Slave states vs Bible Belt

User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Accountable »

All of the North was urban landscape??
User avatar
Wandrin
Posts: 1697
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:10 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Wandrin »

Accountable;1396453 wrote: All of the North was urban landscape??
That's basically what they taught at that particular school. I'm sure that it was as much of a gross generalization as what I was taught in the northern schools about the south.
yaaarrrgg
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:29 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by yaaarrrgg »

This article is interesting (from another thread):

Ahso!;1396241 wrote: Religion and the American Civil War


"Both North and South championed the Bible in answering the dilemma of slavery, but in radically opposite manners. Northerners appealed to the spirit of the Bible (liberalism) in opposing slavery, whereas southerners appealed to the letter of the Bible (literalism) in defending slavery. These competing biblical claims helped shape public perceptions that led to secession and war"

That would help explain why the U.S. is cleanly split along the north and south on religious views, on slave lines. The south favors fundamentalism, likely because it better suited their economic position in supporting slavery. The Bible generally presents the idea that the slaves deserve being slaves, because they sinned. I only recall one story of someone (Jospeh) being sold into slavery unjustly, and he was freed and God made him king. The Bible also taught that slaves should treat the master well. Literally, the Bible supports the notion of slavery, confinement, and justified torture. You'd think the New Testament would oppose slavery but it doesn't. The advice to slaves is:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)


But the North on the other hand, saw that most abstract themes in the Bible could be interpreted to oppose slavery. Though IMO, the North was really grasping at straws, the Bible can be abstractly interpreted to support any view equally well. Even gay marriage. :)

So, the Southern religion of the South may be a curious relic of the past, founded to perpetuate human exploitation, but it now may harm southern states economically more than helps.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Ahso! »

yaaarrrgg;1396594 wrote:

But the North on the other hand, saw that most abstract themes in the Bible could be interpreted to oppose slavery. Though IMO, the North was really grasping at straws, the Bible can be abstractly interpreted to support any view equally well. Even gay marriage. :)

So, the Southern religion of the South may be a curious relic of the past, founded to perpetuate human exploitation, but it now may harm southern states economically more than helps.I think when one breaks it down, the true reason for the civil war was that the north and south both feared the other's version of christianity. However, they had to wrap their differences in something political (slavery) in order to satisfy the constitutionality of killing one another off. Think about it, why would slavery, which was based on what was considered substandard humans drive whites to want to kill each other over? It doesn't make sense. And to put forward the argument that it was an economic issue is even less credible because southerns were fundamentalist to the extent that they weren't going to fight over serving money as their master. They had one master and that was God.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
yaaarrrgg
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:29 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by yaaarrrgg »

Ahso!;1396609 wrote: I think when one breaks it down, the true reason for the civil war was that the north and south both feared the other's version of christianity. However, they had to wrap their differences in something political (slavery) in order to satisfy the constitutionality of killing one another off. Think about it, why would slavery, which was based on what was considered substandard humans drive whites to want to kill each other over? It doesn't make sense. And to put forward the argument that it was an economic issue is even less credible because southerns were fundamentalist to the extent that they weren't going to fight over serving money as their master. They had one master and that was God.


That's a good point. Often economic reasons are the basis of war, although now that seems less likely to me with the Civil war.

It's been implied that that North had an economic motive to oppose slavery and engage in the war, but how would that be true? The North was benefiting from the slave labor as much as the South. Also, the North was not really a competitor since in agriculture it grew completely different crops (due to climate), and was leaning towards manufacturing (which depended on both imports from the south, and demand from southern customers for sales).

It would be like the U.S. (today) opposing the production of goods and services made in third world countries ... we'd would be shooting ourselves in the foot economically speaking. Or China launching a missile on the U.S., one of it's best customers.
yaaarrrgg
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:29 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by yaaarrrgg »

Wandrin;1396454 wrote: That's basically what they taught at that particular school. I'm sure that it was as much of a gross generalization as what I was taught in the northern schools about the south.


I was curious about the reasons southern states gave for leaving the union. One of my history teachers said that slavery wasn't an issue until after the Civil war was fought, not a reason for the war (in public school in the Bible Belt). He cited reasons such as tarriffs and state's rights. All abstract and more respectable sounding ideas. Though clearly this is contradicted by the actual reasons given for the split, with slavery being the focus:

Declaration of Causes of Secession

If it weren't pathetic, it would be humorous that the gist of all these Southern complaints is basically: The federal government is treating us like slaves, and that kind of treatment is wrong.

