• 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!

Most Evil Person in American History

Status
Not open for further replies.

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
New England and the African Slave Trade

Found an interesting article about the pious Yankees and their involvement in slavery!

In the United States, slavery is often thought of as a Southern institution. Many people today are unaware of the extent of slavery in the eigh- teenth and nineteenth century North, particularly New England. Long thought of as the birthplace of the anti-slavery movement, New England has a more complex history of slavery and slave trading than many realize.

In the four hundred years after Columbus first sailed to the New World, some twelve million Africans were brought to the Americas as slaves. About 500,000 of these people came to mainland North America, what is now the United States. The first Africans to arrive in the colonies came in 1619, when a Dutch ship sold twenty slaves to people living in the Virginian colony of Jamestown. But slavery was not confined to the South. It existed in all thirteen American colonies and for a time in all thirteen of the first states. The transatlantic slave trade was history’s first great global industry. Ships from Spain, Portugal, Britain, France, Holland, and Denmark traveled to the African coast to load their holds with people. The risks of such trade were many storms, pirates, disease, and rebellions were common—but the profits were great. Much of the wealth of modern western nations flows, either directly or indirectly, from the trade in human cargo: slaves.

Colonial North American ships began to participate in the slave trade as early as the 1640s. Almost all of colonial America’s slave ships originated in New England. Confronted with a landscape and climate unsuitable for large-scale commercial farming, New Englanders looked to the sea for their livelihood.

As a result, in the eighteenth century, New Englanders developed what came to be known as the Triangular Trade. Ships carried sugar and molasses from the plantation colonies of the Ca- ribbean to New England where colonists distilled it into rum. Merchants then shipped this rum to Africa where it was exchanged for slaves, who were carried back to the Caribbean to produce more sugar.

Some Africans were brought back to New England. Because paid employees were often un- available or too expensive to use profitably, many New Englanders chose to purchase enslaved Afri- cans. Though the vast majority of the slaves were carried to the sugar colonies of the Caribbean and South America, by 1755, more than thirteen thousand enslaved people were working in New England
.
The first recorded New England slave voyage sailed from the city of Boston, Massachusetts in 1644. By the 1670s, Massachusetts traders were regularly carrying slaves between Africa and the Caribbean. Rhode Islanders entered the trade n about 1700. By the middle of the eighteenth century, upwards of twenty ships per year sailed for Africa from the tiny colony, most of them from the city of Newport. Two-thirds of Rhode Island’s fleet was engaged in the slave trade. Over the next century, more than 60 percent of the North American ships involved in the African slave trade were based in Rhode Island.

As a proportion of the transatlantic trade asa whole, the Rhode Island slave trade was quite modest. In all, perhaps one hundred thousand Africans were carried to the New World in Rhode Island ships. However, in a small colony like Rhode Island, the slave trade became a crucial economic engine. The trade brought great wealth to some merchants and investors and created jobs for thousands of others. In addition to the sailors employed in the trade, many people worked in industries dependent on the slave trade, from rope making to iron forging, from candle manufacturing to carpentry. Distilling provides perhaps the best example. By the 1760s, the Rhode Island city of Newport alone boasted nearly two dozen distill- eries, transforming Caribbean molasses into rum.

http://www.choices.edu/resources/documents/slavery_reading1.pdf
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
One change the subject post after another. Folks, slavery was the cause of the Civil War, and the Southern leaders who took us into war to preserve slavery rank among the most evil leaders in American history.

1) The South, not the North seceded from the Union.
2) The South, not the North fired on Fort Sumter.
3) The South, not the North seceded before Lincoln took office.
4) The South, not the North, held more than 3 million slaves captive, using beatings, chains, and abuse in a vulgar cruel and sinful practice of enslavement.
 
