NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Ben,
Please give sources for all quoted material.
Thanks.
Roger
C4K
Moderator
-
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!
Would YOU be a Slaveholder?
- Thread starter Dr. Bob
- Start date
Please give sources for all quoted material.
Thanks.
Roger
C4K
Moderator
Interesting speculative questions.
A bit of history.
My family emmigrated from Scotland circa 1700's. Two Brothers. One settled south, the other settled north. Consequence, southern brother did indeed own slaves. I met an ancestor of his slaves' in the Marine Corps. Me a lowly private, he, a really BIG S.Sgt. Both of us with the same last name. Knox is not very common for black folks. He asked the obvious question. I answered, yes, my ancestors did own slaves, could have been your ancestors. He said, "How about that? I OWN you now. Give me fifty!" I obeyed.
Then we laughed.
To answer the question. Putting myself back then, I would have been of the millions who found themselves fighting their very own relatives. Since my grt.grt.grandfather's people were of the northern part of Illinois and his cousins were of somewhere in the south, presumably Florida, they would have fought each other at some point, I suppose. Had I been there, I would naturally have fought for the north since that is where I would have been raised.
No, I would not have owned slaves, based on my families history. Personally, though, I cannot say if I would have agreed with either side of the war, since it is impossible for me to speculate what my mindset would have been. I can only, (safely) answer based on where I would have been living.
My grandfather's father, (on mother's side) DID fight in that war.
In HIS service;
Jim
A bit of history.
My family emmigrated from Scotland circa 1700's. Two Brothers. One settled south, the other settled north. Consequence, southern brother did indeed own slaves. I met an ancestor of his slaves' in the Marine Corps. Me a lowly private, he, a really BIG S.Sgt. Both of us with the same last name. Knox is not very common for black folks. He asked the obvious question. I answered, yes, my ancestors did own slaves, could have been your ancestors. He said, "How about that? I OWN you now. Give me fifty!" I obeyed.
To answer the question. Putting myself back then, I would have been of the millions who found themselves fighting their very own relatives. Since my grt.grt.grandfather's people were of the northern part of Illinois and his cousins were of somewhere in the south, presumably Florida, they would have fought each other at some point, I suppose. Had I been there, I would naturally have fought for the north since that is where I would have been raised.
No, I would not have owned slaves, based on my families history. Personally, though, I cannot say if I would have agreed with either side of the war, since it is impossible for me to speculate what my mindset would have been. I can only, (safely) answer based on where I would have been living.
My grandfather's father, (on mother's side) DID fight in that war.
In HIS service;
Jim
Bro. James Reed
New Member
Probably would have been too poor to own slaves, if family history was constant through me...they were all too poor and were mostly cotton-farming, sharecroppers.
Had I owned a large tract of land with many acres of cotton to be picked, and been able to afford it, in all likelihood I would have owned slaves.
I don't see how racism continues today except through racist groups like Rainbow Push Coalition, NAACP, and the US government's enforcement of affirmative action quotas.
There is a very good argument to be had in saying that without Northern aggression, the south would have outlawed slavery and desegregated peacefully eventually. Even had slavery continued in the south for another 30 or 40 years, the bitterness towards northerners and towards blacks would not have been present as were there when we lost the war, so people probably would have been much more accepting and segregation would not have continued through the 1960's.
Unfortunately, we will never know.
The best thing back then would have been for the south not to secede, or for them to win the war. The North's win cost the South our pride, and cost blacks many years of segregation and spite.
I wish the whole thing could have been resolved differently.
Had I owned a large tract of land with many acres of cotton to be picked, and been able to afford it, in all likelihood I would have owned slaves.
I don't see how racism continues today except through racist groups like Rainbow Push Coalition, NAACP, and the US government's enforcement of affirmative action quotas.
There is a very good argument to be had in saying that without Northern aggression, the south would have outlawed slavery and desegregated peacefully eventually. Even had slavery continued in the south for another 30 or 40 years, the bitterness towards northerners and towards blacks would not have been present as were there when we lost the war, so people probably would have been much more accepting and segregation would not have continued through the 1960's.
Unfortunately, we will never know.
