AMERICA is to be renamed

[JonC]

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.

But it is the same. The Confederacy was not instituted because of racism. It was instituted because of the area's economic dependency on slavery.

The problem is the US inherited a system of slavery from England (slavery was legal). Slavery did not exist because of racism, but it existed because black men provided other black men as slaves to slave traders who wanted to make a profit by selling these slaves to white men who wanted to invest in a sustainable and all things considered cheap means of labor so the institution of slavery became an economic necessity for one area of the nation.

It was not about racism. Northern white men were just as racist as Southern white men. The difference was a dependence on slavery.

Where racism comes into play is after the emancipation as systemic racism (racism in the actual system of government against a people not because they are slaves but because of their race) is enacted.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

I hope we can all agree that the Confederacy rebelled for foolish and ungodly reasons.

That state supremacy over federal authority, slavery, racial superiority, or the need to reimagine the Southern economy are not worth rebelling against God-given authorities and the slaughters of the Civil War. We come to the table to talk instead, without threat of violence.

That the terrible lovelessness of supposedly Christian slave owners to Christian Brethren who were slaves is reprobate to the commands of scripture.

That, as the Battle Hymn of our Republic alludes to, God was against the Southern rebellion and they reaped what they sowed.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I hope we can all agree that the Confederacy rebelled for foolish and ungodly reasons.

That state supremacy over federal authority, slavery, racial superiority, or the need to reimagine the Southern economy are not worth rebelling against God-given authorities and the slaughters of the Civil War. We come to the table to talk instead, without threat of violence.

That the terrible lovelessness of supposedly Christian slave owners to Christian Brethren who were slaves is reprobate to the commands of scripture.

That, as the Battle Hymn of our Republic alludes to, God was against the Southern rebellion and they reaped what they sowed.

If you want to look at it that way, then unfortunately but all too obviously, slavery was a national sin, not a regional one. The North was as guilty as the South by profiting from the slave trade and from slavery. And if you bother to look at the casualties, you will see that the North paid dearly for their own part in that sin, somewhat reminiscent of Judges 20. Lincoln seems painfully aware of this.

How many Union and Confederate soldiers died in the Civil War?
...
Six hundred thirty thousand Americans died in the conflict. As many as 25 percent of all Southern soldiers may have died. The North actually suffered more war deaths, almost three men for every two lost by the South.
...

Civil War Casualties
...

"Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”


--Abraham Lincoln, 2nd Inaugural Address
​

 

[JonC]

When we speak of renaming America..... Do we mean America or just the United States of America?

It seems strange that we would simply ignore our location....

 

[JonC]

I recommend Disunited States of America.

 

[Eric B]

But it is the same. The Confederacy was not instituted because of racism. It was instituted because of the area's economic dependency on slavery.

The problem is the US inherited a system of slavery from England (slavery was legal). Slavery did not exist because of racism, but it existed because black men provided other black men as slaves to slave traders who wanted to make a profit by selling these slaves to white men who wanted to invest in a sustainable and all things considered cheap means of labor so the institution of slavery became an economic necessity for one area of the nation.

It was not about racism. Northern white men were just as racist as Southern white men. The difference was a dependence on slavery.

Where racism comes into play is after the emancipation as systemic racism (racism in the actual system of government against a people not because they are slaves but because of their race) is enacted.

You're still not addressing those quotes, where Confederate leaders clearly stated what their purpose was in racial terms. You're still focusing on where slavery came from, (with a special emphasis on the blame blacks shared), and then the US slaveowners' motives basically become colorblind (it was the preexisting system of slavery and nothing else, and it all came to them from other people anyway, like they were just unbiased beneficiaries). And now, color-based “racism“ only came later on. The same beliefs that drove the hatred after emancipation stemmed from before emancipation and are what were expressed by the Confederate leaders.
As for the North, again, no one is saying they weren't racist. What you're saying about the South being dependent on slavery is not being disputed. If you say the stuff they said in quotes was just to justify slavery, well that's to some what I've been saying. But they had truly taken on those feelings, and expressed and defended them passionately.

