Actscelerate.com Forum Index Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
@actscelerate Twitter  @actscelerate Facebook  @actscelerate Google+ 

The Civil War was not about slavery, but was about...
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
   Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Acts-Celerate Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Message Author
Post The Civil War was not about slavery, but was about... Aaron Scott
The Civil War was not about slavery, but was about the SPREAD of slavery.

Lincoln was fine with slave states retaining slavery. He was absolutely opposed to the spread of slavery to new states or territories. But this ran afoul of the interests of wealthy planters who, both wanting and needing more land, were determined to move their slaves ever westward.

Cotton apparently depletes the soil more than many other crops. So planters needed new fields in which to plant/harvest cotton. Thus, there was something of a "need" for new land in which to grow cotton (and, subsequently, the need for, as they saw it, slaves to make it happen).

However, much of it was greed. Those who grew wealthy wanted more wealth. And those without wealth wanted more wealth, too. And in the southern mind, "cotton was king." Why plant cotton in this field this year, but in that field next year? Why not plant in BOTH of them?

I am not posting this to generate an argument, but to inform. I know there are other reasons that can be given for the War, but there is no reasonable cause that can be given that is not connected to slavery. It is the one thing that, left and right, north and south, can largely agree upon: to a greater or lesser extent, slavery was the sine qua non of the Civil War.
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5316
11/8/19 11:15 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Civil War was not about slavery, but was about... Resident Skeptic
Aaron Scott wrote:
The Civil War was not about slavery, but was about the SPREAD of slavery.

Lincoln was fine with slave states retaining slavery. He was absolutely opposed to the spread of slavery to new states or territories. But this ran afoul of the interests of wealthy planters who, both wanting and needing more land, were determined to move their slaves ever westward.

Cotton apparently depletes the soil more than many other crops. So planters needed new fields in which to plant/harvest cotton. Thus, there was something of a "need" for new land in which to grow cotton (and, subsequently, the need for, as they saw it, slaves to make it happen).

However, much of it was greed. Those who grew wealthy wanted more wealth. And those without wealth wanted more wealth, too. And in the southern mind, "cotton was king." Why plant cotton in this field this year, but in that field next year? Why not plant in BOTH of them?

I am not posting this to generate an argument, but to inform. I know there are other reasons that can be given for the War, but there is no reasonable cause that can be given that is not connected to slavery. It is the one thing that, left and right, north and south, can largely agree upon: to a greater or lesser extent, slavery was the sine qua non of the Civil War.


Mmm, let's examine this.

First, the "greed" factor. States further west (Louisiana, Texas) were seeing more cotton production while the old cotton states further east were in decline from soil depletion. West of Texas, where was there fertile ground for cotton?

Secondly, the "spread of slavery" was a term meant to mislead. Yes, the southern states felt somewhat entitled to the spoils of the Mexican War below the Missouri compromise line and to to the Pacific Ocean. But how many slaves would have actually migrated into those areas? A state carved out southern California might have been the main spot. There was one segment of the New Mexico territory where Congress allowed slaves to migrate. By 1860, slavery had been legal in that area for 10 years, and a whopping TWENTY-FOUR slaves had migrated there.

So what was the objection to the "spread of slavery" into the western territories? After all, the actual number of slaves would not have increased. Only their geographical placement would have changed. Was there a moral objection? Hardly. So what was it? The issue was the 3/5 clause of the Constitution. Three-fifths of all slaves were counted in Congressional representation. The creation of 2 or 3 new "slave states" would have meant more obstacles in Congress to northern economic policy. The 3/5 clause gave the Jeffersonian leaning southern states more Congressional power than they otherwise would have had.

At the 1814 Hartford Convention, the disgruntled New England states listed revising the 3/5 compromise as one of their demands. They did not want it to apply to any new states admitted into the Union. Massachusetts threatened to secede from the Union over the Louisiana Purchase because of the 3/5 clause. They were concerned about their power in Congress being watered down by the creation of states where 3/5 of the slaves would be counted in representation. Their Federalist Party dominance was waining and they did not like it.

