AMERICA is to be renamed

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

That is a very unbiblical thing to say. The revelation of faith in Jesus Christ, true good, and true evil was delivered 2000 years ago. All sinners will stand before Jesus to be judged by an already revealed standard. Secular modernists argue the world is getting more moral over time. That isn't the biblical position at all though.

What you are getting at is correct, but are you certain it is incompatible with the statement, "Judging the past by the present is its own form of cultural appropriation"?

The modern world is all too ready to judge God's past actions by its standards, some of which are taken from God's word without credit and misapplied.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

They don't care about the statues. Their goal is to cause a big enough stink that some right wing group will retaliate with violence, so that the left wing agitators can claim victim status and support their media claims that everyone who isn't a peaceful communist like them are violent extremists. It’s all laughable.

Ahhh, so this is a planned conspiracy you say!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Actually, no. They were states in union. The Civil War established a lot more than slavery (to include establishing states roles and rights within this union). It resulted in a stronger federal government (pros and cons).

The history of the US includes the divisions wrought by the Civil War. The Unions position was that those states could not leave the union and therefore the Confederacy cannot be viewed as a force external to and against the US. They were stares legally within the Union (we apply the victor's conclusions here).

I do not care about the flags. I do not want to see the history reduced to racism. The Civil War was about more than the evil of slavery. And the evil of slavery was much more complicated than mere racism.

Then please explain to me what it was about if it was more than slavery?

 

[Steven Yeadon]

What you are getting at is correct, but are you certain it is incompatible with the statement, "Judging the past by the present is its own form of cultural appropriation"?

The modern world is all too ready to judge God's past actions by its standards, some of which are taken from God's word without credit and misapplied.

Modernism hates God and scripture, because He and His Word doesn't make sense to their already in error beliefs and culture. One based on the tenets of a Modern Society. I am declaring war on the whole show through attacks on its guiding principles. That's why I said what I did.

Now Confederate statues have to be dealt with in wisdom. We should engage people in discussion about why they want them or why they think they should go. Problem is the Baptist Board is not diverse, not in person, and quite polemical. So not the place to do that.

 

[Rob_BW]

Ahhh, so this is a planned conspiracy you say!

It's standard operating procedures that we've seen in use ever since the end of WWII, if not earlier.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

It's standard operating procedures that we've seen in use ever since the end of WWII, if not earlier.

You are reaching.

 

[HankD]

Modernism hates God and scripture, because He and His Word doesn't make sense to their already in error beliefs and culture. One based on the tenets of a Modern Society. I am declaring war on the whole show through attacks on its guiding principles. That's why I said what I did.

yes modernism or rightfully named - modern secular humanism, the end product of globalism, the religion of the antichrist.

if it is truly here then there is no way to fight it except by not participating in it - BABYLON.
Jesus will come soon and take care of it,

 

[Rob_BW]

You are reaching.

You're the one labeling things as a conspiracy. I'm not reaching for anything. You're trying to push what's apparent back into the realm of conspiracy theory. As if the left wing in America isn't taking the lessons learned from the European and South American left. As if China isn't providing "aid" to these left wing factions when they get into power.

Made in China, Exported to the World: The Surveillance State

Granted, America is a larger mouthful to chew than a Bolivia. But the same tactic we saw in Bolivia over the last 2 years are the same being used in America.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You're the one labeling things as a conspiracy. I'm not reaching for anything. You're trying to push what's apparent back into the realm of conspiracy theory. As if the left wing in America isn't taking the lessons learned from the European and South American left. As if China isn't providing "aid" to these left wing factions when they get into power.

Made in China, Exported to the World: The Surveillance State

Granted, America is a larger mouthful to chew than a Bolivia. But the same tactic we saw in Bolivia over the last 2 years are the same being used in America.

China has provided aid in the form of loans to Bush, BO and Trump... so tell me how this is left wing. BTW, these cameras are already evident in our neighborhoods. Where did they come from?

 

[JonC]

Then please explain to me what it was about if it was more than slavery?

It was about slavery. It was about states rights and the nature of the union. It was about economics.

And slavery was not merely racism (we have to remember that black people had also owned black slaves in America). It was racism. It was a caste system. It was economic dependency.

My point is today people try to oversimplify our history.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

It was about slavery. It was about states rights and the nature of the union. It was about economics.

And slavery was not merely racism (we have to remember that black people had also owned black slaves in America). It was racism. It was a caste system. It was economic dependency.

My point is today people try to oversimplify our history.

