official who resigns or recuses, but the official who violates the law commits an abuse of office.
About that cow? Is there some implication that an escaped and then captured cow will go through the justice system?
Does the cow have some hope that there will be a legal proceeding that will give it its freedom?
Do you fucking understand that the cow and the slave have almost exactly the same claim to not be owned, that is, none?
I was thinking it might be held for few couple days to see if anyone claimed it. Otherwise, finders keepers.
In the case of the Black man, who will claim to be a freeman, I’m thinking if he doesn’t match a claimant’s description to a judge’s satisfaction, he gets released. I, the Vermont farmer, certainly couldn’t own him because slavery is illegal in Vermont. If released, the judge gets paid less, if I recall correctly.
Daaammmnnn, it’s like you want to be sucked under by the quicksand…
I mean, by that, it’s good that slavery is illegal in Vermont 'cause, apparently, that’d be the actual thing that stops you from being a slave owner.
And that’s much more reasonable. But in the hypothetical, you weren’t a police officer, you were a farmer.
A reasonable farmer who abhorred slavery would not hand the runaway off to a sheriff who actually has a duty to return the man to slavery. The sheriff or US Marshall is in a much more difficult situation. Judges are often allowed some exercise of judgement, but may also feel their hands are tied. I’m not certain of the details of Vermont law at the time.
That’s WHY the farmer can’t hand the man over to the authorities. Because the authorities have much less latitude in their choices. They are bound by their office, and also by the public nature of their choices. Whereas the farmer has no office, and can almost certainly rely on possible deniability in the unlikely chance he is caught harboring a fugitive slave.
Today? If i discovered I’d just inherited some slaves? I would hire a lawyer to attempt to free them in a way that let them stay free. That might take a little longer than just declaring them free, but it seems like the wise thing to do.
Unless he can’t rely on plausible deniability, for example if facing a mob, which was the example I used in this post:
And similar to what I had in mind originally, for this post:
I admit I hadn’t thought about suddenly inheriting slaves. My point was that if you are asked to put yourself in the shoes of a nineteenth century slaveowner, except maybe some corner cases, you have to imagine a version of you that supports slavery.
I don’t see how it can be moral cowardice if I come to the conclusion that it is the right decision. Sitting here now I’m not actually under duress and I think it is or could be the right decision.
As I wrote above, #443, if I find a society and its laws so profoundly immoral that following its laws is morally unacceptable, then it is morally unacceptable to remain a part of that society.
When push comes to shove I may turn out to be a coward (as I understand the word) by not following through with what I think is right. But with my modern principles, I shouldn’t be loyal to the Confederate States.
Notwithstanding their right to secession, which I do not recognize from a legal point of view.