hillclimber
New Member
I agree with this sentiment, and believe that Lincoln turned to "free the slaves" as a much better war cry than "bring the states under federal control". That war was all about states rights and this nation lost that war.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
American Revolution
- Thread starter Phillip
- Start date
[inappriate use of the word "God" edited out] I CANNOT BELIEVE WHAT I AM HEARING
ON THIS BOARD..PURE REVISION...[unwarranted comments edited out]...AND I AM
SHOUTING LIKE JOHN THE BAPTIST ..A LONE
VOICE IN THIS WILDERNESS OF REVISIONISTS.
[ February 22, 2005, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: Phillip ]
ON THIS BOARD..PURE REVISION...[unwarranted comments edited out]...AND I AM
SHOUTING LIKE JOHN THE BAPTIST ..A LONE
VOICE IN THIS WILDERNESS OF REVISIONISTS.
[ February 22, 2005, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: Phillip ]
Bro. James Reed
"Blacks would have had civil rights in the south when the south decided to end slavery."
"
There is a whole range of possibilities between slavery and full civil rights and no reason to assume a complete and immediate transfer between them without outside pressure.
"the wealthy people of the south, those who owned slaves, would soon have realized that more money was to be made in factory jobs with skilled workers, not with slaves on plantations. Therefore, they would have pushed to end slavery and bring the south into the industrial revolution as well due to the money."
"
That was already rather obvious before the start of the war, the response at the time was to push for a more efficient way to harvest and process cotton instead of copying the industrial revolution taking place in the North.
"Slavery ended all over the world very peacably."
"
When it comes to the USA what happens elsewhere in the world for good or ill has proven to be of little relevance.
There is a distinct possibility that the memberstates of the CSA would have degenerated into something like the middle american bananarepublics..
Scott J
"but it is worth noting that the cultures of Africa accepted slavery. The American Indians were tried first but made poor slaves."
"
It is also worth noting that the reason the indians made lousy slaves was that in the period they were 'tested' they dropped like flies because they were being exposed to diseases that were completely new to them.
"Blacks would have had civil rights in the south when the south decided to end slavery."
"
There is a whole range of possibilities between slavery and full civil rights and no reason to assume a complete and immediate transfer between them without outside pressure.
"the wealthy people of the south, those who owned slaves, would soon have realized that more money was to be made in factory jobs with skilled workers, not with slaves on plantations. Therefore, they would have pushed to end slavery and bring the south into the industrial revolution as well due to the money."
"
That was already rather obvious before the start of the war, the response at the time was to push for a more efficient way to harvest and process cotton instead of copying the industrial revolution taking place in the North.
"Slavery ended all over the world very peacably."
"
When it comes to the USA what happens elsewhere in the world for good or ill has proven to be of little relevance.
There is a distinct possibility that the memberstates of the CSA would have degenerated into something like the middle american bananarepublics..
Scott J
"but it is worth noting that the cultures of Africa accepted slavery. The American Indians were tried first but made poor slaves."
"
It is also worth noting that the reason the indians made lousy slaves was that in the period they were 'tested' they dropped like flies because they were being exposed to diseases that were completely new to them.
Please refute what I said instead of trying to shout me down.
Much of my info came from my Military History class I took at a state university.
FWIW, Lincoln didn't really know what he would do with the slaves. The northern whites didn't want them. Disruption of the southern system of slavery was certain to displace almost all slaves. Leaving them without home, property, or significant skills/education.
Lincoln had one overriding objective- to reunite the Union. Everything else was always subordinate to that goal to include emancipation.
Pure righteous indignation on my end because
of the enormous spinning of history and
dilution of how evil and inhumane slavery was.
the [Inappropriate use of the word "God" deleted] was correct on my part because
for me inside my spirit it is shocking to hear
what I am hearing...knowing the stench of slavery
got to Gods nostrils.
I do believe we should temper military history
with a good portion of black history to find
balast.
The moderator please write me a personal note
before you edit my posts so we can discuss it
I am only a nano second away It really would
be brotherly of you...and please chime in, you
opened this can...I hope you are truly fair
and believe as the SBC authourity believes that
slavery was inhumane..of course you will
obey scripture and submit to that authority.
sincerely
Aslanspal
[ February 23, 2005, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: Phillip ]
of the enormous spinning of history and
dilution of how evil and inhumane slavery was.
the [Inappropriate use of the word "God" deleted] was correct on my part because
for me inside my spirit it is shocking to hear
what I am hearing...knowing the stench of slavery
got to Gods nostrils.