There is nothing more in this world that irks me so much as an LP with a scratch in it.

fnm1353120165.jpg
 

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
I hereby officially declare Van a troll -
will else will sign this declaration
 

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
One change the subject post after another. Folks, slavery was the cause of the Civil War, and the Southern leaders who took us into war to preserve slavery rank among the most evil leaders in American history.

1) The South, not the North seceded from the Union.
2) The South, not the North fired on Fort Sumter.
3) The South, not the North seceded before Lincoln took office.
4) The South, not the North, held more than 3 million slaves captive, using beatings, chains, and abuse in a vulgar cruel and sinful practice of enslavement.


YOU have failed to prove that slavery is condemned in Scriptures.

NOT ONE person on the BB, and ESPECIALLY on this thread, has argued that treatment may or may not be evil.

Contentions that the south started the war over a struggle about slavery must be met with Scriptural proof that slavery is condemned in Scriptures.

Because YOU cannot, then your arguments fail.

The north must then be the true aggressor and not the south.

The north must then stand as responsible for ALL the deaths of the great conflict - the sorry Yankees forced war on the south was and is just as evil as them blaming the south for the conflict. To date, the north continues to lie.

The North CANNOT admit that they were unwilling to conform laws to deal with evil treatment because to do so would be recognizing slavery was not condemned in Scriptures.
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
YOU have failed to prove that slavery is condemned in Scriptures.

NOT ONE person on the BB, and ESPECIALLY on this thread, has argued that treatment may or may not be evil.

Contentions that the south started the war over a struggle about slavery must be met with Scriptural proof that slavery is condemned in Scriptures.

Because YOU cannot, then your arguments fail.

The north must then be the true aggressor and not the south.

The north must then stand as responsible for ALL the deaths of the great conflict - the sorry Yankees forced war on the south was and is just as evil as them blaming the south for the conflict. To date, the north continues to lie.

The North CANNOT admit that they were unwilling to conform laws to deal with evil treatment because to do so would be recognizing slavery was not condemned in Scriptures.

It is not called the War of Northern Aggression without cause. Sherman's march to the Sea, the Reconstruction, and the continued rape of the South that lasted ~100 years is further demonstration of their aggression.
 

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Do you believe slavery should be legal?

That question is merely a distraction from the foundational problem.

There are many events, things, and situations found in the Scriptures that I personally would rather have seen differently then God. That is because His mind and ways are far above my own.

Therefore, the question isn't what I would believe or not, but what does the Scriptures actually state on this subject.

I realize it may be not to a person's liking and they may feel differently, but then Scriptures and Scripture truth is based upon feelings, and what one may prefer.

Does the Scriptures present and condemn slavery as evil?

That is the basic question.

If they do not, the whole foundation of the north is wrong.

What has always alarmed me in this matter is that the north had the power to enact federal legislation to hold the mistreatment of people under the care of businessmen and owners as illegal. They held government control for better than a decade, and before could have worked with the Southern legislators to bring Scriptural treatment to the whole country.

But to make such laws would have impinged upon their own treatment of the folks in their own labor force (children, miners, sweat shops, black lists...). Rather, they condemned what was not condemned in Scriptures while violating the very Scriptures.
 

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
Why not just self regulate and stop posting?

Becasue we would like to see Van ACTUALLY answer some to the valid questions posed to him - instead of being that record with a scratch.
 

Crabtownboy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
That question is merely a distraction from the foundational problem.

Not at all. I am merely trying to figure out why you defend slavery in this way.

There are many events, things, and situations found in the Scriptures that I personally would rather have seen differently then God. That is because His mind and ways are far above my own.

Have you ever thought that it was because people in those time would not have understood and would have totally ignored any writings that opposed what was simply a fact in their lives at that time?


Therefore, the question isn't what I would believe or not, but what does the Scriptures actually state on this subject.


I see that as a cop-out. The Bible talks about the four corners of the earth showing that the earth was believed to be flat. Nowhere does the Bible speak of the earth being round, yet we believe and know it is now round.