They also have the feeling that God himself had agreed with them:

the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- [is] a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law.
Clodhopper
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Clodhopper »

Following the thread with interest. Just a point on the slavery of Rome and Greece and those sorts of times:

Though some slavery was like the American South (at least, as I understand it) much of it was a way of dealing with prisoners of war rather than just killing them, and relatives and friends might buy them back (eg Greece) or slaves might buy their freedom and become powerful people in their own right in Rome. My impression is that Southern States slavery was absolute. Could a slave be freed in the Confederate States?

Think there might be something in the idea that in defeat and disaster, people hold much harder to their religion, especially those aspects of that religion that differentiate them from their "oppressor".
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"

Lone voice: "I'm not."
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Accountable »

Clodhopper;1396775 wrote: Following the thread with interest. Just a point on the slavery of Rome and Greece and those sorts of times:

Though some slavery was like the American South (at least, as I understand it) much of it was a way of dealing with prisoners of war rather than just killing them, and relatives and friends might buy them back (eg Greece) or slaves might buy their freedom and become powerful people in their own right in Rome. My impression is that Southern States slavery was absolute. Could a slave be freed in the Confederate States?

Think there might be something in the idea that in defeat and disaster, people hold much harder to their religion, especially those aspects of that religion that differentiate them from their "oppressor".
IMO, things really got twisted because the people taken into slavery were (1) so very different from the ruling people, and (2) so far away from their homes. Indentured servitude or even slavery as a product of war are very different from the chattel slavery that developed in the US. What to do with the black children of the slaves? There were no families or communities of black people to take them in, so they became slaves as well. Yes, owners could and did free slaves, but many areas didn't honor their freedom, viewing any black person as a slave. So in many people's eyes it was indeed absolute.

The general consensus when I was a child in rural Louisiana was that the poorest antebellum white people still supported slavery because at least they had a group to be "better" than. Of course, I'm sure they gave up a lot of good work (and stayed poor) because it was seen as "****** work".
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Ahso! »

Accountable;1396787 wrote: The general consensus when I was a child in rural Louisiana was that the poorest antebellum white people still supported slavery because at least they had a group to be "better" than.How do you know that?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Accountable »

Ahso!;1396789 wrote: How do you know that?
Because I was in rural Louisiana as a child. Pull your butt plug. I'm not claiming that scholars & historians made such a claim, or even teachers. General consensus of the people around me when I was a child.

Get counseling.
Clodhopper
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Clodhopper »

It's an interesting idea, that the American Civil War was about different versions of Christianity. I wonder if it might actually be a bit like the British Civil War, where religion defined the two basic sides, Cavalier and Roundhead, and also helped to entrench attitudes, but what they actually fought about was Who Rules - ie political. But it was a time when politics and religion were not separate particularly since the King used the concept of the Divine Right to justify his rule, and this was widely accepted as the glue that held the whole State together. Only a reason that had religion at its heart could oppose that incredibly powerful idea. The Civil War was a major factor in creating the separation of Church and State we now take for granted.

So my suspicion would be that in the American case, as in the British one, religion helped entrench attitudes and increase a sense of difference and reduce any chance of compromise, but did not in itself cause the conflict.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"

Lone voice: "I'm not."
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Ahso! »

Accountable;1396792 wrote: Because I was in rural Louisiana as a child. Pull your butt plug. I'm not claiming that scholars & historians made such a claim, or even teachers. General consensus of the people around me when I was a child.

Get counseling.Oh! Okay! Now I get you. While a child in rural Louisiana you heard a conversation where one or more individuals agreed with the idea that "the poorest antebellum white people still supported slavery because at least they had a group to be "better" than." - which is much different than "The general consensus when I was a child in rural Louisiana was that..."

