Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
From a 'theological view' one has to assume that God is, either, actively participating in the war or not. If God was active, then the south suffered God's Judgement if he was not active, then the south suffered the judgement of man. Either way, the south lost; but if I had my druthers, I druther think I got beat by the bigger battalions, rather than suffering God's Wrath.
The southern secessionist theological view, was that the correctness of a principle, was tested by its success (or failure). God would not allow an act based on a correct principle (one based on God's Will) to fail.
I believe that the Scriptures teach that God ordains all things and brings His plans for us to fruition. It is impossible for Him not to be active.
I am not sure I understand what you mean by the southern secessionist theological view.
I believe He would allow acts based on correct principle to fail if the ones implementing it were ignoring their own sins. In other words, I believe the South was right Constitutionally and Biblically, but in many ways they were not addressing other sins, and were therefore judged. The North was also judged. Ever since the end of the War, our government has become increasingly centralized, and all controlling. The Northern states suffer as much from this as the Southern states.
True. I just wish the author of the article you presented had enough courage and honesty to admit that's exactly what he was doing, presenting his OPINION instead of presenting his twisted tale as historical fact.
Perhaps you should have added the words to the above, IN YOUR OPINION.
Myself I see as Lincoln making clear the fact that both sides, North and South invoked God to support their side of the war, but God had his own plans. I also see where he makes clear that the evil of slavery was the cause of the war and that the entire nation was being made to suffer for that evil. What part of that was not true? Biased? Simple statements of fact that he would have better off not saying as a politician. How easy it must be from up here in the 21st century to pass judgement on a man faced with such a terrible war.
I suppose I could exchange Bible quotes with you for the rest of this reply, it would be pretty easy as I have my own Bible, but I'm not going to. As for you wanting to take this thread in a different direction, I can understand that. It's not pleasent to talk about the real cause of the war, slavery, and that the South at the time which considered it supported by the Bible, blessed by God, a cherished institution, good for both the slave and the master, and the foundation of white freedom and civilization.
God can be invoked to support almost anything, from genocide to rape, to murder and torture, if such is put forth loud enough and often enough. And if men can be made to believe it's God that told them so.
God had very little to do with it.
Men called the shots when it came to enslaving other men. Men decided to rebell against their government and break up a nation at peace over the issue of slavery. And men decided to steal the property of the nation and then fire upon the men charged by the nation to do their duty.
If God was in there somewhere during all this willful evil, it was as a smoke-screen or a band-aid on the conscience of the men committing such acts.
This is the direction in which I was headed, just to make it very clear to you.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
To say that his article is a twisted tale is also an opinion. He would say that your view is twisted.
How easy it must be up here in the 21st century to pass judgment on the Southern section that faced such a terrible war. The South made many overtures for peace. The North committed the first act of war by trying to re-supply Sumpter with soldiers and weapons.
Lincoln saying that the war was about slavery doesn't make it true.
I was taking your quote in a different direction not the entire thread, I already admitted to the South's sin of slavery. I did not ignore it.
You have yet to prove that God had little to do with it. I have quoted Scripture to show that He did.
Men do make decisions. These decisions are ordained by God, yet in such a way that the men are held responsible. The South did evil things, so did the North, which is why I believe the entire country was judged.
God's 'plan' is the salvation of the world (mankind) He has set in motion a way for all mankind to be saved, but because of 'original' sin , everyone is free to reject God's Slavation and actively work against his will and plan.
In worldly affairs, we are to assist God in bringing in as many lost sheep as possible before the end. All our actions, thoughts, words, and deeds have to be framed in reference to doing God's Will on Earth.
Even in objective worldly terms you can feed the poor, protect widows and orphans, live a peaceful life and if you do not do it for the greater glory of God and his Mission, then he does not recognize it as being sufficient to slavation.
"To say that his article is twisted is also an opinion."
Correct. I agree with your view that my view on the man's article is my own opinion.
It's just a pity the article he wrote gave the impression that he knew exactly what God was thinking and was simply passing it on to us ignorant souls instead of clearly stating the article was HIS own personal opinion and not the word of God handed down to him personally from on high. But that's the escape clause an author can use when he invokes the name of God to back up his own views.
Quote:
"He would say that your view is twisted."
And more than likely pass on to the Lord that my view was twisted also. Please note that I feel no such need to have the Lord come to my aid over a personal difference of opinion.
Quote:
"How easy it must be up here in the 21st century to pass judgment on the Southern section that faced such a terrible war."
