The War Between the States

Status
Not open for further replies.

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
Our Dancing George has turned into a different discussion. Why did the Civil war Start? I am posting a link by a black Prof from George Mason University that doesn't believe the War was started over slavery. This ought to be illuminating to some. Many Yankees were taught it was started over slavery. Many of our children are being taught this today. Our children are being dumbed down so they don't realize what our Constition truly is about. The Civil War is a good place to learn about the powers that be. Have fun.

Click on the title below.
The Civil War Wasn't About Slavery.

What thinkest thou?:deadhorse::detective::scholar:

For Christ's Crown and Covenant, R. Martin Snyder
 

LawrenceU

Puritan Board Doctor
That is an excellent and historically accrate article. The editor missed it in this insertion though,
[Editor´s note: In 1860, when the Southern states were moving toward secession, the Tariff of 1857 had reduced tariffs to the lowest level since 1812. The Morrill Tariff Act of 1861 was not passed until after several states had seceded, thus reducing the number of anti-tariff representatives in Congress. No Southern state even mentioned the tariff in its act of secession. In short, the claim that secession occurred because of high tariffs is a historical fiction."”TGW]
His timing is correct, but he is splitting hairs regarding the role those proposed tarrifs played in secession.

The War was not a 'civil war'. As a matter of historical fact it was a war between two seperate nations. If you really want to have your eyes opened go do some original research regarding Abe Lincoln. He was not nearly the saint that modern texts paint him. He, and other leaders within the Republican party knew full well they were in violation of the US Constitution.

Slavery was not an issue in the war until Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclaimation. The history behind this document is that he knew that he was losing support in several key states in the 'west'. Their leadership was ready to pull the plug on sending more and more recruits, they were tiring of the heavy handedness of the Union demands for men and material, and on record were beginning to doubt the legitimacy of the war. The EP was issued to bring the abolitionists in those states awake to Lincoln's cause. BTW, if the EP was really a moral document why did it not free the slaves that were owned by Yankee's? There were many slaveholders in the Union states. Why did some of them continue to hold them even after the war?

Am I biased? Yep. I'm biased toward historical accuracy.

Deo Vindice,
Lawrence
 

Puritan Sailor

Puritan Board Doctor
It's even more interesting that no one talks about the Black folks who owned slaves too. There's so much that has been editted out of our history books.
 

FrozenChosen

Puritan Board Freshman
A professor from Auburn University is putting out a book called Dixie's Forgotten People: The South's Poor Whites, which is basically about the effects of slavery and the war on the part of society opposite from the commonly portrayed aristocratic South.
 

VirginiaHuguenot

Puritanboard Librarian
Originally posted by Draught Horse
By the way, what do you men of Southern persuasion think of the Kennedy brothers?

Have you read The Dark Side of Camelot by Seymour Hersch? It exposes the dark underbelly of the Kennedy Clan and Administration.
 

LawrenceU

Puritan Board Doctor
The Kennedy brothers that you mentioned have done some very good work in waking folks up to reality regarding our history. Another very good book is Southern by the Grace of God by Grissom.
 

VirginiaHuguenot

Puritanboard Librarian
Originally posted by Draught Horse
I meant the guys who wrote The South was Right and Jefferson Davis was Right.

He he, oops! Forgot to have my morning coffee. Yep, I think their works are most profitable.
 

Ianterrell

Puritan Board Sophomore
Originally posted by puritansailor
It's even more interesting that no one talks about the Black folks who owned slaves too. There's so much that has been editted out of our history books.

Exactly. Nobody talks about this stuff anymore, revisionist history in classic form.
 

VirginiaHuguenot

Puritanboard Librarian
It is true that all races have played a role in the history of slavery (for good and for ill) and all races have views on the subject of slavery or the War Between the States that are not necessarily dictated by their skin color.

Black Americans have owned slaves, Black Southerners have fought against White Yankees, and in the 17th century White Scots enslaved White Covenanters and shipped them to America. Their have been good masters and good slaves (following Scriptural teachings on the subject by the Apostle Paul) and their have been abusive masters and rebellious slaves. Stonewall Jackson violated Virginia civil law by teaching groups of Blacks how to read the Bible on the Lord's Day. Robert E. Lee did not want to see the separation of the Union or advance the cause of slavery per se. Thomas Jefferson who wrote the Declaration of Independence and against slavery owned many slaves. Abraham Lincoln was not an abolitionist until mid-way through the War Between the States when it became politically expedient. He had a low opinion of Blacks and wanted to ship them off to Liberia.

