Most Americans in Abraham Lincoln's day were Christians. (Christians who didnt own slaves.) Prove me wrong.

[steve_bank]

To return from a moment to Lincoln’s passage about slavery and the union, he is PLAINLY STATING that he would sell out the future of every slave in America, and their progeny, if only doing so would keep his precious fucking union intact. How much clearer could he possibly be, except to the willfully obtuse? In retrospect it might have been better if the union had followed the advice some prominent pol, I forget who, gave, who said, “wayward sisters, go in peace,” because we might all have been better off, except temporarily extant slaves. That’s because we would have saved some 700,000 lives, and slavery probably would have ended anyway in less than a generation, because an independent south would have been a social, economic, and political basket case.

If the union had failed we would have been picked apart by the French and Brits.

The American idea of rule by the people through democratic processes was an experiment and it still is. We were tested by Trump and it is not over. It is being tested across all the western liberal democracies.

Slavery would have ended by the end of the 19th century due to agricultural mechanization.n.

 

[bilby]

Your real reward comes in the AFTER life, which, as any sensible person knows, does not exist.

Sadly, sensible people are not hugely common.

Heaven is the $56,653,5414,563.62USDollar on offer in a Nigerian 419 scam email - it's bleeding obvious to any sensible person that it doesn't exist, and yet there are still people who fall for the fraud.

 

[Lion IRC]

THIS PROVES MY POINT

No, it proves that the Civil War was fought over slavery. The union wasn't threatened by anything other than slavery and the status of African Americans.

You are free to disagree with the majority of historians but all you're doing up til this point is saying.... in order to preserve the union the North had to fight.

And people are like... fight over what?

Then pood says... to preserve the union.

And people are like... yes, but what were they fighting about?

Then pood says... to preserve the union.

And people are like... yes but what was the disagreement?

Then pood says... whether or not to preserve the union

 

[TomC]

No, it proves that the Civil War was fought over slavery. The union wasn't threatened by anything other than slavery and the status of African Americans.

The Northern states weren't threatened by anything in particular. But they invaded anyway.

I cannot believe that a significant number of northern boys went to fight, kill and die, to rescue black people.

I think it was more of a cultural clash that impacted the interests of the elite. By then, the threat of the British had faded to negligible. So that stopped being a reason for the comparatively Christian conservative (agricultural and authoritarian) South to stay tied to the more liberal, industrial, and progressive North. So the Confederate states seceded.
Not that different from the late 18th century when the colonies seceded from the British Empire. Except that the Confederacy didn't have an ocean protecting them from the military repercussions.
Tom

 

[pood]

THIS PROVES MY POINT

No, it proves that the Civil War was fought over slavery. The union wasn't threatened by anything other than slavery and the status of African Americans.

You are free to disagree with the majority of historians but all you're doing up til this point is saying.... in order to preserve the union the North had to fight.

And people are like... fight over what?

Then pood says... to preserve the union.

And people are like... yes, but what were they fighting about?

Then pood says... to preserve the union.

And people are like... yes but what was the disagreement?

Then pood says... whether or not to preserve the union

Um … yeah. That’s right. The north was fighting to preserve the union, and not to end slavery. It wasn’t necessary to repeat the question three times. The first time suffices.

 

[pood]

And no, if you persist in your stupid claim that the north was fighting to abolish slavery, it is you who disagrees with the majority of historians.

 

[pood]

No, it proves that the Civil War was fought over slavery. The union wasn't threatened by anything other than slavery and the status of African Americans.

The Northern states weren't threatened by anything in particular. But they invaded anyway.

I cannot believe that a significant number of northern boys went to fight, kill and die, to rescue black people.

I think it was more of a cultural clash that impacted the interests of the elite. By then, the threat of the British had faded to negligible. So that stopped being a reason for the comparatively Christian conservative (agricultural and authoritarian) South to stay tied to the more liberal, industrial, and progressive North. So the Confederate states seceded.
Not that different from the late 18th century when the colonies seceded from the British Empire. Except that the Confederacy didn't have an ocean protecting them from the military repercussions.
Tom

I’ll note again, as we have discussed this in the past, that that the colonies did not “secede” from the British empire, because they were not equal members of said empire. They were colonies. They lacked the same rights as citizens of the British isles. The war for American independence and the illegal southern secession are not comparable.

 

[pood]

And the northern states did not “invade” the south. You cannot “invade” your own territory.

 

[TomC]

that that the colonies did not “secede” from the British empire,

And the northern states did not “invade” the south. You cannot “invade” your own territory.

You can rearrange the meanings of such words to suit your agenda, but it doesn't change the reality.
Tom

 

[pood]

that that the colonies did not “secede” from the British empire,

And the northern states did not “invade” the south. You cannot “invade” your own territory.

You can rearrange the meanings of such words to suit your agenda, but it doesn't change the reality.
Tom

I think it is you who are rearranging words to suit your agenda — and, actually, I have no agenda.

If I declare myself an independent country, and refuse to abide by the laws of the United Staes, how long do you think I would get away with that?

Also note that the southern people themselves never voted directly to secede. This goes to the heart of the Republic/Democracy distinction.

The south, along with the north, was subject to a binding political contract under the Constitution. As Lincoln noted, no single party may legally break a binding contract. However, the contract can be mutually dissolved by both parties to it.

The colonies and Great Britain never had such a mutually agreed contract, but rather an exploitative relationship, which is precisely why the colonies rebelled.

North and South were quite different.

