Dodo_David said:
Back in college, I took a class in U.S. history from the beginning of European settlement in North America to the end of the U.S. Civil War.
In the class, I learned that the southern English colonies were establish primarily for the purpose of economic gain.
The northern colonies were established primarily for the purpose of providing liberty to the settlers, especially religious liberty.
While slavery was permitted in all colonies during the time of English rule, slavery fell out of favor in the northern colonies because its inhabitants considered slavery to conflict with their religious beliefs. Being true to God's instructions was more important to them than pursuing economic gain.
When, in 1776, the USA's founding fathers were discussing their plan to declare independence from England, those from the northern colonies wanted to openly criticize King George III for permitting the continuation of slavery in the colonies. However, such an open rebuke of slavery would have been counterproductive at the time, because the northern colonies needed the cooperation of the southern colonies for any pursuit of independence to succeed.
It was only after the USA secured its independence from England that northern politicians began pressing for limitations to slavery.
Firstly, I personally am anti-slavery.
Secondly, one must understand that the 'victors get to write the history'. And that means whatever Civil War history class you took, it was predominantly a northern view and not necessarily containing all the facts (which is strongly evidenced especially by the blatant propaganda of northern newspapers at the time of the Civil War and thereafter).
Slavery was a British institution. That's how it began in the early American colonies, and not just in the South but actually first beginning in the North, the first slaves brought in via Massachusettes and New York.
In the Lincoln-Douglas debates when Lincoln was running for President, Lincoln himself stated that he had no aim to abolish slavery (see the Lincoln/Douglas debates).
Slavery was still going on in some northern areas also when the Civil War began. It was NOT the main issue that began the Civil War. Only a small percentage of the southern people actually owned slaves. Those were mostly plantation owners, and by no means the majority of the southern peoples who were dirt poor. So the majority of the southern peoples would certainly not have gone to war over an issue like slavery that was practised by a southern minority of land and business owners. The main issues they claimed were States rights per the U.S. Constitution, and the economic inequalities pushed by northern powers upon the South.
After the Civil War had begun, and the southern states succeeded per rights in the U.S. Constitution given specifically to the States, and the first battles were sorely lost by Lincoln's original first army gathering, the northern politicians determined to stress the idea of slavery to give the war more of an emotional issue the northern peoples would be willing to fight for. The southerners were fighting for their land and homes, the northern troops had no such motivations. Up until that time, many of the northern peoples saw the war as a "rich man's war", and even burned down some of the draft houses in New York in protest.
To show the northern people the war was not really begun over the slave issue, many of the southern leaders, including Robert E. Lee, freed the slaves they had owned. This did nothing as the northern press propaganda against the south continued. Some of the Blacks actually fought for the Confederate side, a little know fact the northern propaganda machine has silenced.
A fact of history about the industrial style North and the agrarian South in that time is that the two peoples in general thought differently, and lived differently. They each had their own set of traditions based on their settlements. In the huge agricultural regions of the American colonies many white peoples left Europe to become indentured servants, serving a period of seven years under a master to pay for their passage and living to come to America (my ancestors were of these in Virginia colony in the early 1600's). So naturally peoples from Europe that were used to farming would flock to areas in the Southern colonies to do that work, and likewise with those who worked in cities in Europe flocking to the industrial areas of the American North.
Because of the rich cotton trade the agrarian South was doing with Europe, it began to progress with a more centralized group and power in the old South. In the North a group of powerful men in business tried to enforce penalties upon Southern trade with Europe, to force the South to trade with the North at the Northern business' whim, and their lower prices for goods in exchange for cotton and agrarian produce. Politicians, both Southern and Northern, fought over trying to create legislation to economically support their respective sides. THIS is actually what started the American Civll War, not the issue of slavery. Slavery only became a big issue for war support with Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation of 1863, which was given the third year after... the war had already been going on because the North was in grave danger of losing.
Futhermore, after the war had ended, with Reconstruction, literal control of the Southern states was by the U.S. Army, with Southern elected representatives and congressman not allowed to participate in their respective elected offices. Lot of legislation was passed in U.S. Congress and Senate without the elected Southern representation's presence or vote, which is illegal per the U.S. Constitution. Lot of today's abusive power in Washington would never have happened if those Southern representatives had been allowed to serve in their office they were elected for per the U.S. Constitution.
Rach said:
I don't know that i'd go as far as saying that slavery was 'accepted' by God. God gave commands to deal with many things man did...most of them sinful things. Just because he gave these rules, does not mean he accepted the act as just or right.
Also....you've been doing a lot of comparing between 'slavery' that was seen in the US, and the fact that we are slaves of Christ...we were bought with his blood.
I think what you really need to address, is how you can see a similarity between the two. In Christ we have been rescued. We have freedom...from sin, from condemnation, from human judgement. We have been adopted into his family. Yes we were 'bought with a price'....but always, always, underneath that, is grace...and grace says:
Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” (Matthew 11:28-30, ESV)
When compared with the slavery we saw throughout the world in the 1800's....well, there is no comparison. They were essentially reduced to livestock, with little or less rights than animals.
I do not doubt that there were Christians in the south. I'm sure that some actually treated their slaves with some dignity...but it would seem they were in the minority. Perhaps, as they'd grown up in such a culture, they did not give much thought to how the slaves were treated. This is shameful, really. I'm not saying that we are better Christians....clearly there could be things we are just shrugging away as not our concern...like the abortion issue, perhaps.
But my point is this....you need to stop putting the weight of your argument on the fact that we are servants to Christ. Being a slave to Christ gives us everything....being a slave in the 1800's took everything from them.
Many cases of letters written by slaves in the south to their slave owners thanking them for 'educating' them. Doing what? That's right, educating some of them that would later become the founders and leaders over Black Churches began in the South.
What many are missing by not taking a bird's eye view of the result of African slaves brought to America is that it involved God calling out a people among them that would come to The Gospel of Jesus Christ and then become leaders among their people here, and in other lands.
Otherwise, if they hadn't been brought here to the America's, even as slaves, what would they still be doing in Africa? Has it not been the Christian nations that brought civilized progress to many of those African nations? This is why I have huge loads of respect for the Black leaders in America that do not promote division and hatred towards whites because of the history of slavery. God eventually brought them out of it, just as He did with His chosen ones in Egypt. Yes, that's right, the children of Israel were once slaves themselves, in Egypt.
