-
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!
Understanding Slavery
- Thread starter Hardsheller
- Start date
I can't see the concept not being carried to the colonies.
Might I add, however, Brits often display an air of superiority, but it is more the use of the English language rather than our thinking. When English is properly spoken it tends to give off this air, especially with our accents.
I have been told that people thought I had my nose in the air until they actually met me. I am standoffish, and this doesn't help the situation, I suppose.
We grew up thinking that the Blacks were victims of their lot rather than inferior folk. We did not try to lord over them, but they were "different" if I am being clear on this. I would not wish anyone to think I felt superior to anyone.
Cheers,
Jim
Might I add, however, Brits often display an air of superiority, but it is more the use of the English language rather than our thinking. When English is properly spoken it tends to give off this air, especially with our accents.
I have been told that people thought I had my nose in the air until they actually met me. I am standoffish, and this doesn't help the situation, I suppose.
We grew up thinking that the Blacks were victims of their lot rather than inferior folk. We did not try to lord over them, but they were "different" if I am being clear on this. I would not wish anyone to think I felt superior to anyone.
Cheers,
Jim
Certainly didn't mean to imply anything about you. I mean all of us "Anglo-Saxons" in a general sense. I guess there has to be some sense of "superiority" to have a desire to rule the world, which Britain exhibited at one time. Having a sense of superiority of ideas helped spread many good ideas over the world, but often it was attended with some idea of "racial" (possibly not the best word) superiority as well. Trying to relate back to the topic, I think this is seen in some who opposed slavery and desired to see the black man freed, but didn't want to live next door to him, so to speak. Repatriation of slaves to Africa and colonization in other countries (such as South America) were popular ideas among anti-slavery advocates.
It is an interesting study, once we get beyond our own guilt trip, or at least see beyond our own preferences.
I never saw that many Backs where I lived, and when I went to Pennsylvania, I sat on a bunk and found myself staring at this young Black lad. He then turned to me and said, "Mr. Jim, don't worry. Before the summer is out you will be black like me." We laughed and that was the end of my bewilderment with colour.
Cheers, time to shove off to bed. Take care, Robert. Always enjoy your thoughtful posts.
Jim
I never saw that many Backs where I lived, and when I went to Pennsylvania, I sat on a bunk and found myself staring at this young Black lad. He then turned to me and said, "Mr. Jim, don't worry. Before the summer is out you will be black like me." We laughed and that was the end of my bewilderment with colour.
Cheers, time to shove off to bed. Take care, Robert. Always enjoy your thoughtful posts.
Jim
Having endured a great deal of heartburn with these arguments, I have decided to offer a few observations.
Racism certainly was not confined to the Anglo-Saxons. The French were perfect swine in Indo-China and North Africa. The Dutch, so tolerant a people, were ruthless in Indonesia. The Spanish and Portuguese experience in the New World was horrific. Even the Belgians — not even a country until 1830 — were rapacious in Africa, perhaps the worst of all. The Brits probably had the best record, blighted though it is. The Germans didn't have much of a chance, which is probably a good thing. The Americans, it goes without saying, can't boast of a good record.
Of course, the Arabs and Africans and Indians and Japanese have their moments as well. I don't think racism is so much a product of a particular culture but of a serious technological disparity in which one people, because of its advanced materialism, thinks it must be better than another.
Take the experience with China, for example. In the early 1700s, Chinese culture was immensely popular in Europe, and Chinese technology was greatly admired. But as the decades wore on and the West outpaced China in technology, the popular conception of the Chinese in Europe underwent a radical change. When the British and French, in particular, found they could sail their ships into Chinese ports with impunity, they considered themselves "better." Same with the British and French experience in India.
Now, as to Lincoln, one must read a good deal to realize the moral transformation that he slowly made.
From the Charleston speech in the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas debates:
But Lincoln was a wily politician, though we forget that fact in the beatification that followed his assassination. In the Quincy debate, he says:
A very powerful argument, especially with a Northern audience. Because, Lincoln is implying, the very fact that you are human — which he freely admits — gives you certain rights. Now look at the slavocracy, he says. They've arrogated to themselves the right to decide what level of humanity you are and what that entitles you to. Well, if they can decide that Africans don't deserve any rights, how can you stop them from deciding that Irish or Germans also can't be denied their rights?
And it wasn't as if some Southerners weren't happy to make such noises. "Mongrel yankees," they said; "there are even those Irish Catholics."
Some Southerners — the Fire Eaters come to mind — made this argument explicit. "Look, let us keep our slaves in line and we will support the Yankees in controlling the Irish."
Unfortunately, some Southerners extolled the virtues of slave labor, telling their rich Northern friends that they really should do something about all those uppity immigrants back up North.
Meandering, I suppose. But it is difficult to boil down a whole labor and economic system — and its conflict with a (supposedly) free labor system — into a few paragraphs. And it always is a mistake to judge pervious generations by our own values. Still, we should endeavor to learn from the past.