I do believe we should temper military history
with a good portion of black history to find
balast.
The moderator please write me a personal note
before you edit my posts so we can discuss it
I am only a nano second away It really would
be brotherly of you...and please chime in, you
opened this can...I hope you are truly fair
and believe as the SBC authourity believes that
slavery was inhumane..of course you will
obey scripture and submit to that authority.
sincerely
Aslanspal
[ February 23, 2005, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: Phillip ]
At the risk of a few on this board to claim I'm endorsing slavery, I also would like to see some scriptural basis for this very strong assertion of how God feels!
Bro. James Reed
New Member
For starters, the SBC is a convention/association, so it has no authority.
Secondly, what scripture or biblical principle is slavery violating?
Thirdly, I know of a time when the SBC was humming a different tune, so, in your view, was it okay for member churches to hold onto slavery under the "authority" of the SBC saying it was okay back then?
Lastly, before I am attacked, I am not a supporter of slavery, and I believe that it was one of the bleaker spots on the page of wrongs committed by the U.S., but for those people and at that time it was a pretty well accepted practice and, not living in their time, I can not pass judgement against those people, slaveholder or not.
I'm Southern Baptist and I must agree with Bro. James Reed. The SBC has NO authority over churches or people. Its specific duty is to pool money and provide missionary services.
Not only until recently did the SBC recant their stand on slavery and appologize for their opinion of it.
In all fairness, the SBC did believe in treating slaves properly. Good food, plenty of rest, decent living quarters and the slaves usually went to church with their owners, if they wished (although they did sit in the balcony, in most cases.) But, you have to remember, this was an entirely different world and if memory serves me correct, good ole Abe Lincoln actually had a few slaves for a period of time.
I still stand on the fact that slavery was not the number one issue that started the war between the states. It was a secondary issue made stronger by later day history revisionists.
It still does not make slavery right. But, as Brother Reed says, to condemn those who did have slaves is a little late and not really appropriate.
We kill babies today, which is worse?
Not only until recently did the SBC recant their stand on slavery and appologize for their opinion of it.
In all fairness, the SBC did believe in treating slaves properly. Good food, plenty of rest, decent living quarters and the slaves usually went to church with their owners, if they wished (although they did sit in the balcony, in most cases.) But, you have to remember, this was an entirely different world and if memory serves me correct, good ole Abe Lincoln actually had a few slaves for a period of time.
I still stand on the fact that slavery was not the number one issue that started the war between the states. It was a secondary issue made stronger by later day history revisionists.
It still does not make slavery right. But, as Brother Reed says, to condemn those who did have slaves is a little late and not really appropriate.
We kill babies today, which is worse?
Two responses. First, I edit anything inappropriate and am under no obligation to notify you. I simply follow the rules set up by the Baptistboard. I did; however, notify you by PM of what I did, but only AFTER the fact. This use of the word "God" for shock value is not only unnecessary, but shows a lack of respect for God. It will NOT be tolerated.Originally posted by ASLANSPAL:
Pure righteous indignation on my end because
of the enormous spinning of history and
dilution of how evil and inhumane slavery was.
the [Inappropriate use of the word "God" deleted] was correct on my part because
for me inside my spirit it is shocking to hear
what I am hearing...knowing the stench of slavery
got to Gods nostrils.
I do believe we should temper military history
with a good portion of black history to find
balast.
The moderator please write me a personal note
before you edit my posts so we can discuss it
I am only a nano second away It really would
be brotherly of you...and please chime in, you
opened this can...I hope you are truly fair
and believe as the SBC authourity believes that
slavery was inhumane..of course you will
obey scripture and submit to that authority.
sincerely
Aslanspal
Second, as I said in an earlier post. I do not believe in slavery, but I do want to be clear. The Southern Baptist Convention does NOT have authority over any church or person. The convention is simply a place and organization to pool money to provide both missionaries and theological seminaries. I do not understand why people keep trying to turn the SBC into a "controlling organization" when a SBC church is like a New Testament Church, completely autonomous and can vote the way they please, or give the SBC any amount they wish, at their will.