I can Simplify it even more .... in a word that war, as well as any war is about profits, was nothing else but profits. God, youse guys are always gripin about liberals, Democrats, pansies, Marxists blah blah blah. When the heck are we (in the USA) going to wake up and be a committed capitalist society for Pete’s sake!

So let’s follow this reasoning, if you kill off slavery and the South doesn’t have the big factories and the businessmen, where did that leave the South? The south was agrarian (think plantations sized) where gentlemen farmers and ranchers prospered through slave labor. So if a war happens the Northerners and carpetbaggers can come in and take advantage and make healthy profits. That’s why the DuPonts were selling gunpowder at a good profit... to both sides! So ya stuff the turkey and ya get fat on the dinner with allot of leftovers.

So let’s advance this to our lives. Our economy is ruined, what can America do to kick start it... may I suggest start a war... pick your commie...any commie country.

And do it quick, I need to make some serious money to get outa this hole.

 

[JonC]

I can Simplify it even more .... in a word that war, as well as any war is about profits, was nothing else but profits. God, youse guys are always gripin about liberals, Democrats, pansies, Marxists blah blah blah. When the heck are we (in the USA) going to wake up and be a committed capitalist society for Pete’s sake!

So let’s follow this reasoning, if you kill off slavery and the South doesn’t have the big factories and the businessmen, where did that leave the South? The south was agrarian (think plantations sized) where gentlemen farmers and ranchers prospered through slave labor. So if a war happens the Northerners and carpetbaggers can come in and take advantage and make healthy profits. That’s why the DuPonts were selling gunpowder at a good profit... to both sides! So ya stuff the turkey and ya get fat on the dinner with allot of leftovers.

So let’s advance this to our lives. Our economy is ruined, what can America do to kick start it... may I suggest start a war... pick your commie...any commie country.

And do it quick, I need to make some serious money to get outa this hole.

It was about economics but it was also about a caste system. Rich slave owners represented a minority of white southerners. It was also about government and the independence (or lack there of) of individual states. It was about laws and the authority of a federal government. It was about representation.

I believe the North was right about the nature of the Union. The North was right about slavery. But I believe the South had a more constitutional view of the authority of federal governance. I believe the South had some good points about the freedom and independence of states (however not to the extent they would hold).

 

[Eric B]

Actually, no. They were states in union. The Civil War established a lot more than slavery (to include establishing states roles and rights within this union). It resulted in a stronger federal government (pros and cons).

The history of the US includes the divisions wrought by the Civil War. The Unions position was that those states could not leave the union and therefore the Confederacy cannot be viewed as a force external to and against the US. They were stares legally within the Union (we apply the victor's conclusions here).

I do not care about the flags. I do not want to see the history reduced to racism. The Civil War was about more than the evil of slavery. And the evil of slavery was much more complicated than mere racism.

Then please explain to me what it was about if it was more than slavery?

It was about slavery. It was about states rights and the nature of the union. It was about economics.

And slavery was not merely racism (we have to remember that black people had also owned black slaves in America). It was racism. It was a caste system. It was economic dependency.

My point is today people try to oversimplify our history.

From these common quotes, it seems that racism (as the basis for slavery) was what the whole movement was about:

Alexander H. Stephens, vice president of the Confederate States from 1861 to 1865, and later governor of Georgia, in his famous "Cornerstone Speech", which

defended slavery as a fundamental and just result of the inferiority of the black race, explained the fundamental differences between the constitutions of the Confederacy and that of the United States, enumerated contrasts between U.S. and Confederate ideologies, and laid out the Confederacy's rationale for seceding from the U.S. In particular, he stated that "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition."

William T. Thompson ("Stainless Banner" version of the flag designer, or at least gave his input on it):

Our idea is simply to combine the present battle flag with a pure white standard sheet; our Southern cross, blue on a red field, to take the place on the white flag that is occupied by the blue union in the old United States flag or the St. George’s cross in the British flag. As a people, we are fighting to maintain the heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race; a white flag would thus be emblematic of our cause.

Afterwards:

The flag as adopted is precisely the same as that suggested by us a short time since, and it is, in our opinion, much more beautiful and appropriate than either the red and white bars or the white field and blue bar as first adopted by the senate. As a national emblem it is significant of our higher cause the cause of the superior race, and a higher civilization contending against ignorance, infidelity and barbarism.

“Declaration of the Causes Which Impel the State of Texas to Secede From the Federal Union”:

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

Benning, general who, after he helped get his home state of Georgia to secede, made the following argument to the Virginia legislature:

What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction . . . that a separation from the North was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery. . . . If things are allowed to go on as they are, it is certain that slavery is to be abolished. . . . By the time the North shall have attained the power, the black race will be in a large majority, and then we will have black governors, black legislatures, black juries, black everything. . . . The consequence will be that our men will be all exterminated or expelled to wander as vagabonds over a hostile Earth, and as for our women, their fate will be too horrible to contemplate even in fancy.