Racism certainly was not confined to the Anglo-Saxons. The French were perfect swine in Indo-China and North Africa. The Dutch, so tolerant a people, were ruthless in Indonesia. The Spanish and Portuguese experience in the New World was horrific. Even the Belgians — not even a country until 1830 — were rapacious in Africa, perhaps the worst of all. The Brits probably had the best record, blighted though it is. The Germans didn't have much of a chance, which is probably a good thing. The Americans, it goes without saying, can't boast of a good record.
Of course, the Arabs and Africans and Indians and Japanese have their moments as well. I don't think racism is so much a product of a particular culture but of a serious technological disparity in which one people, because of its advanced materialism, thinks it must be better than another.
Take the experience with China, for example. In the early 1700s, Chinese culture was immensely popular in Europe, and Chinese technology was greatly admired. But as the decades wore on and the West outpaced China in technology, the popular conception of the Chinese in Europe underwent a radical change. When the British and French, in particular, found they could sail their ships into Chinese ports with impunity, they considered themselves "better." Same with the British and French experience in India.
Now, as to Lincoln, one must read a good deal to realize the moral transformation that he slowly made.
From the Charleston speech in the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas debates:
Well, Lincoln must be a typical redneck, we say. Of course, he was in a tricky situation. He truly opposed the expansion of slavery (his family fled from Kentucky to Indiana to get away from slavery) but could not be seen as advocating black equality, because that was exactly what Douglas was trying to bait him into.
But Lincoln was a wily politician, though we forget that fact in the beatification that followed his assassination. In the Quincy debate, he says:
Ah, slippery Lincoln. "Of course I don't believe that black people are my equals," he says — but that's not the point. When it comes to enjoying basic rights — Jefferson likely would have been bemused or dismayed — blacks deserve the same formal equality before the law as white people.
A very powerful argument, especially with a Northern audience. Because, Lincoln is implying, the very fact that you are human — which he freely admits — gives you certain rights. Now look at the slavocracy, he says. They've arrogated to themselves the right to decide what level of humanity you are and what that entitles you to. Well, if they can decide that Africans don't deserve any rights, how can you stop them from deciding that Irish or Germans also can't be denied their rights?
And it wasn't as if some Southerners weren't happy to make such noises. "Mongrel yankees," they said; "there are even those Irish Catholics."
Some Southerners — the Fire Eaters come to mind — made this argument explicit. "Look, let us keep our slaves in line and we will support the Yankees in controlling the Irish."
Unfortunately, some Southerners extolled the virtues of slave labor, telling their rich Northern friends that they really should do something about all those uppity immigrants back up North.
Meandering, I suppose. But it is difficult to boil down a whole labor and economic system — and its conflict with a (supposedly) free labor system — into a few paragraphs. And it always is a mistake to judge pervious generations by our own values. Still, we should endeavor to learn from the past.
Karen, I respect your opinion and know that probably most of the board would agree with your point of view. But I also note that while your statements on God & Israel are correct, they must be considered with the understanding that also on several occasions He delivered Israel into bondage because of their disobedience. I am not sure either would rise to the level of informing us on the morality or immorality of slavery. My strongest point of reference would be the way the Apostle Paul dealt with the issue. Nevertheless, I will leave off and make no further reference to the moral aspect as relates to the Bible, lest we should go in a direction where Hardsheller did not intend his thread to go.
Bro. James Reed
New Member
I have read quite a few of the posts on this thread and one thing seems to be floating in the air.
Some people are saying that the war was over slavery. some say it was over states' rights. I find myself in between. Many years of northern "overruling" in the Congress had continually caused the southerners to be wary of them. The northerners wanted more free states in the union to give them a strategic advantage in Congress. The south wanted more slave states for the same reason. I am of the opinion that most people invovled were just normal politicians who wanted more votes, so they pushed these issues.
Anyway, that's not the point I want to make. My point is this, many southerners at the time of the war were afraid of the federal government becoming too powerful and being able to completely control the states, leaving the states with little or no authority. I would say, especially with the events today in Alabama, that our southern fathers were right on the money.
Since the war, just look at how the U.S. has become increasingly more federalized. every year, the national government takes more and more power away from state and local governments.
So my position is, regardless of their reasoning for going to war, be it slavery or whatever, the southerners were right in wanting to prevent this from happening to our country. Unfortunately, since the south lost, all of their fears have become realities. By this I don't mean slavery, but the complete control of every state by the federal government.
Here's my question. Why even have states? What good are they anymore? They can not make their own laws because the federal government will no doubt find some reason or another to overturn them. What's the point in keeping separate states if they're all going to be governed the exact same way?
It's really sad that more people back then could not see what was happening to America.
Some people are saying that the war was over slavery. some say it was over states' rights. I find myself in between. Many years of northern "overruling" in the Congress had continually caused the southerners to be wary of them. The northerners wanted more free states in the union to give them a strategic advantage in Congress. The south wanted more slave states for the same reason. I am of the opinion that most people invovled were just normal politicians who wanted more votes, so they pushed these issues.