Given what we now know about group selection, the idea that "the poorest antebellum white people still supported slavery because at least they had a group to be "better" than" turns out to be quite a rationalization. Doncha think?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Ahso! »

Clodhopper;1396795 wrote: It's an interesting idea, that the American Civil War was about different versions of Christianity. I wonder if it might actually be a bit like the British Civil War, where religion defined the two basic sides, Cavalier and Roundhead, and also helped to entrench attitudes, but what they actually fought about was Who Rules - ie political. But it was a time when politics and religion were not separate particularly since the King used the concept of the Divine Right to justify his rule, and this was widely accepted as the glue that held the whole State together. Only a reason that had religion at its heart could oppose that incredibly powerful idea. The Civil War was a major factor in creating the separation of Church and State we now take for granted.

So my suspicion would be that in the American case, as in the British one, religion helped entrench attitudes and increase a sense of difference and reduce any chance of compromise, but did not in itself cause the conflict.I think that's close to the truth. I'm thinking 'who rules' means which attitudes will shape national identity and extend a sense of entitlement to the forces that surround and influence politics.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
Clodhopper
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Clodhopper »

Ahso!;1396808 wrote: I think that's close to the truth. I'm thinking 'who rules' means which attitudes will shape national identity and extend a sense of entitlement to the forces that surround and influence politics.


Yeah, that's the sort of thing I think I'm getting at. Iirc, initially the rebels did not intend to even depose the king, just replace his "evil advisors" which was the usual fig leaf of justification used by rebels previously. It was only as the war progressed that the Parliamentary side, Cromwell in particular, became convinced the King was not someone they could do business with.

I suppose it did increase the sense of people's involvement in their own government. But people like Cromwell were in fact socially very conservative and while they could accept the idea that the minor gentry (ie them!) could now participate meaningfully in government, the idea that all men might, or even (gasp!) women, which was proposed by (I think) the Levellers, was too far ahead for the time. By about 300 years in the case of women's votes.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"

Lone voice: "I'm not."
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Accountable »

Ahso!;1396805 wrote: Oh! Okay! Now I get you. While a child in rural Louisiana you heard a conversation where one or more individuals agreed with the idea that "the poorest antebellum white people still supported slavery because at least they had a group to be "better" than." - which is much different than "The general consensus when I was a child in rural Louisiana was that..."

Given what we now know about group selection, the idea that "the poorest antebellum white people still supported slavery because at least they had a group to be "better" than" turns out to be quite a rationalization. Doncha think?


How could it be otherwise?? How is any justification for slavery anything but rationalization? How is any conversation with you (in the hope that you will do anything other than find something to argue about for the sake of argument alone) anything but rationalization?

You can rationalize my description to fit your paradigm if you wish. I suppose you have to. But remember that I was born and raised in the area this conversation centers on, and my post was about something of which I have firsthand knowledge. Can you say either about yourself?
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Ahso! »

Accountable;1396814 wrote: How could it be otherwise?? How is any justification for slavery anything but rationalization? How is any conversation with you (in the hope that you will do anything other than find something to argue about for the sake of argument alone) anything but rationalization?

You can rationalize my description to fit your paradigm if you wish. I suppose you have to. But remember that I was born and raised in the area this conversation centers on, and my post was about something of which I have firsthand knowledge. Can you say either about yourself?If you've been following my posts you'd see I'm connecting slavery with religion and the denial of it in US history as well as in the general public. My focus on your anecdotal evidence is that your story denies religious influence by saying that people where you come from, which is a part of the bible belt, rationalized motives of antebellum southern poor people. People don't oppose others and group in order to feel superior, that's a cultural affect of the grouping but not the cause. Individuals join groups because they perceive they have a better chance of survival doing so, and that's where we find religion - in grouping. The fact that religion can be more credibly tied to slavery and the Civil War is because we now have a better understanding of Group Selection.

I'd say that most back then condoned slavery because their group (religion) advocated for it.

I'm not your enemy, I'm merely introducing thoughts you've not previously considered on a subject you believed the books were closed on. I understand, but please try to take your focus off me and put it on the conversation.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Accountable »

Religion was and is a part of every culture. That's a fact as universally accepted as gravity. I know you really want to place an evil aura around it at every turn, but don't expect sane people to buy it. Correlation is not causation.

Of course, my attitude is influenced by the religion(s) surrounding my upbringing, so feel free to use that to rationalize discounting my post, since you want to anyway.

