• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

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

The anti slavery view prevailed due to North’s victory over the South.

Gee. Thats such a profound insight.
I'd never considered that.

Thank you.

Does any other military historian know about this amazing phenomenon?

...The anti Nazi view prevailed due to the Allies victory over the Axis forces.

...The numerically superior army's view prevailed over the smaller army. The weaker army. The Southern Confederate army. The army whose heart wasn't really in it when it came to fighting for someone else's racist, greedy, unbiblical, slave-owning status quo.

...All in all, it seems to me to attribute the ending of slavery to Christianity or to Christians is desperate overreach

OK
Now it's my turn. Let me try.

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

(Nah...I'm not feeling it. "Seems like" isn't an argument. Accusing your opponent of 'desperately' pushing an overreach that they don't really believe, isn't an argument.)
 

...The numerically superior army's view prevailed over the smaller army. The weaker army. The Southern Confederate army. The army whose heart wasn't really in it when it came to fighting for someone else's racist, greedy, unbiblical, slave-owning status quo.

:ROFLMAO:

Right. Some 300,000 Southerners died in the Civil War — a staggering total for a time when the population was much, much lower than today; even by today’s standards, that would be a staggering number — but their “heart wasn’t in it,” sez you, the noted Civil War historian. :rofl:And why was their heart not really in it, sez you? Cuz JEBUS! You live in an utter fantasy world.
 
Wait...did he really just say the Confederate Army's heart "really wasn't in it"....or was that a contrary rhetorical flourish? Whew.

I know. Bizarre, right? He just believes whatever shit he wants to believe.
 
It should be noted that Lincoln’s religious views were complicated, like everything else about the man. He did indeed write a tract against Christianity and inveighed against it in his youth. During the Civil War, and especially after the death of his beloved Willie, his views became more nuanced, no doubt because of all the grief he was suffering. His magisterial Second Inaugural Address was suffused with religion and Biblical allusions, but it should again be borne in mind that he, as an astute politician, was speaking in the vocabulary and cadences of a Bible-suffused public, and also that his “God” seems to have been a kind of abstract force of providential destiny, and certainly not the triune God of Christianity. Lincoln might possibly have been a Deist, or just someone who believed in some kind of obscure Providence. A bible-thumping Christian he certainly never was, and he never joined any church. He once tellingly said, “When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That’s my religion.”

Herndon and Jesse W. Weik wrote the book Herndon's Lincoln: The True Story of a Great Life, published in 1889. Herndon, Lincoln's law partner, was the source of the story of Lincoln's book on Christianity being destroyed. Herndon related the fact Lincoln was a life long Deist. This biography, was printed in a limited edition. It was nearly lost to history when Christian ministers plotted to quietly buy up all copies and destroy them. Only a few copies of the original printing survived. Eventually it was reprinted.
 
I wouldn’t even say the “Christian” view against slavery has prevailed for the last 200 years. What ended slavery was not Christianity in the least, but the military muscle of the Union and the political sagacity of Lincoln. If the South had won slavery might still be around today and supported by tons of Christians.
Slavery would not exist today for the simple fact it was uneconomical. Just as there is no such thing as a free lunch, there's no such thing as free labor. To compound this problem, the slaver's incentive is to spend as little as possible on slave maintenance, while the slave's incentive is to do as little labor as possible. Anyone who has supervised or managed minimum wage workers is familiar with this problem. There is a definite amount of work any one person will do, knowing they can't be paid any less for it.
In the 18th and 19th century, it was possible to appear profitable if one disregarded the depreciation of the value of the arable land. This reality hit the east coast slave states first as land became depleted by tobacco planting. As the decades passed, it became impossible to clothe and feed an enslaved labor force and still support the lifestyle a slave owner and his family expected. As the yield per acre declined, planters moved into Alabama and points west, where fresh soil was available. The east coast plantations survived by becoming slave breeding operations and selling slaves to the western plantations.

This often overlooked fact is one of the chief driving forces of succession. It was not the threat of the end of slavery. The slaves weren't going anywhere. After emancipation, they would still be agricultural field labor. It was the threat of the loss of the profitable slave trade which fueled succession.

While all sorts of moral arguments can be made for or against slavery, the economic argument always wins in the end.
 

All in all, it seems to me that denying Christian conscience in the ending of US/UK slavery is desperate clutching at straws.
Except one is denying this. What is being denied is your implied argument that there was a univocal Christian opposition to slavery when clearly there was not. But thanks for another stupid strawman.
 