I realize it may be not to a person's liking and they may feel differently, but then Scriptures and Scripture truth is based upon feelings, and what one may prefer.

Like I said, I bet you believe the world is round.
I know you wear clothing of mixed fibers.
I doubt you believe that unruly children should be stoned to death.
I expect you watch TV on Sunday. {There were churches who would have withheld communion to members that were shown to listen to the radio on Sunday when I was a kid as it was not keeping the Sabbath holy.}
This list could go on a long way.

Does the Scriptures present and condemn slavery as evil?

Scripture itself shows slavery was a fact of life in their day and that was not going to change. That, IMHO, did not make it right or moral. I do not see scripture as condoning it.

When Paul is talking about slavery he did not say, "This is God speaking" as he does in some passages. I believe he was giving advice not saying what God approved of.
That is the basic question.

If they do not, the whole foundation of the north is wrong.

Then, intentionally or not you are approving of slavery.


What has always alarmed me in this matter is that the north had the power to enact federal legislation to hold the mistreatment of people under the care of businessmen and owners as illegal. They held government control for better than a decade, and before could have worked with the Southern legislators to bring Scriptural treatment to the whole country.

But to make such laws would have impinged upon their own treatment of the folks in their own labor force (children, miners, sweat shops, black lists...). Rather, they condemned what was not condemned in Scriptures while violating the very Scriptures.

I'd not argue with you on that one. The misuse of children, indeed the misuse of anyone was and is wrong. I believe those who want to neglect those in need of food, healthcare, emotional care and capital punishment as just as guilty as you say the North was the ... and I say as guilty as the slave owners were in the South.

No one was totally innocent the and no one is totally innocent now.

I am continually reminded of the scene of the last judgment in Matthew when these topics come up.
 

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter


Not at all. I am merely trying to figure out why you defend slavery in this way.


I am not defending slavery. I am questioning what some would state as the fact, that Slavery is condemned in the Scriptures as evil and therefore the right of the North is valid.

I am questioning such claims on this BB thread as being wrong or of those who make such a claim to give Scripture proof.

That it has taken all this time and not one person has admitted the truth of the Scriptures on this matter is alarming.

Perhaps that demonstrates all the more the total misconception propagated by the media and manipulation of true history.

Listen to the video for some accurate historical facts about men who served and WHY. Video here.




Have you ever thought that it was because people in those time would not have understood and would have totally ignored any writings that opposed what was simply a fact in their lives at that time?

You seem to be suggesting there is some level of learning the people "of that time" had not ascended and therefore not held responsible. I would disagree.

The North had the Scriptures. That they refused the Scriptures in the care and would liable the South for their sin is just so much like the Lord telling folks to get the rafter out of their eye before trying to remove the speck from the eye of someone else.

Previously I stated:
"Therefore, the question isn't what I would believe or not, but what does the Scriptures actually state on this subject."
I see that as a cop-out. The Bible talks about the four corners of the earth showing that the earth was believed to be flat. Nowhere does the Bible speak of the earth being round, yet we believe and know it is now round.


That has so little to do with the topic at hand. I have read pages of feelings and no proof from Scriptures.

The Bible does speak specifically about BOTH the slavery and the care. That the north picked the evil treatment and want to apply it to God condemning slavery is just not accurate. And it shouldn't be taught that way.

Unless one can show by Scriptures that God condemns slavery as evil, it should be acknowledged that God did not condemn slavery in the Scriptures, and that God gave specifics as to the treatment. Specifics that may or may not have been ignored by BOTH north and south.


Previously I stated:

I realize it may be not to a person's liking and they may feel differently, but then Scriptures and Scripture truth is based upon feelings, and what one may prefer.

Like I said, I bet you believe the world is round.
I know you wear clothing of mixed fibers.
I doubt you believe that unruly children should be stoned to death.
I expect you watch TV on Sunday. {There were churches who would have withheld communion to members that were shown to listen to the radio on Sunday when I was a kid as it was not keeping the Sabbath holy.}
This list could go on a long way.