All one can do is read what the men of the time wrote and said and then view the results of their words. What continues to fascinate me is how many in this century must find excuses in the face of such words to explain their plain meaning. Instead, we must become mystical, theological, and celestial, to divert attention from men's own deliberate, historical actions from those words.
Quote:
"The South made many overtures for peace."
If acts of violence, war and theft are considered overtures for peace, then I am afraid my 21st observations on that time are going to have problems with this personal view.
Quote:
"The North committed the first act of war by trying to re-supply Sumpter with soldier and weapons."
And here is where I quote my favorite Bible verse.
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1.
It seems that many rely on this period of history by faith, the substance of things hoped for, not on evidence in plain view, but instead evidence not seen.
Long before the resupply effort, the South had committed war-like acts, months before Lincoln was sworn in and even considered the resupply of Fort Sumter. But this is the evidence that must not be seen or considered, if we are to keep our faith concerning just how without sin the South is to be viewed, here in the 21st century. But the evidence abounds and is there for any who wish to truly see.
Quote:
"Lincoln saying that the war was about slavery doesn't make it so."
Nor apparently when the Southern leadership said secession was about slavery does it make it so. Deny the words they said, ignore any evidence in history that brings up this unpleasant fact or push it all off on Lincoln. The South was pure. The South did no wrong. And if they did do wrong, it wasn't what they said, it was something that we can live with in this century.
I'm sorry, but I take that view as being dishonest with true historical fact.
Quote:
"I was taking your quote in a different direction not the entire thread, I already admitted to the South's sin of slavery. I did not ignore it."
I disagree. In my view you were trying very hard to minimize one sin and expand upon another. You may not have ignored it, but you really don't think in your heart or mind that the one is as serious (slavery), if not more so, than the opinion of the article (the North being sinful).
Quote:
"You have yet to prove that God had little to do with it. I have quoted Scripture to show that he did."
I do not presume to know the mind of God on a particular subject. But that's the neat thing about religion. We can say anything, quote anything from the Bible to prove his will and not be subject to the rules of evidence. Belief does not have to be proved, merely believed.
Quote:
"Men do make decisions."
I agree.
Quote:
"These decisions are ordained by God, yet in such a way that the men are held responsible."
Again, I view this statement as a personal declaration of your own views on the matter.
Myself, I have a hard time with the idea that millions of Jews being murdered by gas and other hateful methods as "ordained by God." Nor do I view 9-11 and the murder of innocent people as ordained as such.
As for men being held responsible for such decisions, I have no problem with that, either here by us poor representatives or by God in the hereafter. But we are not wind-up toys or puppets on a string. Men decide. Men act.
Quote:
"The South did evil things, so did the North, which is why I believe the entire country was judged."
But you and the author of the article come across as it if it were the North was MORE evil than the South. Equality for all and an accurate reading as to why the war came about and how it began would be more helpful than a theological view and personal opinion with no abilty for mortal review.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
An excerpt from: Greg Loren Durand's AMERICA'S CAESAR
A SCRIPTURAL, ECCLESIASTICAL, AND HISTORICAL VIEW OF SLAVERY - by John Henry Hopkins (1864) W.I. Pooley
and Company, New York.
It is said by some, however, that the great principle of the Gospel, love to God and love to man, necessarily involved the condemnation of slavery. Yet how should it have any such result, when we remember that this was no new principle, but, on the contrary, was laid down by the Deity to his own chosen people, and was quoted from the Old Testament by the Saviour himself? And why should slavery be thought inconsistent with it? In the relation of master and slave, we are assured by our Southern brethren that there is incomparably more mutual love than can ever be found between the employer and the hireling. And I can readily believe it, for the very reason that it is a relation for life; and the parties, when rightly disposed, must therefore feel a far stronger and deeper interest in each other.
The next evidence, which proves that the Mosaic law was not held to be inconsistent with the Gospel, occurs in the statement of the apostles to St. Paul, made some twenty years, at least, after the establishment of the first Christian church of Jerusalem. "Thou seest, brother," said they, "how many thousands of Jews there are who believe, and they are all zealous of the law" (Acts 21:20). How could this have been possible, if the law was supposed to be abolished by the new dispensation?
But the precepts, and the conduct of St. Paul himself, the great apostle of the Gentiles, are all-sufficient, because he meets the very point, and settles the whole question. Thus he saith to the Ephesians: "Servants," (in the original Greek, bond servants or slaves) "be obedient to them that are your masters, according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your hearts, as unto Christ. Not with eye-service, as men-pleasers, but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, with good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not unto men, knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening, knowing that your Master also is in heaven, neither is there any respect of persons with him" (Eph. 6: 5-9).