The quarrel that resulted in the Missouri Compromise was over this very issue. One option put forth by the north was allowing the formation of new "slave states" provided the 3/5 clause did not apply to them. Thus, it was not about moral outrage over the institution itself. The greed factor works both ways. Mercantilism was the backbone of northern economic policy and the 3/5 clause hindered them from implementing it.

As for the war being about slavery. The war was over secession. Had the lower south been allowed to leave in peace, there is a good chance the upper south would have remained in the old Union. But the secession of just 7 states and their formation of a low tariff confederation brought the northern economy to its knees. There is your war.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI
Acts-dicted
Posts: 7950
11/9/19 7:58 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Dave Dorsey
I have family that fought in the Army of Tennessee. I am sure they did not believe they were fighting to preserve the institution of slavery or to spread it.

But it is inescapable that they were willingly, callously, cruelly, sinfully blind to the wickedness of chattel slavery all around them. It was a part of their life, and it was a part of their life because they did not view blacks as human (or at least not the same kind of human that they were). They did not view slavery as evil because they did not view blacks as people who are created in the image of God.

Did they believe they were fighting to preserve slavery? I am sure they did not. Was their fighting inseparable from the preservation of slavery? It absolutely was.

They were wicked men. Did they intend to be? I am sure they did not. But were they? Yes, without question and indefensibly so.
Now 67% friendlier!
Posts: 12949
11/9/19 9:02 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Cojak
This subject can and will be discussed, argued and fought over until the end of the ages. SMART people on all sides of the issue. I had folks on both sides in my lineage. BUT most from Georgia, poor dirt farm people who just didn't want to be told what they could and could not do.

Our problem is WE NONE OF US can travel back to KNOW. I know, yep I KNOW some declare to heavens they can. in my family there is a story of my great great uncle swapping some tobacco for a news paper with Union Soldier as they both stood midwatch after a battle. They even discussed the stupidity of what they were doing. The next day they were shooting at each other.

My youth was before Segregation ended in the South. You guys who look back on it WILL NEVER understand the thinking. I watched black students walking by the school I attended to go to THEIR school. My friends who were black and I just accepted that is the way it is. I do not remember discussing one time the right or wrong of it.

When I ate at the Davis's house Mammy would not let me sit at the table with them, She would say, "It ain't fittin' for whites and blacks to eat together." At my house the Davis kids ate at our table. No one questioned it. Segregation was a weird time but it was 'just how it was.'

It is hard to explain wars and slavery, "At the time for the poor folk, that is just how it was."

Any foolish person who says "WE NEED A CIVIL WAR," is ignorant and Myopic. The war was lost, there was stupidity on both sides and we lost more Americans than in many wars. I am amazed at men with seemingly sound mind what holds an automatic weapon and says, this time we will win. OUCH Shocked
_________________
Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011
Posts: 22997
11/9/19 10:51 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Resident Skeptic
Dave Dorsey wrote:
I have family that fought in the Army of Tennessee. I am sure they did not believe they were fighting to preserve the institution of slavery or to spread it.

But it is inescapable that they were willingly, callously, cruelly, sinfully blind to the wickedness of chattel slavery all around them. It was a part of their life, and it was a part of their life because they did not view blacks as human (or at least not the same kind of human that they were). They did not view slavery as evil because they did not view blacks as people who are created in the image of God.

Did they believe they were fighting to preserve slavery? I am sure they did not. Was their fighting inseparable from the preservation of slavery? It absolutely was.

They were wicked men. Did they intend to be? I am sure they did not. But were they? Yes, without question and indefensibly so.


Can you cite any writings where they did not regard blacks as human?

And I'm sorry, owning slaves does not necessarily make those in the past "wicked". It is this attitude more than any other that prevents unbiased historicism regarding this period. All other considerations regarding politics, economics, and the nature of the Union are eclipsed by our modern sense of moral outrage. One cannot be a scholar until they learn detachment.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI
Acts-dicted
Posts: 7950
11/9/19 12:47 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Dave Dorsey
Scripture gives us the standard for objective moral truth, and most people (much less followers of Christ) are able to recognize that torturous chattel slavery is objectively morally wicked -- period, full stop. In all eras, the sin of "that's just how it was", as Cojak aptly describes it, blinds people to the true wickedness of their deeds, which is why in my post I said I was sure they did not intend to be wicked, even though they were. Does God offer grace to us for our sinful ignorance? I am sure that He does.