Anyway, that's not the point I want to make. My point is this, many southerners at the time of the war were afraid of the federal government becoming too powerful and being able to completely control the states, leaving the states with little or no authority. I would say, especially with the events today in Alabama, that our southern fathers were right on the money.
Since the war, just look at how the U.S. has become increasingly more federalized. every year, the national government takes more and more power away from state and local governments.
So my position is, regardless of their reasoning for going to war, be it slavery or whatever, the southerners were right in wanting to prevent this from happening to our country. Unfortunately, since the south lost, all of their fears have become realities. By this I don't mean slavery, but the complete control of every state by the federal government.
Here's my question. Why even have states? What good are they anymore? They can not make their own laws because the federal government will no doubt find some reason or another to overturn them. What's the point in keeping separate states if they're all going to be governed the exact same way?
It's really sad that more people back then could not see what was happening to America.
On April 12th 1861, the Confederate States opened fire on Fort Sumter (South Carolina). The South shot first. </font>[/QUOTE]Aah! And such a beautiful sound it made!!
The South shot first? I beg your pardon. You've been reading those "winners-write-it" histories again.
After the legitimate secession of South Carolina from the Union as a Sovereign State as guaranteed in the Declaration of Independence, the black Republican Lincoln invaded HER territorial waters by sending a supply ship to support the rebellious federal troops illegally holding Fort Sumter, a part of South Carolina.
His intention, open and stated, was to provoke by this act of agression a salvo from the defenders of Charleston and become a "cause celebre" for war.
If you're going to start a war, you WANT the world to think the "other guy" is the agressor.
After the legitimate secession of South Carolina from the Union as a Sovereign State as guaranteed in the Declaration of Independence, the black Republican Lincoln invaded HER territorial waters by sending a supply ship to support the rebellious federal troops illegally holding Fort Sumter, a part of South Carolina.
His intention, open and stated, was to provoke by this act of agression a salvo from the defenders of Charleston and become a "cause celebre" for war.
If you're going to start a war, you WANT the world to think the "other guy" is the agressor.
ScottEmerson
Active Member
On April 12th 1861, the Confederate States opened fire on Fort Sumter (South Carolina). The South shot first. </font>[/QUOTE]Aah! And such a beautiful sound it made!! </font>[/QUOTE]About as beautiful as, oh, the last breath of 600,000 people?
What a waste.
ScottEmerson
Active Member
http://www.civilwarhome.com/CMHsumter.htm
The South, did, indeed, shoot first. No amount of historical revisionism either way will make this otherwise.
On April 12th 1861, the Confederate States opened fire on Fort Sumter (South Carolina). The South shot first. </font>[/QUOTE]Aah! And such a beautiful sound it made!! </font>[/QUOTE]About as beautiful as, oh, the last breath of 600,000 people?
What a waste. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes it was a waste but then you're already conceded that you would have bagged your duds and headed up north to enlist and contribute to the slaughter.
ScottEmerson
Active Member
Only after the shots were fired - not before.Originally posted by Hardsheller:
Yes it was a waste but then you're already conceded that you would have bagged your duds and headed up north to enlist and contribute to the slaughter.
Only after the shots were fired - not before. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Irregardless of the timing. I would have been duty bound to shoot yore yankee behind.Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hardsheller:
Yes it was a waste but then you're already conceded that you would have bagged your duds and headed up north to enlist and contribute to the slaughter.
Shooting first in defense of your home is NOT wrong, Scott. Read about Lexington and Concord in the First Revolution.
Lincoln invaded and provoked the sovereign state of South Carolina and they defended themselves (and acquitted themselves nicely, driving out the federals without the loss of life).
Parallels abound:
6-day war in the Middle East. Israel, pushed to the limit, wiped out the Egyptian and Syrian air forces in an opening salvo. We applaud them.
As I do P.G.T. Beauregard.
Lincoln invaded and provoked the sovereign state of South Carolina and they defended themselves (and acquitted themselves nicely, driving out the federals without the loss of life).
Parallels abound:
6-day war in the Middle East. Israel, pushed to the limit, wiped out the Egyptian and Syrian air forces in an opening salvo. We applaud them.
As I do P.G.T. Beauregard.
If the pre-civil war south existed now like it did then, they would be considered terrorists.
The Army, which protects the citizens of the U.S. against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, had every right to absolutely and completely with as must force as necessary, squelch that uprising, even it included weeding out the cell groups in other states.
Lincoln was not only a war hero, but an incredibly wise man. I would have picked up my gun, went North, and fired some shots on the way.
I am opposed to the chaos theory of government.
The Army, which protects the citizens of the U.S. against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, had every right to absolutely and completely with as must force as necessary, squelch that uprising, even it included weeding out the cell groups in other states.
Lincoln was not only a war hero, but an incredibly wise man. I would have picked up my gun, went North, and fired some shots on the way.
I am opposed to the chaos theory of government.
ScottEmerson
Active Member
I would liken the South's actions more to the Palestinians who attack the Israelis, but to each their own.