The fact is, God made of one blood all races and all in the image of God. Yet slavery was condoned in Scripture and so were class distinctions. The abolitionist movement couldn't stop at outlawing slavery because its underlying philosophical presupposition was egalitarianism. That's what Dabney saw and wrote against in A Defense of Virginia and the South. Equality has been the buzzword of French Jacobins and modern day feminists as much as abolitionists. We are all morally equal in the sight of God and yet there are roles for each one of us in society, the church and the family and those distinctions are good and appropriate. Good riddance to slavery but not to how it was accomplished in the US and what we have today as the legacy of the French Jacobins.
 

turmeric

Megerator
Very interesting analysis, Huguenot.:amen: I have longed for an honest dialog between black & white Christians - I feel very bad about how I often react to blacks who are probably my brothers & sisters in Christ. I am told by the statist culture where I work and by the State school which educated me, that the things I am seeing and objecting to are symptoms of oppression, butI think it's very patronizing and racist to think people cannot change. I think these liberals need to read Erving Goffman's book on institutionalization and realize that educated blacks & whites are not fooled by their "benign neglect" and "inclusiveness" which seems to keep people trapped in an underclass when Christ has made us all free!:judge:

[Edited on 27-11-2004 by turmeric]
 

Peter

Puritan Board Junior
Slavery is not condoned in Scripture. Its called manstealing:

Ex 21:16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

Hebrew slavery was not slavery at all. It was indentured servitude for a limited period of time and the enslavement of evil Canaanites who were otherwise to be exterminated. The NT exhorts slaves to obtain their freedom (1 Cor 7:21), and teaches masters to give what is fair and equitable (Col. 4:1). BTW, not all aboltionists were Yankee Unitarians.
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
Pete,
Not all Southerners were for slavery. Abraham Lincoln was the worst enforcer of making men slaves to his own will. Because of Him more men died just to protect what Lincoln wanted to rule. There homes and country.
Don't you find it interesting that the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the Confederate States of America. Why didn't he free them in Missouri or other states in the North?:banghead:
I would have been an abolitionist but would have been a supporter and defender of the South if I understood the issues as I understand them today.

Either way, God is still Glorified because His Truth is Marching On.

For Christ's Crown and Covenant, R. Martin Snyder


[Edited on 11-27-2004 by puritancovenanter]
 

LawrenceU

Puritan Board Doctor
Peter,
The issue that you are discussing deals with realtionships between Hebrews. How do you reconcile Paul's directives pertaining to slave / master relationships? If Paul were against slavery why on earth would he have returned Onesimus, a runaway, to Philemon, his owner? This was not Hebrew indentured servitude; rather, it was Roman slavery.

Note, I am not a slaveholder, nor do I desire it. Much of what is done in Arabic and Islamic state today (the majority of slaveholding states) is against God's commands regarding slavery.

As an aside, have you read Dabney, or perhaps Davis' history of the Confederacy? Have you read original documents regarding slavery in the South?
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
I wondered who your avatar was. I would be mighty proud of that!:banana:

Larry, what part of Alabama do you call home? My Grandparents use to live in Lilian down in the very Southeast corner. My sister use to live in Birmingham. I love Alabama. I use to visit Briarwood Presbyterian when I was there. Virginia and Alabama are my two favorite States.

[Edited on 11-27-2004 by puritancovenanter]
 

RamistThomist

Puritanboard Clerk
On one hand Peter is right: the hebrew form of slavery was indentured servitude and although he did not precisely state it this way, if one is going to perpetuate a civilization with slavery being a large portion of it, then we must do it according to the bible's guideliens. It is interesting the Dabney thought the reason that God allowed the South to lose was to punish her for not reforming slavery according to biblcial guidelines.

However Peter, the real manstealers were the West Africans (now, the slave trade was a hideous evil, but let us apportion the blame properly). Furthermore, slavery is not evil but is attended with many evils.
 

LawrenceU

Puritan Board Doctor
Randy,
I live in Mobile.

And it is Lawrence, btw. My family nickname is Laurie. I come from a long line of Scots. Larry is 'fightin' words' ;) In my clan Larrie was a feminine form and Laurie the masculine form. Some things die hard- like tea and shortbread, grits and greens, and chicken on Sunday!
 

Peter

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by LawrenceU
Peter,
The issue that you are discussing deals with realtionships between Hebrews. How do you reconcile Paul's directives pertaining to slave / master relationships? If Paul were against slavery why on earth would he have returned Onesimus, a runaway, to Philemon, his owner? This was not Hebrew indentured servitude; rather, it was Roman slavery.