 

[JonC]

You're still not addressing those quotes, where Confederate leaders clearly stated what their purpose was in racial terms. You're still focusing on where slavery came from, (with a special emphasis on the blame blacks shared), and then the US slaveowners' motives basically become colorblind (it was the preexisting system of slavery and nothing else, and it all came to them from other people anyway, like they were just unbiased beneficiaries). And now, color-based “racism“ only came later on. The same beliefs that drove the hatred after emancipation stemmed from before emancipation and are what were expressed by the Confederate leaders.
As for the North, again, no one is saying they weren't racist. What you're saying about the South being dependent on slavery is not being disputed. If you say the stuff they said in quotes was just to justify slavery, well that's to some what I've been saying. But they had truly taken on those feelings, and expressed and defended them passionately.

I grant racism was a large factor. A slave owner needed to view the slave as different from him.

Do you believe apart from economic dependence on slavery that slavery would have existed?

 

[Eric B]

Of course; slavery was ancient, and basically a convenience. Almost free labor (aside from how much it cost to provide food, clothing and shelter).
Again, no one is denying that, so I don't know why we're staying in this point. The issue is, that people took the institution and at this point felt the need to construct a justification for it and fight for it vigorously.

 

[JonC]

Of course; slavery was ancient, and basically a convenience. Almost free labor (aside from how much it cost to provide food, clothing and shelter).
Again, no one is denying that, so I don't know why we're staying in this point. The issue is, that people took the institution and at this point felt the need to construct a justification for it and fight for it vigorously.

Yes. Of course some people took the institution and felt the need to construct a justification for it. These included necessity, the inferiority of race, the "benefit" or slavery, and many other things.

I already spoke on this. The Dutch Reformed justified the institution of slavery because they viewed it as a benefit. George Whitefield justified slavery because it "saved" black men from paganism. Black intellectuals justified slavery for strengthening society. Poor white people who never owned slaves justified slavery as it elevated them in the Southern caste system. Slave owners justified slavery because it was economically necessary and black men were less than they were. The North justified considering black men less than human because it gave the North more representation in the Union.

This involved racism. But we CANNOT boil down the institution of slavery to racism. The cause was not the race of the people enslaved. To simplify slavery as racism (primarily or basically) is to ignore history and to ignore the problems associated with the Civil War.

Even more than racism, slavery was sin.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

... "Judging the past by the present is its own form of cultural appropriation." ...
https://archives.frontpagemag.com/fpm/will-left-rename-america-daniel-greenfield

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. I say this irregardless of the debate and vandalism of civil war statues.

Did you read the article? That reaction doesn't seem to grasp the concept. It seems to miss the point altogether and then sort of remake it.

So what is the point? Namely that we dare not imagine we are in a position to condemn those of past generations based on our own perceptions as though we are better, more moral than they simply because we are not committing their particular sins in the same way they did. It could be that we are worse. Certainly the Left is—much worse.

 

[Eric B]

Yes. Of course some people took the institution and felt the need to construct a justification for it. These included necessity, the inferiority of race, the "benefit" or slavery, and many other things.

I already spoke on this. The Dutch Reformed justified the institution of slavery because they viewed it as a benefit. George Whitefield justified slavery because it "saved" black men from paganism. Black intellectuals justified slavery for strengthening society. Poor white people who never owned slaves justified slavery as it elevated them in the Southern caste system. Slave owners justified slavery because it was economically necessary and black men were less than they were. The North justified considering black men less than human because it gave the North more representation in the Union.

This involved racism. But we CANNOT boil down the institution of slavery to racism. The cause was not the race of the people enslaved. To simplify slavery as racism (primarily or basically) is to ignore history and to ignore the problems associated with the Civil War.

Even more than racism, slavery was sin.

Still, racism and slavery had become completely intertwined in the US, by those who've clearly stated fighting for both. So whether one is “reduced” or “simplified” to just the other, this is why people are against the Confederacy today.

So what is the point? Namely that we dare not imagine we are in a position to condemn those of past generations based on our own perceptions as though we are better, more moral than they simply because we are not committing their particular sins in the same way they did. It could be that we are worse. Certainly the Left is—much worse.