Again, to the Colossians, St. Paul repeats the same commandments. "Servants," (that is, bond servant or slaves) "obey in all things your masters according to the flesh, not with eye-service, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing God" (Col. 3:22). "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal, knowing that ye also have a master in heaven" (Col. 4:1).
The evidence of the New Testament is thus complete, plainly proving that the institution of slavery was not abolished by the Gospel. Compare now the course of the ultra-abolitionist, with that of Christ and his inspired apostle. The divine Redeemer openly rebukes the sanctimonious Pharisees, "who made void the law of God" by their traditions. He spares not the wealthy, infidel Sadducees. He denounces the hypocritical Scribes, who "loved the uppermost rooms at feasts and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi." He calls the royal Herod "that fox," entirely regardless of the king's displeasure. He censures severely the Jewish practice of divorcing their wives for the slightest cause, and vindicates the original sanctity of marriage. He tells the deluded crowd of his enemies that they are "the children of the devil, and that the lusts of their fathers they would do." He makes a scourge of small cords, and drives the buyers and sellers out of the temple. And while he thus rebukes the sins of all around him, and speaks with divine authority, he proclaims himself the special friend and patron of the poor — preaches to them his blessed doctrine, on the mountain, by the sea-side, or in the public streets, under the open canopy of heaven — heals their diseases, partakes of their humble fare, and, passing by the rich and the great, chooses his apostles from the ranks of the publicans and the fishermen of Galilee. Yet he lived in the midst of slavery, maintained over the old heathen races, in accordance with the Mosaic law, and uttered not one word against it! What proof can be stronger than this, that he did not regard it as a sin or a mortal evil? And what contrast can be more manifest than this example of Christ on the one hand, and the loud and bitter denunciations of our anti-slavery preachers and politicians, calling themselves Christians, on the other? For they not only set themselves against the Word of God in this matter, condemning slavery as the "monster sin," the "sum of all villainies," but — strange to say — they do it in the very name of that Saviour whose whole line of conduct was the very opposite of their own!
Look next at the contrast afforded by the inspired Apostles of the Gentiles. He preaches to the slave, and tells him to be obedient to his master for Christ's sake, faithful and submissive, as a main branch of religious duty. He preaches to the master, and tells him to be just and equal to his slave, knowing that his Master is in heaven. He finds a fugitive slave, and converts him to the Gospel, and then sends him back again to his old home with a letter of kind recommendation. Why does St. Paul act thus? Why does he not counsel the fugitive to claim his right to freedom, and defend that right, if necessary, by the strong hand of violence, even unto death? Why does he not write to his disciple, Philemon, and rebuke him for the awful sin of holding a fellow-man in bondage, and charge it upon him, as a solemn duty, to emancipate his slaves, at the peril of his soul?
The answer is very plain. St. Paul was inspired, and knew the will of the Lord Jesus Christ, and was only intent on obeying it. And who are we, that in our modern wisdom presume to set aside the Word of God, and scorn the example of the divine Redeemer, and spurn the preaching and the conduct of the apostles, and invent for ourselves a "higher law" than those holy Scriptures which are given to us as "a light to our feet and a lamp to our paths," in the darkness of a sinful and a polluted world? Who are we that virtually blot out the language of the sacred record, and dictate to the majesty of heaven what he shall regard as sin and reward as duty? Who are we that are ready to trample on the doctrine of the Bible, and tear to shreds the Constitution of our country, and even plunge the land into the untold horrors of civil war, and yet boldly pray to the God of Israel to bless our very acts of rebellion against his own sovereign authority? Woe to our Union when the blind become the leaders of the blind! Woe to the man who dares to "strive against his Maker!"
Such, then, is the institution of slavery, laid down by the Lord God of Israel for his chosen people, and continued for fifteen centuries, until the new dispensation of the Gospel. What change did this produce? I grant, of course, that we, as Christians, are bound by the precepts and example of the Saviour and his apostles. Let us now, therefore, proceed to the all-important inquiry, whether we are authorized by these to presume that the Mosaic system was done away.
First, then, we ask what the divine Redeemer said in reference to slavery. And the answer is perfectly undeniable: he did not allude to it at all. Not one word of censure upon the subject is recorded by the Evangelists who gave his life and doctrines to the world. Yet slavery was in full existence at the time, throughout Judea; and the Roman empire, according to the historian Gibbon, contained sixty millions of slaves, on the lowest probable computation! How prosperous and united would our glorious republic be at this hour, if the eloquent and pertinacious declaimers against slavery had been willing to follow their Saviour's example!