But those who would defend the purveyors of chattel slavery today do not have that excuse.
Now 67% friendlier!
Posts: 12949
11/9/19 3:16 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Resident Skeptic
Dave Dorsey wrote:
Scripture gives us the standard for objective moral truth, and most people (much less followers of Christ) are able to recognize that torturous chattel slavery is objectively morally wicked -- period, full stop. In all eras, the sin of "that's just how it was", as Cojak aptly describes it, blinds people to the true wickedness of their deeds, which is why in my post I said I was sure they did not intend to be wicked, even though they were. Does God offer grace to us for our sinful ignorance? I am sure that He does.

But those who would defend the purveyors of chattel slavery today do not have that excuse.


I never "defended" their participation in the institution. I merely said that historical figures owning slaves does not automatically make them "wicked". But those I have studied, yes I defend THEM, not all their practices. I will not renounce our founders or my ancestors, north and south, who were slave owners. They were not wicked. Being slave owners does not define them as people. We are the only society in the free world suffering this mass delusion and self-loathing.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI
Acts-dicted
Posts: 7950
11/9/19 8:48 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Cojak
Dave Dorsey wrote:
.....said I was sure they did not intend to be wicked, even though they were. Does God offer grace to us for our sinful ignorance? I am sure that He does.

I think the above is a true fact., Cojak

But those who would defend the purveyors of chattel slavery today do not have that excuse.


That also if true. (me too!)

Now to the statement that blacks were not human, Yes many very ignorant people who knew only the King's English and maybe French or German thought the 'gibberish they heard from Africans was an 'animal language'. It is a fact, that many VERY IGNORANT PEOPLE did not understand the Africans truly had a language and many dialects.

In reference to that: I have met what I had considered intelligent people who thought just because a newly arrived 'foreign person' could not understand a simple 'American sentence', they were stupid. I heard a Mechanic say of a very good mech, "That idiot couldn't tune up a Briggs and Stratton, he can't even speak English!"

Yeah it is off subject. Sorry.

All my opinions aside, I have picked up a gem or so concerning the Civil War here. I know it was MUCH about state's rights, but the center of reasoning was Slavery itself.
JMHO (s) LOL Love you guys.
_________________
Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011
Posts: 22997
11/9/19 8:55 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Dave Dorsey
Resident Skeptic wrote:
They were not wicked. Being slave owners does not define them as people. We are the only society in the free world suffering this mass delusion and self-loathing.

It's truly tragic that there are still people today with this view of chattel slavery. I wish I could say it's unbelievable but I've seen enough of it to know it's not.

May God grant you mercy and grace to repent of this.
Now 67% friendlier!
Posts: 12949
11/9/19 9:05 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Resident Skeptic
Dave Dorsey wrote:
Resident Skeptic wrote:
They were not wicked. Being slave owners does not define them as people. We are the only society in the free world suffering this mass delusion and self-loathing.

It's truly tragic that there are still people today with this view of chattel slavery. I wish I could say it's unbelievable but I've seen enough of it to know it's not.

May God grant you mercy and grace to repent of this.


What I see as tragic is what you are attempting to do here. I never expressed a positive view of chattel slavery or defended it in any way. I wish I could say it's unbelievable but I've seen enough from you to know it's not.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI
Acts-dicted
Posts: 7950
11/10/19 6:56 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Dave Dorsey
I never said you did. But it is undeniable that you are defending its purveyors, as you have many times before.

If a young black man was a participant in a mob that attacked an elderly white man, you would have NO problem allowing that action to define him as a person. Anyone who has spent any time reading your posts on this forum will know that is true.

Yet you have nothing but excuses when it comes to the white southerners who held black families in bondage against their will, and tortured and maimed them if they tried to escape.


