John Calhoun

[Bobbie]

Originally Posted by timewalker

Indeed they did. The planter class in Lousianna was predominantly Catholic, despite Papal pronouncements which excommunicated those who practices racial slavery. The Catholic Bishop of Charleston, perhaps purposefully, misinterpreted the 1836 Papal Bull against slavery saying that it only prohibited the slave trade, not the ownership of slaves.

I didn't know that. Thank you for the information- it's a real suprise to me. If those American bishops didn't follow teachings of the pope, they should be perceived as heretics, shouldn't they?

It appers that in the South only quakers stood firm against slavery?

[timewalker]

Originally Posted by Bobbie

I didn't know that. Thank you for the information- it's a real suprise to me. If those American bishops didn't follow teachings of the pope, they should be perceived as heretics, shouldn't they?

Indeed they should. King of like some of the Bishops today.

Originally Posted by Bobbie

It appers that in the South only quakers stood firm against slavery?

I am not sure that there were many Quakers in the South to oppose slavery. The Quakers were generally in the North. In the South, one took one's life and liberty into one's own hands by preaching abolition. Either one preached conformity with slavery or kept one's mouth firmly shut.

[Bobbie]

Originally Posted by timewalker

I am not sure that there were many Quakers in the South to oppose slavery. The Quakers were generally in the North. In the South, one took one's life and liberty into one's own hands by preaching abolition. Either one preached conformity with slavery or kept one's mouth firmly shut.

I've read a few words about Quakers in North Carolina- you're right that they rather kept their mouth shut:

"There were in Guilford, Randolph and adjoining counties a large number of this sect.
The Quakers in the Northeastern part of the State were strongly opposed to slavery and supported emancipation; but they did not become so notable for anti-slavery spirit as their western brethren. This was probably because they were in a strong pro-slavery region".
(J.S. Bassett, Anti-Slavery Leaders of North Carolina)
http://docsouth.unc.edu/nc/bassett98/bassett98.html


As for Catholic slave-owners, they probably believed they were commiting no sin. They had the word of episcopacy for that and an ordinary church-goer had to trust such authority

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by Bobbie

For me it's not so easy. Africa before colonisation was no paradise on earth. Slavery was not a european invention, tribal divisions & warfare also. Problem with all those Calhouns' and Stephenses' opinions on African conditions was based on strange (for us) assumptions. For example Stephens based his position on... arithmetics- "If the comforts of a people or race are to be comported according to their natural increase and rapid multiplication, the race is certainly vastly better off in this country in their present condition that it ever was in their own with all the liberty of nature". Both Calhoun and Stephens being sincere and sensible men, I think they believed in what they were saying and didn't only try to advocate the peculiar institution at all cost.

That arthimatic was based on the oddity of US slavery population growth, which was extradoniary, compred to all others slave populations, for instance, the UK in the Caribean imported 00s of 000s to maintan a 0s of 000s population, and was no different from the Duthch etc in S Ameirca or Indoniseia or elswhere before a viable population base was established, in history all slave populations had not been self sustaining and had to be infused by fresh imports of slaves. The USA was the only place where slavery popultion expanded and thrived, and thi9s is waht they were attempting to expalin.

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by timewalker

Indeed they did. The planter class in Lousianna was predominantly Catholic, despite Papal pronouncements which excommunicated those who practices racial slavery. The Catholic Bishop of Charleston, perhaps purposefully, misinterpreted the 1836 Papal Bull against slavery saying that it only prohibited the slave trade, not the ownership of slaves.

I have attended Mass in churches and chapels in Louisiana built by slave labor.

It fascinated me enough to do some research into the theological underpinnings of slavery. Indeed the southern preachers of the time (mostly Protestant) had a laundry list of Biblical support for slavery and even, following Calhoun's logic, argued that it was a Christian duty to own slaves.

An interesting speech by Frederick Douglas on the topic, in which he talks about the numers of slaves owned by the Methodist Church and the Churches of Christ:
http://www.yale.edu/glc/archive/1077.htm

Biblical laws for slavery are to be found in mosiac law, direct from God to Moses to regulate who, and why a person can become a slave, when and how they can leave that condition, and the rules to govern them whil;e in that condistion, all from God to Moses.

Pretty stong directions, which was why the clergy asa class, owned more slaves than anyone else.

the church has gone to some lengths to paint itself a new version of history, since it authoirsed the divison between spain and Portugal the right to enslave any non christians found in the explorations of the world.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14036a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14039a.htm

lastly its the same church that sent J Davis a crown of thrns when held to be tried for treason, a cown of thorns is what the Vatican sends to those who suffer myterdom for their faith, this one was woven by the Pope himslelf, talk about odd.

[Bobbie]

Originally Posted by Hanny

That arthimatic was based on the oddity of US slavery population growth, which was extradoniary, compred to all others slave populations, for instance, the UK in the Caribean imported 00s of 000s to maintan a 0s of 000s population, and was no different from the Duthch etc in S Ameirca or Indoniseia or elswhere before a viable population base was established, in history all slave populations had not been self sustaining and had to be infused by fresh imports of slaves. The USA was the only place where slavery popultion expanded and thrived, and this is waht they were attempting to expalin.

It's all well, but they forgot to consider the fact that the expansion of slave population was not exactly natural. It was assisted by "breeding" of slaves for profit and encouraging slave women to produce as many children as possible (for example by promising them more food and less work).
Of course natural agents such as better climate and medical care also aided the population's growth.

the church has gone to some lengths to paint itself a new version of history, since it authoirsed the divison between spain and Portugal the right to enslave any non christians found in the explorations of the world.