The best thing back then would have been for the south not to secede, or for them to win the war. The North's win cost the South our pride, and cost blacks many years of segregation and spite.
I wish the whole thing could have been resolved differently.
Absolutely not!!! What affects us now are those who want to blame today's "SOUTHERNERS" for their ancestors deeds; IE liberals, JJ, Al S., et al!
Slavery is roughly 150 years in the past, but some %^&#%@@)(*& have figured out how to make a good living off of the blame game, and unfortunately there are also many who have no better sense than to buy into the blame game.
Also, there was not universal opposition from the NORTH against, slavery, but to read most of the thread posts, one would think that the Yankees were lily white re: slavery.
Which leads to the next point: The biggest reason for the "JIm Crow " laws of the South, and the resultant racist problems, were the results of the carpet-baggers that descended to Dixie to reap the easy pickins of a defeated nation.
But even now these same #$^%$#(&@&^ keep playing the racist card at any and all opportunities so the "sheep" will continue to fill their coffers.
Get these people out of the picture, and racism will be nought but a shadow of it's former self in a very short time. </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, but you are wrong - slavery still affects the United States now and always has, but not in the stereotypical ways you are used to thinking about! It is called "human trafficking" now and as late as 2000, the US Congress passed an act about the problem.
Source - Free the Slaves
Besides the above, there are thousands of women (many from South Korea, Russia, etc.) who are lured in these schemes and end up being transported to the US as sex slaves or prostitutes. (Unfortunately, there is a lot on the web about our own military stationed in S. Korea and how the military has a hand in the clubs, prostitution, and sex slave industry, etc. overseas.
)And there is this:
US State Dept Report 2002
US State Dept 2004
The point is, slavery has been brushed under the rug and some of us like to believe it was all in the past and others want us to feel guilty about what went on in the past, but the point is....the issue still continues in so many covert ways. And, as long as we consumers continue to buy fresh produce or imported goods from China, India, etc. - we all are contributors to human slavery - EVERY ONE OF US! None of us are without blame!
Some salient facts: In early America, slavery was legal and practiced in all 13 colonies and states.
Slavery was outlawed in some states, but nationwide no matter where a person was his slave was his property.
So was his wife and his horse.
Slavery - owning another human - was a part of the history of mankind. Cannot imagine a Southran who would not simply accept this as a way of life.
Some Northrens, influenced by the Unitarian Church (cult) and rabid abolitionists, would be opposed to ANY slavery ANY PLACE. Most Northerners would tolerate it; a slave was "in his place" and a freedman was a threat to employment, etc.
That was 1860. And the forced emancipation following the invasion and destruction of the legitimate state governments (confederated as were the original 13 states until the Constitution changed all that) did little to truly help the slaves.
They became "free" but remain in "economic slavery" and "political slavery" for 100 more years.
Slavery was outlawed in some states, but nationwide no matter where a person was his slave was his property.
So was his wife and his horse.
Slavery - owning another human - was a part of the history of mankind. Cannot imagine a Southran who would not simply accept this as a way of life.
Some Northrens, influenced by the Unitarian Church (cult) and rabid abolitionists, would be opposed to ANY slavery ANY PLACE. Most Northerners would tolerate it; a slave was "in his place" and a freedman was a threat to employment, etc.
That was 1860. And the forced emancipation following the invasion and destruction of the legitimate state governments (confederated as were the original 13 states until the Constitution changed all that) did little to truly help the slaves.
They became "free" but remain in "economic slavery" and "political slavery" for 100 more years.
Jim - thanks for the interesting history. I might have owned slaves, but if I did, it would be to give them a better life than that of other slave owners, as the Moravians did. I would not allow families to be broken up, and, if I could afford it, I would allow them to earn their freedom. Whatever our view of slavery, Paul specifically charged believers not to judge each other over it. The northerners who tried imposing their anti-slavery views on southern branches of their churches were in error. The north was influenced by the unitarian fruitage of the social gospel, and are responsible for destroying the American republic, as it was meant to operate. The result? We are all gradually being made slaves by the forces of federalism and globalism.