And yes, slavery was economic (the big business of the times), and naturally, it would become an issue of "states rights". It's now being pointed out how "race" was in fact conceived and being used to justify the "business"! That doesn't make either issue any less important.
It doesn't matter whether slavery was "the only issue"; it was indelibly woven into everything. So it's not "reducing" anything to point this out; it's reducing something to say "oh, that was just one minor issue among other more important stuff", as some seem to argue.

So these things are naturally offensive to people, just like abortion and the other "moral" issues are offensive to others (including some who are offended by both). Both violate the commandments of God (Matt.7:12), yet removal of the former is being equated with the moral issues, and it's the devil, and just a conspiracy by those trying to pitch Communism, etc. (which is all the same stuff people said about King, yet now many conservatives claim to respect him). The Devil was just as active back then! Even if there were/are people getting involved with an ulterior agenda like that, it doesn't change the fact of what these people themselves said they represented.

 

[JonC]

Race was involved, but that was not the basis for slavery. The basis for slavery was the need of (or preceived need of) slaves. Black men were the ones who enslaved other black men, sold them to slavers who sold them to slave owners. Slave owners did not but slaves because of racism. They purchased slaves as labor.

Similarly, the 3/5 law declaring a black man less than human was not racism at its base. Southerners did not like thus law. They wanted black men to count as a human being. Northerners did not want them to count at all. The 3/5 rule was a compromise.

Northerners did not want black men to be counted as human beings because it would give Southern states a greater representation.

Boiling down these things to racism us too simplistic. Racism certainly was involved on all sides (the North and the South). But it is not all not encompassing.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Race was involved, but that was not the basis for slavery. The basis for slavery was the need of (or preceived need of) slaves. Black men were the ones who enslaved other black men, sold them to slavers who sold them to slave owners. Slave owners did not but slaves because of racism. They purchased slaves as labor.

Similarly, the 3/5 law declaring a black man less than human was not racism at its base. Southerners did not like thus law. They wanted black men to count as a human being. Northerners did not want them to count at all. The 3/5 rule was a compromise.

Northerners did not want black men to be counted as human beings because it would give Southern states a greater representation.

Boiling down these things to racism us too simplistic. Racism certainly was involved on all sides (the North and the South). But it is not all not encompassing.

when I read this morning that Robert E. Lee, a slave owner thru his wife’s family had slave families split up and sold off I was a tad dejected. Then to read that they were ordered flogged, well it changed my opinion of the man and got me thinking that if Lee could meet out 50 lashes filled by pouring brine on the wounds then what were others who could treat slaves ( and consider them Christian ) do!

 

[JonC]

when I read this morning that Robert E. Lee, a slave owner thru his wife’s family had slave families split up and sold off I was a tad dejected. Then to read that they were ordered flogged, well it changed my opinion of the man and got me thinking that if Lee could meet out 50 lashes filled by pouring brine on the wounds then what were others who could treat slaves ( and consider them Christian ) do!

It goes deeper.

Think of George Whitfield's pro-slavery stance.

Read Gronniosaw's Narrative (Gronniosaw is the first black writer published in England). Calvinists and the Dutch Reformed viewed slavery as beneficial (black men were among those who shared this view).

It is a fascinating topic.

 

[Eric B]

Race was involved, but that was not the basis for slavery. The basis for slavery was the need of (or preceived need of) slaves. Black men were the ones who enslaved other black men, sold them to slavers who sold them to slave owners. Slave owners did not but slaves because of racism. They purchased slaves as labor.

Similarly, the 3/5 law declaring a black man less than human was not racism at its base. Southerners did not like thus law. They wanted black men to count as a human being. Northerners did not want them to count at all. The 3/5 rule was a compromise.

Northerners did not want black men to be counted as human beings because it would give Southern states a greater representation.

Boiling down these things to racism us too simplistic. Racism certainly was involved on all sides (the North and the South). But it is not all not encompassing.

From those quotes, it was more than simply “involved”. They're saying that was their whole “foundation”!
Africans may have sold other Africans into slavery, and everyone knows others had slavery (including today), but that was simply normal subjugation of tribes who lost a war. They did not build a whole philosophy, genetic theory or religion (“curse of Canaan”, etc.) that dehumanized the enslaved groups. If it were just owership and not the other stuff, you probably wouldn't have the same outcry against slavery today, nor the fight to end it. It's also known that some slavers was what was known as “indentured servanthood”, which met the need for labor, and they would gain their freedom after awhile. But what we see in those quotes clearly is a premise of permanent natural inferiority that they themselves said was their whole basis.