Ahso!;1396822 wrote: ... please try to take your focus off me and put it on the conversation.
Likewise.
yaaarrrgg
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:29 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by yaaarrrgg »

After looking at the civil war map, it does seem like there's a greater correlation between slavery and religion, than war and religion.

Not all slave states fought with the South. Some union states allowed slavery (Missouri, Kentucky). These large regions are part of the Bible Belt too. For example:

File:US Secession map 1861.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If war and poverty was an influence in the formation of the Bible Belt, I'd expect the Bible belt to correspond more closely with the states that fought against the North in the Civil war. Though in these maps the religion follows the slavery line more closely than the war line.
yaaarrrgg
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:29 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by yaaarrrgg »

Accountable;1396824 wrote: Correlation is not causation.


I agree, though if A and B are tightly correlated, it typically indicates one of three casual chains:

A -> B

B -> A

C -> A + B

I admit I hadn't put much thought into the possibility that the religion developed after the war, though it's harder to explain the correlation between the religion and the Union slave-states in this case.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Ahso! »

Accountable;1396824 wrote: Religion was and is a part of every culture. That's a fact as universally accepted as gravity.Perhaps you're right, but I don't know that for sure. Accountable;1396824 wrote: I know you really want to place an evil aura around it at every turn...You don't "know" that and it's inaccurate for two main reasons: 1) I have no concept of good and evil; 2) I don't oppose grouping, which is what religion is. What I do think is that grouping would work better if the superstitions and fairy tales were done away with and good and evil, if they are to remain conceptually, were given a complete reexamination and overhaul.

Accountable;1396824 wrote: Of course, my attitude is influenced by the religion(s) surrounding my upbringing, so feel free to use that to rationalize discounting my post, since you want to anyway.Not necessary.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Accountable »

LOL!You're so full of yourself, you're eyes are brown. :yh_bye
Clodhopper
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Clodhopper »

yaaarrrgg;1396825 wrote: After looking at the civil war map, it does seem like there's a greater correlation between slavery and religion, than war and religion.

Not all slave states fought with the South. Some union states allowed slavery (Missouri, Kentucky). These large regions are part of the Bible Belt too. For example:

File:US Secession map 1861.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If war and poverty was an influence in the formation of the Bible Belt, I'd expect the Bible belt to correspond more closely with the states that fought against the North in the Civil war. Though in these maps the religion follows the slavery line more closely than the war line.


You might have noticed it's much easier to defend an extreme position than a moderate one: The extreme always sounds decisive and certain and simple; the moderate, somewhat wishy-washy and complex by comparison. It could be that the original split was along the lines of the War, but in the years after the War the more extreme viewpoints began to win the argument from the pulpits so the split then became along the lines of the slave states in the years or decades after the War, when places like Missouri and Kentucky presumably suffered much the same sort of economic dislocation as other slave states?

One thing for certain: no matter what the issue, if sectarianism becomes involved it will make a solution far, far more difficult. Your North/South divide and our Northern Irish problems both strongly suggest it.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"

Lone voice: "I'm not."
yaaarrrgg
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:29 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by yaaarrrgg »

Clodhopper;1396871 wrote: You might have noticed it's much easier to defend an extreme position than a moderate one: The extreme always sounds decisive and certain and simple; the moderate, somewhat wishy-washy and complex by comparison. It could be that the original split was along the lines of the War, but in the years after the War the more extreme viewpoints began to win the argument from the pulpits so the split then became along the lines of the slave states in the years or decades after the War, when places like Missouri and Kentucky presumably suffered much the same sort of economic dislocation as other slave states?



One thing for certain: no matter what the issue, if sectarianism becomes involved it will make a solution far, far more difficult. Your North/South divide and our Northern Irish problems both strongly suggest it.


That is possible, the union slave states probably suffered economic loss as well with the release of slaves.

I did see a couple sectarian religious references in the southern state's statements (in the handful I read):

because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquillity.


I can't help but chuckle at the reference to "liberty, equality" above ... were these really the principles they were fighting over? :) Also:

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.


seeing that the federal government is now passing under the control of our enemies to be diverted from the exalted objects of its creation to those of oppression and wrong, and realizing that our own State can no longer look for protection, but to God and her own sons
Clodhopper
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Clodhopper »

I also read a few of the southern states' declarations and noticed the religious references and was struck by what looks to modern eyes like breathtaking hypocrisy - the total exclusion of the slaves from consideration except as property. What it seems to me to point out is that the American Civil War at one level at least was a fundamental clash of world views: Are the slaves human or not? And if human equal or not? Certainly the Abolitionist movement saw it in those terms: I recall a pictures of black African slaves under the slogan "I am a man and a brother", though I can't pinpoint where exactly at present.