Just last week our church voted to drop the amount we send to the SBC in half due to drop off in the local economy. The SBC will have nothing to say about it. They can't.
Finally, returning again to the use of the name "God"; I wish to make this formal warning that it will not be tolerated and suspension can occur due to breaking the rules of the BB. Please take note of this because we do not wish to take drastic measures, but the choice is ultimately yours.
Phillip
"The Southern Baptist Convention does NOT have authority over any church or person. The convention is simply a place and organization to pool money to provide both missionaries and theological seminaries."
"
Good thing too considering that the SBC started out as a convention of those baptistchurches who thought that baptistmissionaries ought to have the right to keep slaves (not that any baptist missionary on earth has ever had the funds to do so, making it completely pointless).
And let's not forget that charming episode a few decades ago when the SBC endorsed abortion.
"good ole Abe Lincoln actually had a few slaves for a period of time."
"
Nope.
The US presidents that were slave owners are Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Tyler, Polk, Taylor, Johnson and Grant.
Honest Abe had relatives who were slave owners but did not own any himself.
To all those who claim that slaves were treated well, because that is in the best interest of the owner.
It was Cato the elder who first pointed out that skimping on the maintenance of one's slaves, working them to death and buying fresh ones afterwards was more cost effective than treating them well.
"The Southern Baptist Convention does NOT have authority over any church or person. The convention is simply a place and organization to pool money to provide both missionaries and theological seminaries."
"
Good thing too considering that the SBC started out as a convention of those baptistchurches who thought that baptistmissionaries ought to have the right to keep slaves (not that any baptist missionary on earth has ever had the funds to do so, making it completely pointless).
And let's not forget that charming episode a few decades ago when the SBC endorsed abortion.
"good ole Abe Lincoln actually had a few slaves for a period of time."
"
Nope.
The US presidents that were slave owners are Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Tyler, Polk, Taylor, Johnson and Grant.
Honest Abe had relatives who were slave owners but did not own any himself.
To all those who claim that slaves were treated well, because that is in the best interest of the owner.
It was Cato the elder who first pointed out that skimping on the maintenance of one's slaves, working them to death and buying fresh ones afterwards was more cost effective than treating them well.
Mioque, the SBC is definitely not perfect, but getting the liberals off of the governing committee helped a lot and I don't think you will see anybody endorsing abortion now.
I think the stories of the SBCstarting out aas aa convention who thought that baptist missionoaries ought to have the right to keep slaves is all blown out of proportion. I suggest you cover your history on the SBC a lot better. Though there were church members who believed in keeping slaves, this was not the major issue. It did have a part in the Northern Baptists breaking away, but then the Northern Baptists went liberal and the IFB had to break away from them.
Also, remember that slaves were definitely legal during this time and although I do not believe in slaves, please provide me with scripture that says I should not own slaves.
I think the stories of the SBCstarting out aas aa convention who thought that baptist missionoaries ought to have the right to keep slaves is all blown out of proportion. I suggest you cover your history on the SBC a lot better. Though there were church members who believed in keeping slaves, this was not the major issue. It did have a part in the Northern Baptists breaking away, but then the Northern Baptists went liberal and the IFB had to break away from them.
Also, remember that slaves were definitely legal during this time and although I do not believe in slaves, please provide me with scripture that says I should not own slaves.
Remember it was those conservatives who were in favor of slavery.
It was those conservatives who fired Whitsitt from Southern Seminary for teaching exactly what the conservatives teach today about Baptist history.
Not too many years ago the chairman of the trustees at SWBTS was caught shacking up with ladies in his church. He was a part of the conservative resurgence.
As far as I am concerned the whole bunch are rotten. Sometime just read any of the gossip papers of the state SBC's and read the national SBC news. How can anyone read that trash and not say something. I will never forget the first time I saw such trash. The mailman knew more what was going on and he was not a Christian.
Why would the SBC post pictures and publsih it in their papers of large money givers at their seminaries and Baptist schools? Why? It is wrong!!! It is in violation of the principles Jesus taught. Just read the gospels
It was those conservatives who fired Whitsitt from Southern Seminary for teaching exactly what the conservatives teach today about Baptist history.