Last edited by Dave Dorsey on 11/10/19 7:12 am; edited 1 time in total
Now 67% friendlier!
Posts: 12949
11/10/19 7:10 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Resident Skeptic
Cojak wrote:
Dave Dorsey wrote:
.....said I was sure they did not intend to be wicked, even though they were. Does God offer grace to us for our sinful ignorance? I am sure that He does.

I think the above is a true fact., Cojak

But those who would defend the purveyors of chattel slavery today do not have that excuse.


That also if true. (me too!)

Now to the statement that blacks were not human, Yes many very ignorant people who knew only the King's English and maybe French or German thought the 'gibberish they heard from Africans was an 'animal language'. It is a fact, that many VERY IGNORANT PEOPLE did not understand the Africans truly had a language and many dialects.

In reference to that: I have met what I had considered intelligent people who thought just because a newly arrived 'foreign person' could not understand a simple 'American sentence', they were stupid. I heard a Mechanic say of a very good mech, "That idiot couldn't tune up a Briggs and Stratton, he can't even speak English!"

Yeah it is off subject. Sorry.

All my opinions aside, I have picked up a gem or so concerning the Civil War here. I know it was MUCH about state's rights, but the center of reasoning was Slavery itself.
JMHO (s) LOL Love you guys.


Dave said his slave-owning ancestors thought blacks were not human. He has not produced a shred of evidence to validate that claim. And while there may have been some slave owners in America that held to such views, they were the minority. After all, slave owners saw to it that the First Great Awakening impacted their slaves. Christ died for humans and slave owners would not have bothered to have the gospel shared with non-humans.

Actually, Enlightenment thinking affected slavery. Some saw the principles of the Enlightenment mandating the abolition of slavery. But Enlightenment advocates often had a low view of peoples and nations who were not advanced. They felt it was their duty to "help" these people. Thus, the Puritans used cruel means to "Enlighten" the Indians. Slave owners often felt slavery was a positive good towards the social evolution of blacks who they viewed as a savage race. We do not agree with such thinking now, but we cannot renounce those that did 400 years ago. We are doing to the Enlightenment generation what they did to past generations, looking down our noses at them. Future generations might do the same to us. All in all, I see an incredible, rapid evolution in America regarding equality and human rights. We did in 200 years what took older countries millennia to do and dragged those nations kicking and screaming along this path. So rather than be ashamed, I stand amazed.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI
Acts-dicted
Posts: 7950
11/10/19 7:10 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Dave Dorsey
Resident Skeptic wrote:
Thus, the Puritans used cruel means to "Enlighten" the Indians. Slave owners often felt slavery was a positive good towards the social evolution of blacks who they viewed as a savage race. We do not agree with such thinking now, but we cannot renounce those that did 400 years ago.

May God grant you mercy and grace to repent of this wickedness before you must face Him to answer for it.

By the way -- and I'm done with you after this -- I said "they did not view blacks as human (or at least not the same kind of human that they were)". Your own post describes in detail how they did not view this "savage race" as the same types of humans they were.

May God grant you mercy to repent. I sincerely hope and pray that He does and you do.
Now 67% friendlier!
Posts: 12949
11/10/19 7:13 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Resident Skeptic
Dave Dorsey wrote:
Resident Skeptic wrote:
Thus, the Puritans used cruel means to "Enlighten" the Indians. Slave owners often felt slavery was a positive good towards the social evolution of blacks who they viewed as a savage race. We do not agree with such thinking now, but we cannot renounce those that did 400 years ago.

May God grant you mercy and grace to repent of this wickedness before you must face Him to answer for it.

By the way -- and I'm done with you after this -- I said "they did not view blacks as human (or at least not the same kind of human that they were)". Your own post describes in detail how they did not view this "savage race" as the same types of humans they were.

May God grant you mercy to repent. I sincerely hope and pray that He does and you do.


You need help, Dave. Really, you do.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI
Acts-dicted
Posts: 7950
11/10/19 8:35 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Reformation Outcomes Mat
It seems to me that the end of slavery in nations influenced by the reformation was a logical outcome. Yes, slavery is as old as the Bible and as ingrained in history as the Adamic nature, but it flowed form the heart of fallen man. As the European nations and their colonies (Empires) progressed under the influence of the Reformation (and Enlightenment), the rights of man became more important the the right to own slaves.