I do think people like Robert E Lee fought from principle. I would guess that to be true for the vast bulk of those who fought. And to a considerable extent the religious leaders who interpreted the Bible to their people in such a manner must take considerable responsibility for all the deaths that followed.

In a sense, though, the unusual thing is that the Abolitionist movement had come into being at all. It was known right back to Roman times that black slaves came from Africa - it was there in the literature. No one questioned that any more than that spices came from the far east and gold and silver by the ton from South America. What was it that caused a shift in perception that can see Drake and Hawkins - slavers both, among other things - as heroes, but 250 years later see the Abolitionist movement and Wilberforce as a great moral crusade?
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"

Lone voice: "I'm not."
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Ahso! »

...Robert E Lee fought from principle.From Wikipedia When Virginia declared its secession from the Union in April 1861, Lee chose to follow his home state, despite his personal desire for the Union to stay intact Robert E. Lee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've always had the impression about Lee that he chose to lead the confederate army because they were the underdog and the historical and egotistical rewards would be greater. He was a military person and military people are conditioned to be egotistical. In the end history treats Lee as a hero. It turns out to be win-win for the guy. Though that only matters if he still lives somehow, which he doesn't.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
AnneBoleyn
Posts: 6632
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by AnneBoleyn »

Clodhopper:

In a sense, though, the unusual thing is that the Abolitionist movement had come into being at all. It was known right back to Roman times that black slaves came from Africa - it was there in the literature. No one questioned that any more than that spices came from the far east and gold and silver by the ton from South America. What was it that caused a shift in perception that can see Drake and Hawkins - slavers both, among other things - as heroes, but 250 years later see the Abolitionist movement and Wilberforce as a great moral crusade?
What causes shifts in perception? Historically, marriage was between heterosexuals. What has caused this moral crusade? Progression & maturity as humanity moves on. Who wants to stick with the past when the past is glaringly wrong & does not suit the present. It is not unusual at all, it is to be expected we change as we grow and we are. Changing, that is.
yaaarrrgg
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:29 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by yaaarrrgg »

Ahso!;1396978 wrote: From Wikipedia Robert E. Lee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've always had the impression about Lee that he chose to lead the confederate army because they were the underdog and the historical and egotistical rewards would be greater. He was a military person and military people are conditioned to be egotistical. In the end history treats Lee as a hero. It turns out to be win-win for the guy. Though that only matters if he still lives somehow, which he doesn't.


That wikipedia article had a lot of interesting things in it. I noticed that Lee also justified slavery on religious grounds, stating in an 1856 letter to his wife:



The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence.


This view seems to be fairly universal in the pre-war South, from all the sources I've read. So, the North's desire to free the slaves was fundamentally seen as an attack on the South's religious views. Religion was used as the moral justification for slavery (otherwise, people would have to be honest and just admit they were too lazy to pick their own cotton). And the North was basically saying that the South's God didn't exist.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Accountable »

Southern Baptists elect 1st African-American president, the Rev. Fred Luter Jr.

The Southern Baptist Church has certainly changed since I stopped going in the 70's.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Ahso! »

yaaarrrgg;1397017 wrote: That wikipedia article had a lot of interesting things in it. I noticed that Lee also justified slavery on religious grounds, stating in an 1856 letter to his wife:I caught that in the wikipedia piece too.

yaaarrrgg;1397017 wrote: This view seems to be fairly universal in the pre-war South, from all the sources I've read. So, the North's desire to free the slaves was fundamentally seen as an attack on the South's religious views. Religion was used as the moral justification for slavery (otherwise, people would have to be honest and just admit they were too lazy to pick their own cotton). And the North was basically saying that the South's God didn't exist.I think the north had to admit that blacks were in fact people whereas the south could continue to see blacks as animals because God had not rained down fire and brimstone on them for the enslavement. It's possible that in the eyes of the southern people God was permitting the south to prosper, which was most likely an indication to them that what they were doing must have been pleasing to God. That's why they thought God was going to let them win the war. Unfortunately for them, God didn't exist back then either.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
yaaarrrgg
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:29 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by yaaarrrgg »

Ahso!;1397045 wrote: I caught that in the wikipedia piece too.

