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

[bilby]

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

The argument is about why the majority of Christians didn't support the institution which slave owners claimed was supposedly a Christian thing to do

See, you have moved the goal posts.

Your OP claim is the (factual, but misleading) statement:

"Most Americans in Abraham Lincoln's day were Christians. (Christians who didnt own slaves.)". ​

But what you then describe as "The argument" is the (utterly incorrect and counterfactual) statement that:

"... the majority of Christians didn't support the institution [of slavery]"​

You are either too dumb to notice that your thread title doesn't say:

"Most Americans in Abraham Lincoln's day were Christians. (Christians who didnt support the ownership of slaves.)". ​

...or, less charitably, you are not too dumb to notice it, are fully aware of it, and are hoping that your audience is too dumb to notice it.

 

[Lion IRC]

Slavery is unconscionable except when its the lesser of two evils.

Incorrect (and indefensible).

Ah, no.
It's quite defensible.

 

[pood]

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

The argument is about why the majority of Christians didn't support the institution which slave owners claimed was supposedly a Christian thing to do

See, you have moved the goal posts.

Your OP claim is the (factual, but misleading) statement:

"Most Americans in Abraham Lincoln's day were Christians. (Christians who didnt own slaves.)". ​

But what you then describe as "The argument" is the (utterly incorrect and counterfactual) statement that:

"... the majority of Christians didn't support the institution [of slavery]"​

You are either too dumb to notice that your thread title doesn't say:

"Most Americans in Abraham Lincoln's day were Christians. (Christians who didnt support the ownership of slaves.)". ​

...or, less charitably, you are not too dumb to notice it, are fully aware of it, and are hoping that your audience is too dumb to notice it.

This is exactly what is going on here, IMO. And it’s such pathetic posting behavior.

 

[hyzer]

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

The argument is about why the majority of Christians didn't support the institution which slave owners claimed was supposedly a Christian thing to do

See, you have moved the goal posts.

Your OP claim is the (factual, but misleading) statement:

"Most Americans in Abraham Lincoln's day were Christians. (Christians who didnt own slaves.)". ​

But what you then describe as "The argument" is the (utterly incorrect and counterfactual) statement that:

"... the majority of Christians didn't support the institution [of slavery]"​

You are either too dumb to notice that your thread title doesn't say:

"Most Americans in Abraham Lincoln's day were Christians. (Christians who didnt support the ownership of slaves.)". ​

...or, less charitably, you are not too dumb to notice it, are fully aware of it, and are hoping that your audience is too dumb to notice it.

This is exactly what is going on here, IMO. And it’s such pathetic posting behavior.

Not only is it pathetic posting behavior, but it fails to acknowledge that the majority of whites in the red states are raging racists AND self identified Christians today.

 

[Bronzeage]

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?

That was for the importation of slaves from Africa(or anywhere else). From that point forward, the slave population increase was only through the birth of enslaved people inside the borders of the United States. The slave trade thrived as this natural limit on slave inventory drove prices higher. The net effect of this was to increase the cost of slave labor, as the work done by pregnant women and mothers of newborns decreased, enslaved children had to be fed and clothed for more than a decade before they could do any useful labor.

 

[Politesse]

Slavery is unconscionable except when its the lesser of two evils.

Incorrect (and indefensible).

Ah, no.
It's quite defensible.

No, it really isn't. There is no convincing moral argument that should make my body justifiably the property of someone else in perpetuity. If we do not have bodily autonomy, what else do we have? Almost all social rules stem from personal volition and autonomy, or at least become unenforceable in its absence, which is why in slave-owning societies we see other notorious abuses of human rights circulatimg around the institution.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Most southerners didn't have slaves because there was a limited amount of slaves available, and also because not everyone wanted a slave even if they supported the institution of slavery.
Pood says the USA is a republic, not a democracy. This is a viewpoint among fans of Ayn Rand and other right-wing influencers, but it is incorrect. The opposite of a republic is a monarchy; the opposite of a democracy is a dictatorship.

 

[Lion IRC]

Slavery is unconscionable except when its the lesser of two evils.

Incorrect (and indefensible).

Ah, no.
It's quite defensible.

No, it really isn't. There is no convincing moral argument that should make my body justifiably the property of someone else in perpetuity.

Who said in perpetuity?
And I think you're missing the concept of reluctant consent.

If we do not have bodily autonomy, what else do we have?

Can I sell my body in return for a place to sleep and enough food to keep me alive?

You did say autonomy, right?

 

[steve_bank]

Slavery is unconscionable except when its the lesser of two evils.

Un fucking believable Lion, is this your Christian morality?

Sacred prostitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ancient Jews had prostitution and god did not prohibit it , so it must be Ok right?

Lion would you mind saying what country you live in?

 

[Politesse]

Can I sell my body in return for a place to sleep and enough food to keep me alive?

You did say autonomy, right?

Yes. You have the right to choose what to do with your body. No one has the right to take that choice from you.

 

[Politesse]

Who said in perpetuity?
And I think you're missing the concept of reluctant consent.

I'm not "missing" anything. We're discussing slavery.