Nations, like England, were able to move away from slavery without a civil war, whereas the USA was still in a formation stage. It was the concern of the slave states over the election of Lincoln that resulted in the Confederacy. No matter how you parse it, slavery became the driving issue for both the Union and the Confederacy. Who here today would not consider a nation (and there are some) which still practices slavery a civilized people?

Mat
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1740
11/10/19 8:40 am


View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Reply with quote
Post Re: Reformation Outcomes Dave Dorsey
Mat wrote:
Who here today would not consider a nation (and there are some) which still practices slavery a civilized people?

Excellent point. Really drives home how ludicrous it is to try to whitewash American slavery as some kind of twisted social good.

People like RS will quickly decry these nations as full of savages still today, while at the same time trying to excuse American slaveowners on the basis that it was African nations who originally captured and sold people into slavery -- never at any point realizing how deeply they are contradicting themselves.

Blacks who participate in slavery are cruel savages. Whites who participate are perhaps misguided, but ultimately trying to work social good on behalf of their slaves. Hmm. I wonder what could explain this difference in perspective?
Now 67% friendlier!
Posts: 12949
11/10/19 8:57 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Dave Dorsey
Black teens participating in a mob can have their lives completely defined based on that participation (see any number of threads RS has started here on this subject). But white slaveowners who imprison people against their will, force them to work, and torture them if they try to escape cannot be defined as people based on those actions (see RS post in this thread).

Again, I wonder, what could explain this strange difference in perspective?
Now 67% friendlier!
Posts: 12949
11/10/19 9:18 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Reformation Outcomes Resident Skeptic
Dave Dorsey wrote:
Mat wrote:
Who here today would not consider a nation (and there are some) which still practices slavery a civilized people?

Excellent point. Really drives home how ludicrous it is to try to whitewash American slavery as some kind of twisted social good.

People like RS will quickly decry these nations as full of savages still today, while at the same time trying to excuse American slaveowners on the basis that it was African nations who originally captured and sold people into slavery -- never at any point realizing how deeply they are contradicting themselves.

Blacks who participate in slavery are cruel savages. Whites who participate are perhaps misguided, but ultimately trying to work social good on behalf of their slaves. Hmm. I wonder what could explain this difference in perspective?


I don't need you to speak for me or put words in my mouth. What I have decried about the violence of black youths is the media establishment's refusal to identify race when blacks are the perpetrators and whites are the victims. Nice try, though. I have never hinted that blacks who commit violence define the whole community. You really should repent of your lying and see a counselor for your self-loathing.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI
Acts-dicted
Posts: 7950
11/10/19 12:25 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Reformation Outcomes Resident Skeptic
Mat wrote:
It seems to me that the end of slavery in nations influenced by the reformation was a logical outcome. Yes, slavery is as old as the Bible and as ingrained in history as the Adamic nature, but it flowed form the heart of fallen man. As the European nations and their colonies (Empires) progressed under the influence of the Reformation (and Enlightenment), the rights of man became more important the the right to own slaves.

Nations, like England, were able to move away from slavery without a civil war, whereas the USA was still in a formation stage. It was the concern of the slave states over the election of Lincoln that resulted in the Confederacy. No matter how you parse it, slavery became the driving issue for both the Union and the Confederacy. Who here today would not consider a nation (and there are some) which still practices slavery a civilized people?

Mat


It was MUCH, MUCH more complicated than how you explain it.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI
Acts-dicted
Posts: 7950
11/10/19 12:30 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Resident Skeptic
Question,

Should we condemn past nations who stoned people for adultery or homosexuality?
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI
Acts-dicted
Posts: 7950
11/10/19 12:31 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Acts-Celerate Post new topic   Reply to topic
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Acts-celerate Terms of Use | Acts-celerate Policy
World News Network | Acts-celerate Chat
Contact the Administrator.


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group :: Spelling by SpellingCow.