I think the north had to admit that blacks were in fact people whereas the south could continue to see blacks as animals because God had not rained down fire and brimstone on them for the enslavement. It's possible that in the eyes of the southern people God was permitting the south to prosper, which was most likely an indication to them that what they were doing must have been pleasing to God. That's why they thought God was going to let them win the war. Unfortunately for them, God didn't exist back then either.


That is true I think... the profits would have been taken as evidence of God's favor. The general line of religious thought is still alive and well in modern politics: what God finds pleasing is defined by what is most profitable.
yaaarrrgg
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:29 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by yaaarrrgg »

Accountable;1397038 wrote: Southern Baptists elect 1st African-American president, the Rev. Fred Luter Jr.

The Southern Baptist Church has certainly changed since I stopped going in the 70's.


I had been following that story as well, since I grew up attending a Southern Baptist church too. They have changed some... from being pro-slavery, to being unapologetically racist, to being racist in private, to electing a black SBC president. Though in other ways the names have changed, but their story has stayed the same. Take their positions, scratch out the word 'Negro' and replace it with 'Homo'. They now broadcast their hate of gay people with as much zeal and enthusiasm as they used to with black people. The racism is also still there unfortunately, but not spoken about as openly, not as proudly as in the glory days.

It's interesting in itself that this is the history of the largest protestant denomination in the U.S., not just some little side group founded on racist ideas.
Clodhopper
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Clodhopper »

AnneBoleyn;1397015 wrote: Clodhopper:

What causes shifts in perception? Historically, marriage was between heterosexuals. What has caused this moral crusade? Progression & maturity as humanity moves on. Who wants to stick with the past when the past is glaringly wrong & does not suit the present. It is not unusual at all, it is to be expected we change as we grow and we are. Changing, that is.


Yes, but...:wah:

It seems to me you are taking a Whiggish view of History and assuming that change will necessarily lead to improvement and that the people of the past had the same priorities as us and were in some way trying to create our modern world.

Whig history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

whig historu

Above are two short assessments of Whig history, one basically anti, the other more pro.

At any rate, my point is that in for example the case of slavery there is no inevitability that a change would occur - we were doing fine out of slavery. Strong business interests were against changing it; history told us it had always been there and it was natural - only our favoured-of-God Island had the wisdom to ban it and even that was only in this island, for some reason it was fine in eg Jamaica; there was plenty of justification there in the Bible if you wanted it and it seemed to suit everyone but the slaves themselves, who by nature were property and didn't count. Why?

What collection of causes played out their effects to produce so great a change in moral outlook? I don't believe it inevitably just happened. Some thing or things caused that change to happen.

First guesses would include:

Prosperity, leading to increased leisure time.

Education becoming better and more widely available.

New Christian sects such as Methodism and Baptism (in their English forms).

Internal social reform movements eg Levellers, Jacobins, Ireland, RSPCA
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"

Lone voice: "I'm not."
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Ahso! »

yaaarrrgg;1397049 wrote: I had been following that story as well, since I grew up attending a Southern Baptist church too. They have changed some... from being pro-slavery, to being unapologetically racist, to being racist in private, to electing a black SBC president. Though in other ways the names have changed, but their story has stayed the same. Take their positions, scratch out the word 'Negro' and replace it with 'Homo'. They now broadcast their hate of gay people with as much zeal and enthusiasm as they used to with black people. The racism is also still there unfortunately, but not spoken about as openly, not as proudly as in the glory days.

It's interesting in itself that this is the history of the largest protestant denomination in the U.S., not just some little side group founded on racist ideas.It's interesting how organisms deal with threats to it's survival, they simply go and reproduce at a faster rate and permit the numbers work it out.

Of course, the process is different when it comes to gays. Instead of reproducing (in most cases) in order to reduce the threat to their group they're increasing support for their cause through adoption.

Prreeeetty Smart!

While the drive is instinctual in all cases where threats of extinction exist, the process in the case of the gay people is very much cognitively conscience.