As for who was behind the 3/5 clause, we all know both sides believed the blacks were inferior. It seems nearly everyone did. But the South was the one pushing to maintain more overt subjugation.

 

[JonC]

From those quotes, it was more than simply “involved”. They're saying that was their whole “foundation”!
Africans may have sold other Africans into slavery, and everyone knows others had slavery (including today), but that was simply normal subjugation of tribes who lost a war. They did not build a whole philosophy, genetic theory or religion (“curse of Canaan”, etc.) that dehumanized the enslaved groups. If it were just owership and not the other stuff, you probably wouldn't have the same outcry against slavery today, nor the fight to end it. It's also known that some slavers was what was known as “indentured servanthood”, which met the need for labor, and they would gain their freedom after awhile. But what we see in those quotes clearly is a premise of permanent natural inferiority that they themselves said was their whole basis.

As for who was behind the 3/5 clause, we all know both sides believed the blacks were inferior. It seems nearly everyone did. But the South was the one pushing to maintain more overt subjugation.

I disagree with the conclusion. It is wrong because the ones who enslaved the black men were black men and black men owned slaves as well. Racism was, obviously, essential (for slavery to exist the slave owner had to view the slave as inferior). But racism was not the cause of slavery (people did not stumble upon a black guy and say "hey, he's another race.... Let's make him a slave and see if that will help our personal economies".

The 3/5 law was the same. It was the racism of the North (it was the North taking advantage of a race for their benefit). But race, again, was not the cause.

 

[Revmitchell]

From those quotes, it was more than simply “involved”. They're saying that was their whole “foundation”!
Africans may have sold other Africans into slavery, and everyone knows others had slavery (including today), but that was simply normal subjugation of tribes who lost a war. They did not build a whole philosophy, genetic theory or religion (“curse of Canaan”, etc.) that dehumanized the enslaved groups. If it were just owership and not the other stuff, you probably wouldn't have the same outcry against slavery today, nor the fight to end it. It's also known that some slavers was what was known as “indentured servanthood”, which met the need for labor, and they would gain their freedom after awhile. But what we see in those quotes clearly is a premise of permanent natural inferiority that they themselves said was their whole basis.

As for who was behind the 3/5 clause, we all know both sides believed the blacks were inferior. It seems nearly everyone did. But the South was the one pushing to maintain more overt subjugation.

Sooo....slavery in the US was worse than slavery that sold slaves to the US? Good grief

 

[Eric B]

I disagree with the conclusion. It is wrong because the ones who enslaved the black men were black men and black men owned slaves as well. Racism was, obviously, essential (for slavery to exist the slave owner had to view the slave as inferior). But racism was not the cause of slavery (people did not stumble upon a black guy and say "hey, he's another race.... Let's make him a slave and see if that will help our personal economies".

The 3/5 law was the same. It was the racism of the North (it was the North taking advantage of a race for their benefit). But race, again, was not the cause.

The point at this stage is not which caused which; slavery or racism, who sold who into slavery, or the 3/5th clause, etc. This is about the intentions of the Confederacy, and why that former regime and its emblems are offensive to people today.
In other words, it's racism (together with the slavery it intended to justify) as the basis of the Confederacy's desire to secede, not "racism as the basis [meaning "cause", as you seem to be taking it] of slavery" [see below]. They didn't care who started slavery; they just didn't want it to end, and had built a whole belief system to justify it (which would actually suggest your point "racism was not the cause"; it came afterward, as the effect). So that's not what's being argued against.

When the African merchants sold slaves, most captured in war, "At that time, there was no concept of being African – identity and loyalty were based on kinship or membership of a specific kingdom or society, rather than to the African continent." (The slave trade's effect on African societies - Implications of the slave trade for African societies - Higher History Revision - BBC Bitesize) It was once in Western captivity, that this thing called "race" became the deciding factor, and people discriminated against for it (whether by slavery, its replacement Jim Crow or anything else).
That's what I meant by "racism as the basis of slavery"; "basis" being not a timelike meaning of causation, but as the already established [by then] rationale (justification), that the people were inferior. The Confederates weren't protesting "We bought those slaves from the African merchants, and [no matter who they are], taking this property from us is just one of other more important things we are seceding over". What they said was was that "we are fighting to maintain the heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race", and "the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition".

So no; no one here is saying "racism" came first; nor does it make a difference at this point.