Read the story at
http://www.swbts.edu/pr/pressrelease.cfm?id=209
http://www.swbts.edu/pr/pressrelease.cfm?id=209
I would like to think that I would have been appalled by Slavery if I lived back then but I guess it would really depend on the culture I would be raised in that would shape my world view at that time .
If anything though I do think I would have fought for the Confederacy to protect my Family and Home against Yankee Agression .
L
liebeskind
Guest
[post snipped]
[ December 26, 2004, 01:24 AM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]
[ December 26, 2004, 01:24 AM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]
L
liebeskind
Guest
Slave ownership is a state of mind, When it is acted upon is when it become a crime.
But I have a better question for the White Christians on the Board (maybe all except me).
What if your daughter(s) were to bring home a Black Man or young man that the wanted to marry or date? Would that be accepted? And would your family members approve of it. Yes or No.
I reading your post (and it all looks pretty), I see good people commenting on something that will never happen again, and trying to put oneself in that position is impossible. But, the test is not if you would have been a slave owner, but what you would do now that slavery is not legal, when the situation of ethnicity, sex and Marriage is concern! Some still beleive that the white race should be pure, and that's because world wide the caucasians are 10% of the worlds population (if I'm not mistaken).
Ron
But I have a better question for the White Christians on the Board (maybe all except me).
What if your daughter(s) were to bring home a Black Man or young man that the wanted to marry or date? Would that be accepted? And would your family members approve of it. Yes or No.
I reading your post (and it all looks pretty), I see good people commenting on something that will never happen again, and trying to put oneself in that position is impossible. But, the test is not if you would have been a slave owner, but what you would do now that slavery is not legal, when the situation of ethnicity, sex and Marriage is concern! Some still beleive that the white race should be pure, and that's because world wide the caucasians are 10% of the worlds population (if I'm not mistaken).
Ron
Hey, Ron??? Let me ask you another question! When was the NORTH totally desegregated???----Wait---let me rephrase that question------IS the NORTH TOTALLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY---without a doubt between anybody who lives north of Tennessee---desegregated????
Be careful how you answer that question!!
Be careful how you answer that question!!
Joseph_Botwinick
<img src=/532.jpg>Banned
No problem with me if he were a Godly man who was truly in love with my daughter and could support her. Some of us don't see color when making decisions about others. You, know, that dream that MLK had?
Joseph Botwinick
I agree with Joseph. (That doesn't happen often.)
My only concern with my daughter is if she married a Godly man. She is still "unattached", so it is a real concern at this point. That's my test. Does he love God? Will he lead his family in a manner pleasing to God?
It doesn't matter the pigment of his skin.
Would my family accept him? I would. The rest of my family (siblings, etc.)do not serve God so I cannot definitely say. I will say in their defense; we were raised in a predominantly black neighborhood and all of our childhood friends were black. Many of those same friends are now serving God. So I don't think there would be an objection, as long as he is a godly man.
In HIS service;
Jim
(That doesn't happen often.)My only concern with my daughter is if she married a Godly man. She is still "unattached", so it is a real concern at this point. That's my test. Does he love God? Will he lead his family in a manner pleasing to God?
It doesn't matter the pigment of his skin.
Would my family accept him? I would. The rest of my family (siblings, etc.)do not serve God so I cannot definitely say. I will say in their defense; we were raised in a predominantly black neighborhood and all of our childhood friends were black. Many of those same friends are now serving God. So I don't think there would be an objection, as long as he is a godly man.
In HIS service;
Jim
As somewhat of a student of the history of slaveholding in the US, and of the consequences of both regions (BTW I was born in the "North" but now live in the "South"), we need to understand that BOTH regions contributed to the arrival and continuation of slavery in the US.
We must also remember that BOTH regions had areas where slavery existed and did not exist. There were secessionist movements in various areas of the South who wanted to secede from the CSA. This was a major factor in the creation of the state of WV.
Most slaves came to our shores on ships owned by northern shipping individuals or companies.
Moreover, if EVERYONE in the North loved the Blacks, why didn't they open all of their cities to these newly-freed people to work in their factories after the war was over?