But none of that list has anything to do with the basic question. The list is merely an attempt to diminish the question by misalignment and by inappropriate association. The list has nothing to do with whether God condemns slavery as evil.

Does the Scriptures present and condemn slavery as evil?

It has not been shown by Scriptures to be evil on this thread.


Scripture itself shows slavery was a fact of life in their day and that was not going to change. That, IMHO, did not make it right or moral. I do not see scripture as condoning it.


Now what you are attempting to do is to proclaim what YOU want to liable as moral and right as the very authority of God.

That is not to be done.

Unless God specifically by Scripture and Scripture principle condemns something as evil, it is not evil.

God established the standard, not man.

Humankind may embellish or present some standard, and they may socially proclaim that standard as lawful, but that does not make either the standard nor the infraction against that standard, evil.

For instance: One may hold that the standard established by the government calls for abortion rights. However, such is not the standard of God nor of the Godly.

When Paul is talking about slavery he did not say, "This is God speaking" as he does in some passages. I believe he was giving advice not saying what God approved of.

This is in essence declaring that YOU can pick and choose what Scriptures you think are inspired and what are not. This is as Thomas Jefferson did when he took out a penknife, cut out and burned passages of the Bible that he considered wrong.

I prefer to stick with what Paul said to young Tim:
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
Then, intentionally or not you are approving of slavery.

Again, the question isn't what I would approve or not. It is what is approved by God.

In the Scriptures, does God condemn slavery as evil?

The answer is: (I wait for the scholarly folks of the BB to come to agreement on this matter.)

Doesn't matter what I think, what I feel, what I desire, and what I approve.

Doesn't matter that the Declaration of Independence states that God has granted all men certain unalienable rights and then lists them.

NONE of that matters.

What matters is that on this thread the claim was made that the Civil War was fought over slavery.

As such, it is stated that the Yankee had authority and right to invade the south and, by armed conflict, force compliance.

However, if in fact slavery is not condemned as evil in Scriptures, then the NORTH is responsible for every death in the Civil War. The reason for the fight was unrighteous.

 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
YOU have failed to prove that slavery is condemned in Scriptures.

NOT ONE person on the BB, and ESPECIALLY on this thread, has argued that treatment may or may not be evil.

Contentions that the south started the war over a struggle about slavery must be met with Scriptural proof that slavery is condemned in Scriptures.

Because YOU cannot, then your arguments fail.

The north must then be the true aggressor and not the south.

The north must then stand as responsible for ALL the deaths of the great conflict - the sorry Yankees forced war on the south was and is just as evil as them blaming the south for the conflict. To date, the north continues to lie.

The North CANNOT admit that they were unwilling to conform laws to deal with evil treatment because to do so would be recognizing slavery was not condemned in Scriptures.

As I said one falsehood after another:

1) Slavery as practiced in the South is condemned in Scripture, violating the do unto others as you would have them do unto you command.

2) I have argued that the Slavery practiced by the South was evil, disgusting, sinful, immoral, and wrong.

3) Talk about irrationality!! Whether the North or the South started the war is not determined by whether the slavery practiced in the South was sinful.

4) The Civil War was caused by slavery, and the Southern leaders who took us into war to preserve slavery rank among the most evil leaders in America history, right behind those responsible for 55 million abortions.
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
I am not defending slavery.

Crabbie knows you are not defending slavery. Perhaps he is having guilt feelings about his continued support of abortion and is trying to assuage them by pulling your chain.

I can't understand how a Christian supports abortion so there is no way of understanding Crabbie!
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
1) Slavery as practiced in the South is condemned in Scripture, violating the do unto others as you would have them do unto you command.

2) I have argued that the Slavery practiced by the South was evil, disgusting, sinful, immoral, and wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top