This often overlooked fact is one of the chief driving forces of succession. It was not the threat of the end of slavery. The slaves weren't going anywhere. After emancipation, they would still be agricultural field labor. It was the threat of the loss of the profitable slave trade which fueled succession.
Well, Congress abolished the slave trade in 1807. Maybe you are referring to something else here?
 

This often overlooked fact is one of the chief driving forces of succession. It was not the threat of the end of slavery. The slaves weren't going anywhere. After emancipation, they would still be agricultural field labor. It was the threat of the loss of the profitable slave trade which fueled succession.
Well, Congress abolished the slave trade in 1807. Maybe you are referring to something else here?
No, really they didn't. Importation of slaves was not the same thing as trading.
Tom
 

This often overlooked fact is one of the chief driving forces of succession. It was not the threat of the end of slavery. The slaves weren't going anywhere. After emancipation, they would still be agricultural field labor. It was the threat of the loss of the profitable slave trade which fueled succession.
Well, Congress abolished the slave trade in 1807. Maybe you are referring to something else here?
No, really they didn't. Importation of slaves was not the same thing as trading.
Tom
The importation of slaves was prohibited by the U.S. in 1807. Of course smugglers found ways around this, and the domestic slave trade continued unabated. The supply of slaves in the U.S. was increased by reproduction, not importation.
 
I wouldn’t even say the “Christian” view against slavery has prevailed for the last 200 years. What ended slavery was not Christianity in the least, but the military muscle of the Union and the political sagacity of Lincoln. If the South had won slavery might still be around today and supported by tons of Christians.
Shoot, a majority of white population of all the red states, all Christians, are actively racist and act like the civil war was completely just, and they treat others as though they won the war.
 
Just wanted to add that only two countries in the entire world needed a civil war to end slavery. All the others figured it out without fighting.


Haiti and the US of A
 
If I weren't so lazy,
I'd start a thread about how racist Christian culture was, long past the Emancipation Proclamation.
Especially here in America, it was vile.

As more and more Christians adopted secular values and ethics, the virulent racism started to ebb. Back when decent white people joined the black folks in the fight for basic civil equality, they were commonly dismissed as "not True Christians" because Scriptures do not support human rights or racial justice. But it was a hard fought battle between the secularists and the "Segregation taday, Segregation tommorah, Segregation forevah!" Christian culture.
Secular Humanism and it's values and ethics prevailed (mostly) over Scriptural Christianity.

But I am too lazy to start such a thread.
Tom
 
Just wanted to add that only two countries in the entire world needed a civil war to end slavery. All the others figured it out without fighting.


Haiti and the US of A
Just Haiti, actually. Slavery is still legal in the US, and abolishing it outright is considered a "radical" progressive cause. Although all but two states have individually closed the loophole in theory, until recently, the push for universal abolition had very little support in Washington even on the "left" and still faces thin odds at best. So if the Union's goal in the Civil War was to end slavery, it didn't work. The war ended 158 years ago, and that goal has not been met.
 
Just Haiti, actually.
Barely Haiti.

The first foreign military adventure of the US was to quell the slave uprising in Haiti.
Ya know. Uppity niggers trying to take their lives back. Can't have that...

Eventually, the Haitian people were forced to buy themselves from the French buddies of our president for about the same as we paid for the Louisiana Purchase.
Tom
 
I thought that everyone knew that almost all slave holders were Christians. I've found several Christians sources earlier this morning that apologized for it or tried to explain why Christians were slave. holders but I got distracted, so I'll post a link from a different source. Damn. All one has to do is look it up and they will find a bounty of information that discusses Christian slave holders. And, btw, Frederick Douglas writes in his outstanding book, that the absolute worst slave owners were the most religious ones. I've read his book three times. I encourage everyone to read it, if they want to understand what it was like being an actual slave during the 1800s. It should be required reading for every middle school or high school student, but of course, people like De Santis wouldn't want kids to learn the dark history of our country.

https://time.com/5171819/christianity-slavery-book-excerpt/

During the period of American slavery, how did slaveholders manage to balance their religious beliefs with the cruel facts of the “peculiar institution“? As shown by the following passages — adapted from Noel Rae’s new book The Great Stain, which uses firsthand accounts to tell the story of slavery in America — for some of them that rationalization was right there in the Bible.

Out of the more than three quarters of a million words in the Bible, Christian slaveholders—and, if asked, most slaveholders would have defined themselves as Christian—had two favorites texts, one from the beginning of the Old Testament and the other from the end of the New Testament. In the words of the King James Bible, which was the version then current, these were, first, Genesis IX, 18–27:


“And the sons of Noah that went forth from the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan. These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole world overspread. And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: and he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years.”
So, there you go, a bit about the mythology of Noah and the Ark and how it was used to justify Christians support of slavery.