Also, one needs to remember that much of the resentment that some in the South still harbor against the North came about as a result of the Carpetbagger movement of the Reconstruction era wherein greedy Northern politicians saw a chance to make a fast buck by taking advantage of laws passed by a Republican-controlled Congress and moved to the South.
Did you know that some of our Native Americans also held slaves?
Folks on both sides of the issue love to quote Lincoln. Basically, Lincoln had no qualms about preserving the institution of slavery in the South. However, he was opposed to the expansion of slavery in the newly opened areas of the West. If you read closely his Emancipation Proclamation, you will note that it did NOT free the slaves in the Union's border states.
Universal emancipation in the US did not occur until the ratification of the 13th Amendment, after Lincoln was already dead.
Moreover, not EVERY slaveowner mistreated his slaves. Some slaves actually even fought on the southern side during the war.
In the North, if you had enough money, you could pay your way out of the draft that was imposed (and hated by many in the North,e.g., the draft riots that occurred in some northern cities).
Neither side was totally guiltless when it came to slavery and the repercussions of its abolition. Its consequences affected practically EVERY aspect of the American social, political, economic, religious and ethical outlook on life back then, and still does to some degree today.
I have heroes and enemies from BOTH sides and of BOTH races.
We must also remember that BOTH regions had areas where slavery existed and did not exist. There were secessionist movements in various areas of the South who wanted to secede from the CSA. This was a major factor in the creation of the state of WV.
Most slaves came to our shores on ships owned by northern shipping individuals or companies.
Moreover, if EVERYONE in the North loved the Blacks, why didn't they open all of their cities to these newly-freed people to work in their factories after the war was over?
Also, one needs to remember that much of the resentment that some in the South still harbor against the North came about as a result of the Carpetbagger movement of the Reconstruction era wherein greedy Northern politicians saw a chance to make a fast buck by taking advantage of laws passed by a Republican-controlled Congress and moved to the South.
Did you know that some of our Native Americans also held slaves?
Folks on both sides of the issue love to quote Lincoln. Basically, Lincoln had no qualms about preserving the institution of slavery in the South. However, he was opposed to the expansion of slavery in the newly opened areas of the West. If you read closely his Emancipation Proclamation, you will note that it did NOT free the slaves in the Union's border states.
Universal emancipation in the US did not occur until the ratification of the 13th Amendment, after Lincoln was already dead.
Moreover, not EVERY slaveowner mistreated his slaves. Some slaves actually even fought on the southern side during the war.
In the North, if you had enough money, you could pay your way out of the draft that was imposed (and hated by many in the North,e.g., the draft riots that occurred in some northern cities).
Neither side was totally guiltless when it came to slavery and the repercussions of its abolition. Its consequences affected practically EVERY aspect of the American social, political, economic, religious and ethical outlook on life back then, and still does to some degree today.
I have heroes and enemies from BOTH sides and of BOTH races.
Great! I once dated an aboriginal girl for a while yet it did not work out. We have a huge asian population in Australia and that would be alright as well. Lets face it we are all descended from Noah and his sons so who cares what race people are? It is whether they love the Lord that is important.
B
Benfranklin403
Guest
>>>>>>>>>If you read closely his Emancipation Proclamation, you will note that it did NOT free the slaves in the Union's border states. <<<<<<<<
Actually the Emancipation Proclamation did not free ANY slaves immediately because it only freed those slaves in areas still in rebellion and outside the control of the union. But it certainly was the death knell of slavery because the union armies soon moved into areas in rebellian and made freedom a reality. And as Lincoln said, a promise having been made must be kept.
Actually the Emancipation Proclamation did not free ANY slaves immediately because it only freed those slaves in areas still in rebellion and outside the control of the union. But it certainly was the death knell of slavery because the union armies soon moved into areas in rebellian and made freedom a reality. And as Lincoln said, a promise having been made must be kept.
http://www.americancivilrightsreview.com/slavery-whatexslavessaid.htm </font>[/QUOTE]Given their ages and their comments, it seems pretty obvious some of these people had lost touch with reality. One of them even wants to wait on their "masters" in heaven! Excuse me, but the only "master" in heaven is Jesus Christ.