It's just so exciting to watch life unfold and understand what's happening.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Ahso! »

This one too. Thank you to everyone who participated in these threads.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
Clodhopper
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Clodhopper »

I think there's a connection. If one views life hierarchically as is taught by bible believers then slavery is a natural manifestation.



Jesus Christ. Where did he advocate slavery?
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"

Lone voice: "I'm not."
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12522
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by LarsMac »

Clodhopper;1520706 wrote: I think there's a connection. If one views life hierarchically as is taught by bible believers then slavery is a natural manifestation.



Jesus Christ. Where did he advocate slavery?


He did not. Though he did suggest that your status of Slave or Free was irrelevant to your state of being. He had some very Buddhist ideas.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Mickiel »

LarsMac;1520710 wrote: He did not. Though he did suggest that your status of Slave or Free was irrelevant to your state of being. He had some very Buddhist ideas.


No Jesus did not teach slavery, neither did the final message of the bible, it was just historical and a part of human history that the bible did not ignore.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by gmc »

Perhaps he didn't teach slavery but Jesus didn't condemn it either. Nowhere in the new testament is slave owning condemned as morally wrong. Surely the son of god or god masquerading as his own son if you prefer the holy trinity version, would be capable of making himself clear if he thought slavery should not be allowed? some of his parables feature slaves working in the background so he seems not to have an issue with it.

Maybe you should actually read the bible then perhaps you woukd realise what a load of made up nonsense much of it is.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12522
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by LarsMac »

gmc;1520715 wrote: Perhaps he didn't teach slavery but Jesus didn't condemn it either. Nowhere in the new testament is slave owning condemned as morally wrong. Surely the son of god or god masquerading as his own son if you prefer the holy trinity version, would be capable of making himself clear if he thought slavery should not be allowed? some of his parables feature slaves working in the background so he seems not to have an issue with it.

Maybe you should actually read the bible then perhaps you woukd realise what a load of made up nonsense much of it is.


It has only been in the last Millennium that the idea of Owning and keeping slaves began to be considered morally wrong.

In the days the new testament was written, it was quite common and the moral issue was more about how the master treated their slaves, and how the slaves performed their duties.

It took centuries for the idea of abolishing slavery to gain a foothold in most societies.

IMHO, It is not reasonable to judge behavior of people 2000 years ago by our modern moral compass.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Ahso! »

They are called The Ten Commandments, are they not? Jesus did refer to those commandments, did he not? And Jesus did fall down begging for the cup to pass by him if I recall. Had Jesus actually existed he would have been a slave to God and preached for everyone else to be a slave also.

Earlier in the thread yaaarrrgg quoted Robert E Lee from Wikipedia as saying: "The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence."

That sounds an awful lot like how God/Jesus would describe the purpose of human existence on earth.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Mickiel »

LarsMac;1520716 wrote:

IMHO, It is not reasonable to judge behavior of people 2000 years ago by our modern moral compass.


So true.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by gmc »

LarsMac;1520716 wrote: It has only been in the last Millennium that the idea of Owning and keeping slaves began to be considered morally wrong.

In the days the new testament was written, it was quite common and the moral issue was more about how the master treated their slaves, and how the slaves performed their duties.

It took centuries for the idea of abolishing slavery to gain a foothold in most societies.

IMHO, It is not reasonable to judge behavior of people 2000 years ago by our modern moral compass.


There have always been those who considered owning slaves morally wrong they were just rather outnumbered. Slavery justified and based on race is a relatively new idea developed as a way to counter ideas like it is wrong to keep a Christian as a slave (or a muslim if you were a muslim) if however he or she was of an inferior race then that became the justification. Slavery based on race is a man-made social construct. Do some research on early christian saints you'd be surprised - if you didn't already know that is how many were of african origin. Two of thge most notable are saint maurice - he who gave his name to st moritz. and st Augustine of hippo.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12522
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by LarsMac »

gmc;1520738 wrote: There have always been those who considered owning slaves morally wrong they were just rather outnumbered. Slavery justified and based on race is a relatively new idea developed as a way to counter ideas like it is wrong to keep a Christian as a slave (or a muslim if you were a muslim) if however he or she was of an inferior race then that became the justification. Slavery based on race is a man-made social construct. Do some research on early christian saints you'd be surprised - if you didn't already know that is how many were of african origin. Two of thge most notable are saint maurice - he who gave his name to st moritz. and st Augustine of hippo.