Note, I am not a slaveholder, nor do I desire it. Much of what is done in Arabic and Islamic state today (the majority of slaveholding states) is against God's commands regarding slavery.

As an aside, have you read Dabney, or perhaps Davis' history of the Confederacy? Have you read original documents regarding slavery in the South?

Lawrence, as Ive said, Paul's directives concerning master/ servants only condemn slavery. What we mean when we say slavery is forced perpetual servitute with out compensation. Paul tells says:
Col. 4:1: Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.
What is just and equal - compensation for work, do not muzzle the ox, the laborer is worthy of his wages.

Onesimus was freed when he was returned by Paul. Phil. 16

The Hebrews were only to enslave their brethren for 6 years and then to release them (Ex 21:2). Loss of liberty and enslavement as punishment for crime is tolerable and so is temporary slavery, but perpetual slavery for no reason other than the thief's greed is manstealing (Ex 21:16).

I have great respect for Dabney and other southern presbyterians but feel they err greatly on this issue. I havent read them but I have read original documents from Christian abolitionists.
 

Ianterrell

Puritan Board Sophomore
Peter,


Respectfully, I feel you are somewhat misrepresenting the American Slave institution as spotted as it was. We cannot make sweeping generalizations about the slave institution in America. Many, many, slaves were compensated for their work, and were allowed to purchase their freedom. Instead of only reading the reports of abolitionists who were geographically seperated from the Southern slave culture it would be more profitable to criticize them having examined the testimony of the slaves themselves as well as the Southerners as well as their Northern critics.
 

LawrenceU

Puritan Board Doctor
Peter,
I respectfully must disagree with you. Paul's directives in no way condemn salvery. They do show, however, the manner in which Christian masters and slaves were to live. You are making an eisegetical mistake in declaring Col. 4.1 to be a condemnation of slavery. Additionally, Phil 1.6 sic (Phil. 1.16) in no way says that Onesimus was freed. That may have occurred, but it is not stated. Further, it is not a necessary inference to say that Paul was declaring his intention to 'force' the freedom either. A master who is a Christian and his Christian slave would be 'more than' that even while maintaining that relationship.

Ian, well said.
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
OOPS!!! Please forgive my ignorance Lawrence. I will forever tell my friends that Larry has effeminate roots and they shall be called Lawrence if they are male. My name Randy has bad implications. I won't use my first name overseas for the very definition of it implies I am a naughty boy.
How beautiful was the Azalea Trail this last Spring? I miss taking the drive. I haven't been down there since the mid 90's.
 

cupotea

Puritan Board Junior
You guys should read "The Selling of Joseph" by Judge Samuel Sewall. It was the first anti-slavery tract in New England (1700) and it was written by a Puritan! Go Judge Sewall! :banana:
 

LawrenceU

Puritan Board Doctor
Randy,

Ahem. . .Randall. No offense taken at all.

The azaleas were absolutely stunning for about four days. Then we had a frog choker of a storm and all the blooms fell. From what is putting out buds this year it may be one of the best ever. Come on down and we can drive around and then go eat at Ed's!
 

FrozenChosen

Puritan Board Freshman
I think this is a good topic. I have yet to take a history course at Auburn about the Civil War, but rest assured I will.

If anyone has a chance, rent The Last Samurai. It is a brilliant movie about not giving in to a greater opponent because your values demand more. In a deleted scene, Tom Cruise's character Captain Algren even makes a reference to the South, and how foolish it was for them to waste their lives in a fight against the North. The Samurai leader, Katsumoto (played by Ken Watanabe) displays his approval for the South's loyalty to their virtue and honor, and declares that their deaths were good deaths (i.e. not in vain). Very cool deleted scene.

Oh, and that is a very excellent article Andrew. Thank you for sharing it with us.

[Edited on 27-11-2004 by FrozenChosen]
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
Unfortunately Lawrence, my name is truly Randy and not Randall. Most people don't know what it means, so I don't care. Plus if it ever becomes annoying I can land on Martin. I have never been to Ed's but I use to go to Wolf Bay even though I hate Seafood. My family loves that place. I do hope to return someday. I love LA. It was one of my main retreat places. I have read and studied some of my most memorable books there. I loved the Pensacola Bible radio stations music. Every else where I have lived only plays that contemporary stuff that I have never truly liked. God Bless Lower Alabama! :candle:

[Edited on 11-28-2004 by puritancovenanter]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top