Then why do we often judge the current generations by the past ones? (The whole point behind MAGA, and much preaching on “morality” over the centuries). When people take all the stuff the Left, the “godless” , etc. do and say “it's just the times”, we condemn it as “relativism”, saying “God changes not”. It seems to be assumed that the people of the past followed God more, and then the nation “turned” from this (hence, we should go “back”). But we see these areas where they had done a lot of evil, and we say “don't judge them; it was just the times”! If we ackniwledge it was wrong and unscriptural now, then it was wrong and unscriptural back then too, whether they realized it or not, just like whether the modern generations realize sin today or not.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Then why do we often judge the current generations by the past ones? (The whole point behind MAGA, and much preaching on “morality” over the centuries). When people take all the stuff the Left, the “godless” , etc. do and say “it's just the times”, we condemn it as “relativism”, saying “God changes not”. It seems to be assumed that the people of the past followed God more, and then the nation “turned” from this (hence, we should go “back”). But we see these areas where they had done a lot of evil, and we say “don't judge them; it was just the times”! If we ackniwledge it was wrong and unscriptural now, then it was wrong and unscriptural back then too, whether they realized it or not, just like whether the modern generations realize sin today or not.

The point is that you don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater, or poke at motes in the eyes of others when you have logs in your own, yet that is precisely what the Left is about. They want to destroy the good foundations of society, not improve upon them.

Make America Great Again is not in the least about re-establishing slavery or even excusing it—that is utter nonsense. It is about embracing what is good about America, and there is a lot of good from the past that everyone benefits from, including the eradication of slavery and increased opportunity for all.

People from all over the world want to come here for the opportunities. Leftist policies would destroy those opportunities—they are clueless about how those opportunities are created.

 

[JonC]

Still, racism and slavery had become completely intertwined in the US, by those who've clearly stated fighting for both. So whether one is “reduced” or “simplified” to just the other, this is why people are against the Confederacy today.

Then why do we often judge the current generations by the past ones? (The whole point behind MAGA, and much preaching on “morality” over the centuries). When people take all the stuff the Left, the “godless” , etc. do and say “it's just the times”, we condemn it as “relativism”, saying “God changes not”. It seems to be assumed that the people of the past followed God more, and then the nation “turned” from this (hence, we should go “back”). But we see these areas where they had done a lot of evil, and we say “don't judge them; it was just the times”! If we ackniwledge it was wrong and unscriptural now, then it was wrong and unscriptural back then too, whether they realized it or not, just like whether the modern generations realize sin today or not.

Of course they became intertwined during that period. BUT they should not be confused during this period.

Racism was more a problem after slavery was abolished. Systemic racism existed not only in former Confederate states but nation wide. Democrats point to slavery to create a false narrative, but racism flourished because of Democrat agendas that implemented systemic racism. They were overturned in 1964. Still racism exists.

But it is a sin, IMHO, to try to link racism back to slavery. The two issues are related, but they are not interdependent (slavery did necessitate a sense of racism, but racism never necessitated slavery). The racism of the mid to late 20th century was not in any way tied to slavery.

The problems associated with slavery did, of course, have far reaching effects. BUT not as much as the problems related to the systemic racism Democrats fought to implement and still fight to maintain.

Even today we see this issue. Affirmative action continues in many ways, and the result is always to place minority groups under white people (they have the same degrees but are sometimes expected to have earned their degrees by virtue of race rather than competency; they hold positions of leadership, but are sometimes assumed to be in those positions by virtue of race rather than ability).

My point is that looking to slavery is looking past the problem that the US faces today. It misses the point entirely and just becomes a focal point for entitlement and victim-hood.

If you want to see the real problem of the consequences of race in our nation then look to the Democrat Party and their platform, their actions, their policies, their ideologies from the 1940 to the present. That is why racism exists even though systemic racism against minorities has been eliminated.

 

[Eric B]

The point is that you don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater, or poke at motes in the eyes of others when you have logs in your own, yet that is precisely what the Left is about. They want to destroy the good foundations of society, not improve upon them.

Make America Great Again is not in the least about re-establishing slavery or even excusing it—that is utter nonsense. It is about embracing what is good about America, and there is a lot of good from the past that everyone benefits from, including the eradication of slavery and increased opportunity for all.

People from all over the world want to come here for the opportunities. Leftist policies would destroy those opportunities—they are clueless about how those opportunities are created.