Hanny,

the Pope in the 19th century condemned slavery and Catholics should have followed his teachings. The Church doesn't leave a possibility of one's own interpretation of Bible to the believers.

lastly its the same church that sent J Davis a crown of thrns when held to be tried for treason, a cown of thorns is what the Vatican sends to those who suffer myterdom for their faith, this one was woven by the Pope himslelf, talk about odd.

The Church has the duty of spiritual aid to those who suffer, even sinners... Jefferson Davis may have suffered for his beliefs, so the sending of the crown might be interpreted in this way, but it doesn't mean the Pope supported those beliefs. Maybe he just wanted to show Davis the path to follow- to bear his own cross.

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by Bobbie

It's all well, but they forgot to consider the fact that the expansion of slave population was not exactly natural. It was assisted by "breeding" of slaves for profit and encouraging slave women to produce as many children as possible (for example by promising them more food and less work).
Of course natural agents such as better climate and medical care also aided the population's growth.

since no ones found the data to support that, but have found the data to contradict that, i guess the points already been sorted out by the bean counters.

Since slaves women first ofspring was later in life than the white average, that to profit from that ment waiteing till the ofspring was 19-24 age band to max out profit from any sale, when the slave would be generting the highest return on investment in him, and other asorted data collected to show that there was no large scale breeding as you suggest,

Hanny,

the Pope in the 19th century condemned slavery and Catholics should have followed his teachings. The Church doesn't leave a possibility of one's own interpretation of Bible to the believers.

Then the Pope`s should not at the same time have divided up all the heathnes souls to be given to the Spainish and Portuguese to convert to Christianty through slavery than.

The Church has the duty of spiritual aid to those who suffer, even sinners... Jefferson Davis may have suffered for his beliefs, so the sending of the crown might be interpreted in this way, but it doesn't mean the Pope supported those beliefs. Maybe he just wanted to show Davis the path to follow- to bear his own cross.

Thats one possible intpretation, but not the one the Pope gave iirc.

[Bobbie]

Originally Posted by Hanny

Since slaves women first ofspring was later in life than the white average, that to profit from that ment waiteing till the ofspring was 19-24 age band to max out profit from any sale, when the slave would be generting the highest return on investment in him, and other asorted data collected to show that there was no large scale breeding as you suggest,

I didn't suggest "large scale" breeding, Hanny.
Frances Ann Kemble in her journal compared the process to "animal breeding, to which every encouragement is given, for it adds to the master's live-stock and the value of his estate". She was an anti-slavery writer though, thus she could be biased.
Francis Bancroft wrote a chapter about slave rearing in his book "Slave Trading in the Old South".
Even if such breeding wasn't prevalent, it aided the slave population enlargement.

Then the Pope`s should not at the same time have divided up all the heathnes souls to be given to the Spainish and Portuguese to convert to Christianty through slavery than.

Hanny, when exactly the Pope gave Christians the right to enslave heathens? From one of the links you gave earlier:
"...in 1462, Pius II declared slavery to be "a great crime" (magnum scelus); that, in 1537, Paul III forbade the enslavement of the Indians; that Urban VIII forbade it in 1639, and Benedict XIV in 1741; that Pius VII demanded of the Congress of Vienna, in 1815, the suppression of the slave trade and Gregory XVI condemned it in 1839; that, in the Bull of Canonization of the Jesuit Peter Claver, one of the most illustrious adversaries of slavery, Pius IX branded the "supreme villainy" (summum nefas) of the slave traders".

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by Bobbie

I didn't suggest "large scale" breeding, Hanny.
Frances Ann Kemble in her journal compared the process to "animal breeding, to which every encouragement is given, for it adds to the master's live-stock and the value of his estate". She was an anti-slavery writer though, thus she could be biased.
Francis Bancroft wrote a chapter about slave rearing in his book "Slave Trading in the Old South".
Even if such breeding wasn't prevalent, it aided the slave population enlargement.

Ok so we agree on no large scale breeding for profit.

Now on the subject of statisticly insignificant slave breeding, human reproduction is different from animal, if you have many partners your going to get a VD which will cause sterlisation at worse or rediced fertility at best, the yopuner you start the worse the females chances. ergo any small scale attemts to baby boom are self defeating through mother natures effects.

Negro population was not enlarged through forced breding at any level, at times the white birth rate and average family size was higher than the slave, we dont equate that to a breeding programe.

negro polulation increase was for number of reason but stuf farming at any level was not one of them.

Hanny, when exactly the Pope gave Christians the right to enslave heathens? From one of the links you gave earlier:
"...in 1462, Pius II declared slavery to be "a great crime" (magnum scelus); that, in 1537, Paul III forbade the enslavement of the Indians; that Urban VIII forbade it in 1639, and Benedict XIV in 1741; that Pius VII demanded of the Congress of Vienna, in 1815, the suppression of the slave trade and Gregory XVI condemned it in 1839; that, in the Bull of Canonization of the Jesuit Peter Claver, one of the most illustrious adversaries of slavery, Pius IX branded the "supreme villainy" (summum nefas) of the slave traders".

thats a reference to the authority and demarkation lines in the world which gave the ownership to either spian of portugal, the Pope gave to Spain and Portugal to own and convert any non christians they found and pre dates those in the link.Treaty of Tordesillas is the treaty with attendant papal authority to enslave, which was the basis for japans convertion by Jesuits, Brazils platnation economy based on slavery etc.

heres another link you might find of use.http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav2.htm

[unionblue]

Hanny,

Ok so we agree on no large scale breeding for profit.

No, "we" do not.

Sincerely,
Unionblue