I couldn't agree more. The difficulty is with the method of Slavery practiced by "Modern Europe" in the Colonial days, compared to the Slavery practiced in the centuries in which the writers if the Bible and the Qu'ran were living.

It was quite normal for those defeated in battle to become the slaves of their captors.

Many of those had the potential to work their way out of their servitude, and become members of the society.

In the Colonial and post-Colonial Americas, most of the African slaves were never to see such an opportunity.

Did you know that James Oglethorpe, Founder of the Colony of Georgia, objected mightily to the notion of colonists bringing in Slaves to do the work? He warned them that it would lead to unfathomable difficulties for the descendants of those colonists. He intended the colony to be made up of the poor and indigent of the British homeland.

I am in no way defending Slavery. It was the poison that still taints the high ideals set for this country by our founders.

But nothing written in the Bible was ever intended to justify the slavery of today.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Ahso! »

LarsMac;1520739 wrote:

But nothing written in the Bible was ever intended to justify the slavery of today.Indeed! They thought Jesus' return was to occur any second. I doubt most people back then could see past the current day.

Though not intended, the bible is used today as justification for racism. It needs to be skewed to do so, but it is.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12522
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by LarsMac »

Ahso!;1520740 wrote: Indeed! They thought Jesus' return was to occur any second. I doubt most people back then could see past the current day.

Though not intended, the bible is used today as justification for racism. It needs to be skewed to do so, but it is.


People will use all sort of things to justify their failings. They have a lot of support from idiots who claim to know The Word.

Of course we also see people use the Constitution to justify some pretty stupid actions. Should we tear that document up and toss it in the pyre with all the bibles?
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Ahso! »

That appears to be a false equivalence. That said, I'm one of those who believes the US Constitution could use a rewrite. As for the Christian Bible - I think it can be safely ignored.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Mickiel »

Ahso!;1520744 wrote: That appears to be a false equivalence. That said, I'm one of those who believes the US Constitution could use a rewrite. As for the Christian Bible - I think it can be safely ignored.


There is no such thing as "The

Christian bible",no one group owns the bible and it has no copyrights. Its a book for everyone.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12522
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by LarsMac »

Ahso!;1520744 wrote: That appears to be a false equivalence. That said, I'm one of those who believes the US Constitution could use a rewrite. As for the Christian Bible - I think it can be safely ignored.


I suppose that you reject the writings of Homer, Aesop, and the Brothers Grimm, as well.

They are all fantastic works of literature with lots of lesson for folks who would open their minds to the philosophical lessons to be taken. But taken literally, they may lead one to believe some pretty outrageous things.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Ahso! »

LarsMac;1520746 wrote: I suppose that you reject the writings of Homer, Aesop, and the Brothers Grimm, as well.They too can be safely ignored - meaning no laws ar rules are being transgressed by doing so.

LarsMac;1520746 wrote: They are all fantastic works of literature with lots of lesson for folks who would open their minds to the philosophical lessons to be taken. But taken literally, they may lead one to believe some pretty outrageous things.There's a difference between storytelling and what a constitution is. Quoting Wikipedia:

A constitution is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed.[1] These rules together make up, i.e. constitute, what the entity is. When these principles are written down into a single document or set of legal documents, those documents may be said to embody a written constitution; if they are written down in a single comprehensive document, it is said to embody a codified constitution. Some constitutions (such as the constitution of the United Kingdom) are uncodified, but written in numerous fundamental Acts of a legislature, court cases or treaties.[2]

Constitutions concern different levels of organizations, from sovereign states to companies and unincorporated associations. A treaty which establishes an international organization is also its constitution, in that it would define how that organization is constituted. Within states, a constitution defines the principles upon which the state is based, the procedure in which laws are made and by whom. Some constitutions, especially codified constitutions, also act as limiters of state power, by establishing lines which a state's rulers cannot cross, such as fundamental rights.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
Ted
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:05 pm

Slave states vs Bible Belt

Post by Ted »

Yes the "word of God" was used to defend slavery and slave owners. They were sick.

Return to “Societal Issues News”