I think both sides tend to poke at the motes in the other's eyes while ignoring the logs in their own. All generations are equally sinful, and as apart of that will ignore one set of sins and focus on certain limited virtues they hold but the other is seen as lacking in. The whole definition of “conservative” and “liberal” is either conserving the previous set of values, or 'liberating' from them and adopting new ones. Again, both sides contain virtues that may have been held and evils ignored at one point and both set aside later; or virtues ignored before, and rediscovered later, while sins (and percieved sins that weren't always so) that were shunned before were now accepted. So yes, this involved “throwing the baby out with the bathwater”, but I think the people pledging allegiance to divine absolutes should know better than to get into this “the generation/century/political wing/party that held our values is better than yours” game.
I never actually said MAGA was about slavery; I said it was about judging the modern society by past values, which is precisely how you're using it. But if you uphold these “foundations” like they are a standard in themselves, to judge but not be 'judged' by this horrible 'godless' modern generation where everything is apparently wrong, then people wilh think it implies that they must have been right about that other stuff as well. That's why people are opposing these things.

Of course they became intertwined during that period. BUT they should not be confused during this period.

Racism was more a problem after slavery was abolished. Systemic racism existed not only in former Confederate states but nation wide. Democrats point to slavery to create a false narrative, but racism flourished because of Democrat agendas that implemented systemic racism. They were overturned in 1964. Still racism exists.

But it is a sin, IMHO, to try to link racism back to slavery. The two issues are related, but they are not interdependent (slavery did necessitate a sense of racism, but racism never necessitated slavery). The racism of the mid to late 20th century was not in any way tied to slavery.

The problems associated with slavery did, of course, have far reaching effects. BUT not as much as the problems related to the systemic racism Democrats fought to implement and still fight to maintain.

Even today we see this issue. Affirmative action continues in many ways, and the result is always to place minority groups under white people (they have the same degrees but are sometimes expected to have earned their degrees by virtue of race rather than competency; they hold positions of leadership, but are sometimes assumed to be in those positions by virtue of race rather than ability).

My point is that looking to slavery is looking past the problem that the US faces today. It misses the point entirely and just becomes a focal point for entitlement and victim-hood.

If you want to see the real problem of the consequences of race in our nation then look to the Democrat Party and their platform, their actions, their policies, their ideologies from the 1940 to the present. That is why racism exists even though systemic racism against minorities has been eliminated.

Still, those confederate leaders themselves tied the two issues together, and not jumt after emancipation. And what happened is that thepeople RESENTED the forces (North, Left liberals, etc.) forcing change (and whether those forces wer 'racist' themselves or not). THAT's why racism went into the next century to the present. It's largely resentment that something has been 'taken' from tham and given to these 'undeserving' peoole. You and others are making it all aboot one 'PARTY', but that is what's oversimplifying it, as qell as isolating and splitting all evil off onto some “others, over there”

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I think both sides tend to poke at the motes in the other's eyes while ignoring the logs in their own. All generations are equally sinful, and as apart of that will ignore one set of sins and focus on certain limited virtues they hold but the other is seen as lacking in. The whole definition of “conservative” and “liberal” is either conserving the previous set of values, or 'liberating' from them and adopting new ones. Again, both sides contain virtues that may have been held and evils ignored at one point and both set aside later; or virtues ignored before, and rediscovered later, while sins (and percieved sins that weren't always so) that were shunned before were now accepted. So yes, this involved “throwing the baby out with the bathwater”, but I think the people pledging allegiance to divine absolutes should know better than to get into this “the generation/century/political wing/party that held our values is better than yours” game.
I never actually said MAGA was about slavery; I said it was about judging the modern society by past values, which is precisely how you're using it. But if you uphold these “foundations” like they are a standard in themselves, to judge but not be 'judged' by this horrible 'godless' modern generation where everything is apparently wrong, then people wilh think it implies that they must have been right about that other stuff as well. That's why people are opposing these things.

I’ll skip much of what you said, because it’s just what I said, but you should understand that it is not what the Progressive Left is saying at all. MAGA is about building up and improving on the past.

The Progressive Left ignores the basic principles of life and liberty that can lead to better. The Left is not about discussion or debate, but about shouting down and drowning out all other voices.

The Progressive Left is about tearing down and destroying what was before, as though they have some sort of utopian perfection to replace it. It is a completely different concept, absolutely wrongheaded.

And they are not Liberal. Confusing them with that is a fundamental error.