Many of the abolitionists were atheists, including one of my favorite ones, Ernestine Rose, who I actually gave a speech about, some 20ish years ago to The Atlanta Freethought Society. There were many freethinking females who were abolitionists, but how many Christians realize that? Obviously, not our IIDB Biblical literalist, who only believes what he wants to believe.
 
And, I want to add a little bit from the atheist Ernestine Rose, who was both an abolitionist, an early feminist and a well known activist for many types of social reform in her day. She was born in the early 1800s in Poland and eventually migrated to the US with her husband.


My Friends:—In undertaking the inquiry of the existence of a God, I am fully conscious of the difficulties I have to encounter. I am well aware that the very question produces in most minds a feeling of awe, as if stepping on forbidden ground, too holy and sacred for mortals to approach. The very question strikes them with horror, and it is owing to this prejudice so deeply implanted by education, and also strengthened by public sentiment, that so few are willing to give it a fair and impartial investigation,—knowing but too well that it casts a stigma and reproach upon any person bold enough to undertake the task, unless his previously known opinions are a guarantee that his conclusions would be in accordance and harmony with the popular demand. But believing, as I do, that Truth only is beneficial, and Error, from whatever source, and under whatever name, is pernicious to man, I consider no place too holy, no subject too sacred, for man's earnest investigation; for by so doing only can we arrive at Truth, learn to discriminate it from Error, and be able to accept the one and reject the other.

Nor is this the only impediment in the way of this inquiry. The question arises, Where shall we begin? We have been told, that "by searching none can find out God," which has so far proved true; for, as yet, no one has ever been able to find him. The most strenuous believer has to acknowledge that it is only a belief, but he knows nothing on the subject. Where, then, shall we search for his existence? Enter the material world; ask the Sciences whether they can disclose the mystery? Geology speaks of the structure of the Earth, the formation of the different strata, of coal, of granite, of the whole mineral kingdom.—It reveals the remains and traces of animals long extinct, but gives us no clue whereby we may prove the existence of a God.

Natural history gives us a knowledge of the animal kingdom in general; the different organisms, structures, and powers of the various species. Physiology teaches the nature of man, the laws that govern his being, the functions of the vital organs, and the conditions upon which alone health and life depend. Phrenology treats of the laws of mind, the different portions of the brain, the temperaments, the organs, how to develop some and repress others to produce a well balanced and healthy condition. But in the whole animal economy—though the brain is considered to be a "microcosm," in which may be traced a resemblance or relationship with everything in Nature—not a spot can be found to indicate the existence of a God.

Mathematics lays the foundation of all the exact sciences. It teaches the art of combining numbers, of calculating and measuring distances, how to solve problems, to weigh mountains, to fathom the depths of the ocean; but gives no directions how to ascertain the existence of a God.

Enter Nature's great laboratory—Chemistry.—She will speak to you of the various elements, their combinations and uses, of the gasses constantly evolving and combining in different proportions, producing all the varied objects, the interesting and important phenomena we behold. She proves the indestructibility of matter, and its inherent property—motion; but in all her operations, no demonstrable fact can be obtained to indicate the existence of a God.

Astronomy tells us of the wonders of the Solar System—the eternally revolving planets, the rapidity and certainty of their motions, the distance from planet to planet, from star to star. It predicts with astonishing and marvellous precision the phenomena of eclipses, the visibility upon our Earth of comets, and proves the immutable law of gravitation, but is entirely silent on the existence of a God.

In fine, descend into the bowels of the Earth, and you will learn what it contains; into the depths of the ocean, and you will find the inhabitants of the great deep; but neither in the Earth above, nor the waters below, can you obtain any knowledge of his existence. Ascend into the heavens, and enter the "milky way," go from planet to planet to the remotest star, and ask the eternally revolving systems, Where is God? and Echo answers, Where?

The Universe of Matter gives us no record of his existence. Where next shall we search? Enter the Universe of Mind, read the millions of volumes written on the subject, and in all the speculations, the assertions, the assumptions, the theories, and the creeds, you can only find Man stamped in an indelible impress his own mind on every page. In describing his God, he delineated his own character: the picture he drew represents in living and ineffaceable colors the epoch of his existence—the period he lived in.


It was a great mistake to say that God made man in his image. Man, in all ages, made his God in his own image; and we find that just in accordance with his civilization, his knowledge, his experience, his taste, his refinement, his sense of right, of justice, of freedom, and humanity,—so has he made his God. But whether coarse or refined; cruel and vindictive, or kind and generous; an implacable tyrant, or a gentle and loving father;—it still was the emanation of his own mind—the picture of himself.
 
Back
Top Bottom