Not too many years ago the chairman of the trustees at SWBTS was caught shacking up with ladies in his church. He was a part of the conservative resurgence.
As far as I am concerned the whole bunch are rotten. Sometime just read any of the gossip papers of the state SBC's and read the national SBC news. How can anyone read that trash and not say something. I will never forget the first time I saw such trash. The mailman knew more what was going on and he was not a Christian.
Why would the SBC post pictures and publsih it in their papers of large money givers at their seminaries and Baptist schools? Why? It is wrong!!! It is in violation of the principles Jesus taught. Just read the gospels
If you read about the dispute between the northern and southern Baptists the final straw was over slavery.
Remember what Henry Blckaby said a few months ago to the SBC?
One of the ten commandements says that you should not steal. American slavery was about stealing people for the advantage of the slave owner. It is nothing at all like slavery in scripture.
Philip
"I think the stories of the SBCstarting out aas aa convention who thought that baptist missionoaries ought to have the right to keep slaves is all blown out of proportion."
"
It is interesting that the baptist churchhistorian gb93433 mentioned, Whitsitt (the one who got fired from his position at the SBC's Southern Seminary for teaching a thruthfull version of baptist origins) would have agreed with me.
"I suggest you cover your history on the SBC a lot better."
"
My knowledge of the SBC is more than o.k. for a girl living on another continent.
"I think the stories of the SBCstarting out aas aa convention who thought that baptist missionoaries ought to have the right to keep slaves is all blown out of proportion."
"
It is interesting that the baptist churchhistorian gb93433 mentioned, Whitsitt (the one who got fired from his position at the SBC's Southern Seminary for teaching a thruthfull version of baptist origins) would have agreed with me.
"I suggest you cover your history on the SBC a lot better."
"
My knowledge of the SBC is more than o.k. for a girl living on another continent.
Phillip if you could go back in time
lets say to a border state like Kentucky
who would you fight for
Confederacy c.s.a.
or
Union u.s.a.
answer from your heart.
Phillip you started this post shouldn't it
have been on the history boards.
another thing Phillip you will not submit
to the SBC and its letter of apology on
slavery ..would you submit to your pastor
if apologized for the inhumaity of slavery
and the grief it caused God..his creation
being beaten down.
Lord have mercy on us all( the word mercy
in greek and hebrew means to actually try
to place yourself in the shoes of the one
who is suffering)
slavery was evil period..and of course it got
to Gods nostrils..who doubts that!
lets say to a border state like Kentucky
who would you fight for
Confederacy c.s.a.
or
Union u.s.a.
answer from your heart.
Phillip you started this post shouldn't it
have been on the history boards.
another thing Phillip you will not submit
to the SBC and its letter of apology on
slavery ..would you submit to your pastor
if apologized for the inhumaity of slavery
and the grief it caused God..his creation
being beaten down.
Lord have mercy on us all( the word mercy
in greek and hebrew means to actually try
to place yourself in the shoes of the one
who is suffering)
slavery was evil period..and of course it got
to Gods nostrils..who doubts that!
Can I please ask what in the world are you talking about? The only thing that makes sense here is that this should be in the "history" column. Maybe so, do you want me to move it?
What in the world are you talking about me not submitting to the SBC? When did I ever say slavery was okay? I think I have been very clear that slavery was wrong in my opinion, have you not read my posts?
Sure slavery probaly got into God's nostrils, but I would imagine dead babies is doing the same thing right NOW!
There were instances of this. There were also instances of very benevolent relationships... almost parental.
I am not justifying slavery at all. It was based on the idea that blacks were not equal in God's sight. But we shouldn't buy into the historical revisionism that says all slaves were always abused and completely inhumane.
We shouldn't temper anything. We should accept the truth wherever the evidence leads.
My military history books were very well researched and referenced and written without a politically correct bias.
"Black history" starts with the implication that it is somehow different than "history". The history of blacks is marred by racism and cruelty quite enough in reality to not warrant the overemphasis of only this part of history.
A proper perspective on how prevalent and frequent the real abuses were is imperative to giving an accurate view of history... as is the relevance of slavery to the arguments of those who lead the political factions prior to the division.