 

[pood]

Most southerners didn't have slaves because there was a limited amount of slaves available, and also because not everyone wanted a slave even if they supported the institution of slavery.
Pood says the USA is a republic, not a democracy. This is a viewpoint among fans of Ayn Rand and other right-wing influencers, but it is incorrect. The opposite of a republic is a monarchy; the opposite of a democracy is a dictatorship.

The U.S. is a republic with elements of democracy. This is why we have the Electoral College — a decidedly non-Democratic institution. If we had a full-fledged democracy, obviously the winner of the most popular votes nationwide would be elected president. Yet somehow, we didn’t have either President Gore or President H. Clinton. In the 19th century, even Senators were not directly elected. It’s why Lincoln lost the 1858 senate contest to Stephen A. Douglass.

 

[pood]

As to Randites and right-wing influencers, even blind pigs find acorns now and then, but the key point is that their interpretation of what a Republic means is daft.

 

[pood]

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?

That was for the importation of slaves from Africa(or anywhere else). From that point forward, the slave population increase was only through the birth of enslaved people inside the borders of the United States. The slave trade thrived as this natural limit on slave inventory drove prices higher. The net effect of this was to increase the cost of slave labor, as the work done by pregnant women and mothers of newborns decreased, enslaved children had to be fed and clothed for more than a decade before they could do any useful labor.

Yes, that’s right. It should be noted that the nice Christian Confederacy planned to revive the Atlantic slave trade if their secession had been successful, and then invade and occupy Cuba and Central America down into South America to forger a huge slave empire.

 

[Bronzeage]

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?

That was for the importation of slaves from Africa(or anywhere else). From that point forward, the slave population increase was only through the birth of enslaved people inside the borders of the United States. The slave trade thrived as this natural limit on slave inventory drove prices higher. The net effect of this was to increase the cost of slave labor, as the work done by pregnant women and mothers of newborns decreased, enslaved children had to be fed and clothed for more than a decade before they could do any useful labor.

Yes, that’s right. It should be noted that the nice Christian Confederacy planned to revive the Atlantic slave trade if their secession had been successful, and then invade and occupy Cuba and Central America down into South America to forger a huge slave empire.

I put this in the same file along with Nazi plans to bomb New York in WW2.

Every culture or society will have elements that are divorced from reality and it always makes good reading. Anyone with plans to revive the Atlantic slave trade would face the British Empire and the Royal Navy, where they say,
Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves!
Britons never, never, never will be slaves.

 

[pood]

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?

That was for the importation of slaves from Africa(or anywhere else). From that point forward, the slave population increase was only through the birth of enslaved people inside the borders of the United States. The slave trade thrived as this natural limit on slave inventory drove prices higher. The net effect of this was to increase the cost of slave labor, as the work done by pregnant women and mothers of newborns decreased, enslaved children had to be fed and clothed for more than a decade before they could do any useful labor.

Yes, that’s right. It should be noted that the nice Christian Confederacy planned to revive the Atlantic slave trade if their secession had been successful, and then invade and occupy Cuba and Central America down into South America to forger a huge slave empire.

I put this in the same file along with Nazi plans to bomb New York in WW2.

Every culture or society will have elements that are divorced from reality and it always makes good reading. Anyone with plans to revive the Atlantic slave trade would face the British Empire and the Royal Navy, where they say,
Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves!
Britons never, never, never will be slaves.

Oh, I don’t say they would have been successful, just that they would have tried. I doubt they would have successful in their daft plans to invade Cuba, Central America, et al, either. Had they actually won their independence, I think they would have ended up a social and economic basket case inside of 20 years and probably would have been pleading to re-enter the Union.

 

[TomC]

Had they actually won their independence, I think they would have ended up a social and economic basket case inside of 20 years and probably would have been pleading to re-enter the Union.

I think so too.
I think that the Confederacy would have become much more like Mexico.
Tom

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Religion and the Civil War.

He's not going to read it, anything that contradicts his Christian version of history is thrown out.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

You are welcome even though you snipped out that the anti- slavery movement extended way beyond “Christian” motivation in another desperate attempt to deflect from your vapid analysis.

...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.

What a pathetic straw man. Your original claim about Christians ending slavery is not the same as saying Christian conscience was an influence in ending slavery.

My great grandfather fought in the Civil War for for the North to preserve the union and to free the slaves. He believed slavery was immoral nit because of the Bible but because owning people was wrong.

 

[Lion IRC]

Slavery is unconscionable except when its the lesser of two evils.

Un fucking believable Lion, is this your Christian morality?

No. It predates Christianity.

The lesser of two evils is a universal concept documented back at least as far as ancient Greek moral philosophy.

Sacred prostitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ancient Jews had prostitution and god did not prohibit it , so it must be Ok right?

He did prohibit it. So it's NOT ok

"People of Israel, don't any of you ever be temple prostitutes. The Lord your God is disgusted with men and women who are prostitutes of any kind..."

Lion would you mind saying what country you live in?

Um...I sense a logical fallacy coming but if you think that will somehow make a difference whether I'm right or wrong. ️

Lion IRC

iidb.org