However, to go back to the point that I have no agenda here, I have often thought that it might have been the better part of wisdom for the north to agree to dissolve the contract with the south — “wayward sisters, depart in peace,” and all that. Even now, I would rather like to see the Red and Blue states peacefully separate. I am not keen on living in the same country as a bunch of ignorant MAGAts.

However, what gives me pause is what would have happened to the slaves had such a mutually agreed rescinding of the contract been effectuated.

In any event, under actual circumstances, the north did not “invade” the south, any more than one party to a binding contract seeks to enforce it if the other party reneges on it.

 

[pood]

If the union had failed we would have been picked apart by the French and Brits.

I don’t think so. The North was a rapidly growing economic and military power house. It could have easily survived and thrived without the South — indeed, perhaps even done better without the drag anchor of a bunch of retrogressive plantation-owning racist twits. Just like today the blue states would do just fine without the drag anchor of the red states. Probably even better, because most federal tax dollars are sucked up by the red states even though their idiot residents believe just the opposite is true.

 

[Learner]

All in all, it seems to me that denying Christian conscience in the ending of US/UK slavery is desperate clutching at straws.

Except no one is denying this.

Yes. Right here in this thread its being denied.

Where? No one disputes that there was plenty of Christian sentiment against slavery, although, of course, since virtually everyone in the U.S. at the time was Christian, or at least professed to be, that means very little.

Yes indeed, there were plenty of 'self-processing' Christians, who were either 'for or against' slavery. That means (and says) a lot, when you're saying 'virtually everyone back then was Christian (or most if not all).

What is being denied is your implied argument that there was a univocal Christian opposition to slavery

Show me where I have said there was univocal Christian opposition to slavery.

You’ve strongly implied it. If that is not your claim, then what is? What point are you trying to make? Do you even know?

Your statement above seems to imply Christians had a big part in being in opposition to slavery...
..although the sad irony in opposition to that - people also misused the bible to justify slavery. Prosperity on the detriment of others etc.

 

[pood]

Ah yes, misused the bible, which advises slaves to obey their earthly masters.

 

[pood]

Also, I did not imply that that Christians had a “big part” in opposing slavery. SOME did. But virtually none in the south.

 

[ideologyhunter]

people also misused the bible to justify slavery.

You're misusing the Bible by forcing it to say what it doesn't say. Simon Legree, had he been real, would have felt justified in all of his practices with one exception -- he should have held back the last couple of wallops he gave Tom.

 

[Learner]

people also misused the bible to justify slavery.

You're misusing the Bible by forcing it to say what it doesn't say. Simon Legree, had he been real, would have felt justified in all of his practices with one exception -- he should have held back the last couple of wallops he gave Tom.

As you post: "misusing the bible by forcing it to say what it doesn't say", responding to the line you quoted of mine (highlighted in bold text) . What should have been noticeable to you, is that line is not a quote from the bible.

 

[bilby]

If the union had failed we would have been picked apart by the French and Brits.

I don’t think so. The North was a rapidly growing economic and military power house. It could have easily survived and thrived without the South — indeed, perhaps even done better without the drag anchor of a bunch of retrogressive plantation-owning racist twits. Just like today the blue states would do just fine without the drag anchor of the red states. Probably even better, because most federal tax dollars are sucked up by the red states even though their idiot residents believe just the opposite is true.

The south would likely have returned to colonial status though. If only because the British would be scared that the French might get it.

 

[bilby]

All in all, it seems to me that denying Christian conscience in the ending of US/UK slavery is desperate clutching at straws.

Except no one is denying this.

Yes. Right here in this thread its being denied.

Where? No one disputes that there was plenty of Christian sentiment against slavery, although, of course, since virtually everyone in the U.S. at the time was Christian, or at least professed to be, that means very little.

Yes indeed, there were plenty of 'self-processing' Christians, who were either 'for or against' slavery. That means (and says) a lot, when you're saying 'virtually everyone back then was Christian (or most if not all).

What is being denied is your implied argument that there was a univocal Christian opposition to slavery

Show me where I have said there was univocal Christian opposition to slavery.

You’ve strongly implied it. If that is not your claim, then what is? What point are you trying to make? Do you even know?

Your statement above seems to imply Christians had a big part in being in opposition to slavery...
..although the sad irony in opposition to that - people also misused the bible to justify slavery. Prosperity on the detriment of others etc.

You can't misuse the Bible; You can use it to justify anything you want, and that's why it was written the way it is.

James the I and VI was a lot of things, but he was no idiot when it came to keeping his options open in the diplomatic arguments with his two (very different) churches.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

And the northern states did not “invade” the south. You cannot “invade” your own territory.

The Battle Of Gettysburg was an attempt by the Confederacy to invade Pennsylvania, in the North. The first major invasion attempt in the civil war by either side.

 

[ideologyhunter]

people also misused the bible to justify slavery.

You're misusing the Bible by forcing it to say what it doesn't say. Simon Legree, had he been real, would have felt justified in all of his practices with one exception -- he should have held back the last couple of wallops he gave Tom.

As you post: "misusing the bible by forcing it to say what it doesn't say", responding to the line you quoted of mine (highlighted in bold text) . What should have been noticeable to you, is that line is not a quote from the bible.

Noted.
Does the Bible promote and assent to chattel slavery, at Lev. 25: 44-6?
Does Exodus 21:20-1 allow for brutal beatings of your slaves?
Is there a single Bible verse which mentions slavery and states that it is an evil practice?