 

[JonC]

I think both sides tend to poke at the motes in the other's eyes while ignoring the logs in their own. All generations are equally sinful, and as apart of that will ignore one set of sins and focus on certain limited virtues they hold but the other is seen as lacking in. The whole definition of “conservative” and “liberal” is either conserving the previous set of values, or 'liberating' from them and adopting new ones. Again, both sides contain virtues that may have been held and evils ignored at one point and both set aside later; or virtues ignored before, and rediscovered later, while sins (and percieved sins that weren't always so) that were shunned before were now accepted. So yes, this involved “throwing the baby out with the bathwater”, but I think the people pledging allegiance to divine absolutes should know better than to get into this “the generation/century/political wing/party that held our values is better than yours” game.
I never actually said MAGA was about slavery; I said it was about judging the modern society by past values, which is precisely how you're using it. But if you uphold these “foundations” like they are a standard in themselves, to judge but not be 'judged' by this horrible 'godless' modern generation where everything is apparently wrong, then people wilh think it implies that they must have been right about that other stuff as well. That's why people are opposing these things.
Still, those confederate leaders themselves tied the two issues together, and not jumt after emancipation. And what happened is that thepeople RESENTED the forces (North, Left liberals, etc.) forcing change (and whether those forces wer 'racist' themselves or not). THAT's why racism went into the next century to the present. It's largely resentment that something has been 'taken' from tham and given to these 'undeserving' peoole. You and others are making it all aboot one 'PARTY', but that is what's oversimplifying it, as qell as isolating and splitting all evil off onto some “others, over there”

If this is true then why was the actions of the North just as racist (in terms of policy)?

What I am saying is not that slavery was a good thing, or that racism did not exist, but that the issue is much more complex than simple and superficial treatment will allow.

Many in the South did view black people as human beings. Many as equal in worth as themselves. Even many slave owners spoke out against the "evils of slavery" (which I always found a bit odd). And in the North people were equally racist but their racism manifested itself differently.

But yes, there is a lot to be said about Southern states resenting other states forcing change. That is true and that probably contributed a lot to resistance.

That said, it is not right to take racism today back to slavery. It is dishonest. The reason is that (as we discussed) the issue goes back to black men selling other black men for profit. So the institution of slavery in the US is only half way back. But more important, it goes back TOO FAR. The issue is not what happened over a century ago. The issue is what from the 1930's forward.

You may not realize it but the Great Depression was a leveling factor. Those who make assumptions based on slavery use blinders. In all fairness, the black community today has benefited from slavery (based on the fact that life in America, even as bad as it apparently is here, is a better standard of living even for the poor than is tribal Africa). That does not mean slavery is a good thing. But it does mean that God uses all things for His glory and people need to realize the larger picture.

Today's racist ideas may have been instilled by a culture of resisting imposed change, but I do not think so. I believe this is human nature.

 

[JonC]

I've been thinking....how about "The Utopian States of Valhalla"?

Or is that too pagan?

 

[timtofly]

Don't forget the new slavery called migrant workers. We still refuse to hire citizens to work such task, because it is still considered cheap slave labor. Even technology prevents actual labor, because labor and technology are too fluid. Instead of being a self sustainable nation, we rely on globalization too much. We do not use capitalism to our advantage. We let socialist nations use capitalism against us. We are the capitalist slaves to the rest of the world. Not necessarily a bad thing. Being a servant is always better than being a master. Accept for slavery to sin, which is the worst condition to be in.

 

[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.

Jon, when you take away the dignity of a man, seperate his family, beat and humiliate him, treat him as properly ... sorry but that’s evil.

 

[JonC]

Jon, when you take away the dignity of a man, seperate his family, beat and humiliate him, treate

Yes. When you do all of that and sell him as property to slave traders who sell him as property to slave owners you are involved in evil (all involved).

But that, IMHO, does not justify reducing the issue to mere racism.

Black people say racist things about white guys all the time. But they are not putting us in chains. White people do the same, but they are not enslaving other men.

I am in no way minimalizing slavery. I am doing the opposite. I believe it more than racism.

Good men were involved. Black men defended slavery. Calvinists argued for slavery. The Dutch Reformed praised slavery. George Whitfield viewed slavery as a gift.

The evil of slavery was much deeper and much more substantial than racism. It was man turned inward, elevating himself over another not to downgrade the other but to elevate himself.