But did not our Lord substantially repeal the old law, by the mere fact that he established a new dispensation? Certainly not, unless they were incompatible. And that he did not consider them incompatible is clearly proved by his own express declaration. "Think not," saith he, "that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil" (Matt. 5:17). On the point, therefore, this single passage is perfectly conclusive.
But the precepts, and the conduct of St. Paul himself, the great apostle of the Gentiles, are all-sufficient, because he meets the very point, and settles the whole question. Thus he saith to the Ephesians: "Servants," (in the original Greek, bond servants or slaves) "be obedient to them that are your masters, according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your hearts, as unto Christ. Not with eye-service, as men-pleasers, but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, with good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not unto men, knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening, knowing that your Master also is in heaven, neither is there any respect of persons with him" (Eph. 6: 5-9).
Again, to the Colossians, St. Paul repeats the same commandments. "Servants," (that is, bond servant or slaves) "obey in all things your masters according to the flesh, not with eye-service, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing God" (Col. 3:22). "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal, knowing that ye also have a master in heaven" (Col. 4:1).
Again, the same inspired teacher lays down the law in very strong terms, to Timothy, the first Bishop of Ephesus:
Let as many servants as are under the yoke [that is, the yoke of bondage] count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them because they are brethren, but rather do them service because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness. From such withdraw thyself. But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. And having food and raiment, let us be therewith content (1 Tim, 6:1-8).
Lastly, St. Paul, in his Epistle to Philemon, informs him that he had sent back his fugitive slave, whom the Apostle had converted to the Christian faith during his imprisonment, asking the master to forgive and receive his penitent disciple:
I beseech thee for my son Onesimus whom I have begotten in my bonds, which in time past was to thee unprofitable, but now profitable to thee and to me, whom I have sent again: thou therefore receive him that is mine own bowels, whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel. But without thy mind would I do nothing, that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly. For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldst receive him forever, not now as a servant, but above a servant. A brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more to thee, both in the flesh and in the Lord? If thou countest me therefore a partner receive him as myself. If he hath wronged thee or oweth thee aught, put that on mine account. I Paul have written it with mine own hand, I will repay it; albeit I do not say to thee how thou owest unto me thine own soul besides (Ep. to Philemon 5, 10 19).
The next objection to the slavery of the Southern States is its presumed cruelty, because the refractory slave is punished with corporal correction. But our Northern law allows the same in the case of children and apprentices. Such was the established system in the army and the navy until very lately. The whipping-post was a fixed institution in England and Massachusetts, and its discipline was administered even to free citizens during the last century. Stripes, not exceeding forty, were appointed to offenders in Israel by divine authority. The Saviour himself used a scourge of small cords when he drove the money-changers from the temple. Are our modern philanthropists more merciful than Christ, and wiser than the Almighty?
When ever I read a religious based defense of slavery, I'm reminded of Civil War veteran Ambrose Bierce's definition of a Christian: "A person who followings the teaching of Christ, as far as they don't interfere with making money."
American slavery is obviously worse than the other forms of labor in the antebellum United States. Who needs that explained?
I remember something in Sunday School about "bearing false witness" against your neighbor. Since slavery in this country was justified by racial bigotry, slavery was based on a falsehood: "false witness" against black people. Indeed one of the worst influences of slavery on the United States is racial prejudice which extends into our own time.
Moving from the Bible to the ancient Greeks, recall the famous incident of Diogenes, the Athenian philosopher. Encountering a friend in the marketplace, he asks the young man why he is in a hurry. One of his slaves has runaway, and he is going to the magistrates! Diogenes sighed. Your slave can do without you, aren't you ashamed to admit you can not do without him?
"Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
Thomas Jefferson Notes on the State of Virginia
JEFFERSON was known for customizing his Bible, to his own deistic tastes. I wonder if he also cut out the parts concerning slavery, such as:
Genesis 9:29
Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be to his brethren...
Abraham, whose 318 servants, born in his house, (Genesis 14:14) are mentioned along with those bought with his own money, as proper subjects for circumcision (Gen. 17:12)
Exodus 20:17
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors house, (wife, man-servant, maid-servant, ox, donkey, nor anything that is thy neighbors..."
Exodus 21:2-4 on buying a Hebrew slave, and the seventh year designated for his release.
But if he takes a wife, and desires permanent slavery in order to keep his wife, he may stay forever as a slave:
merely bore his ear through with an awl as a sign of accepting permanent willing bondage to a master...
When ever I read a religious based defense of slavery, I'm reminded of Civil War veteran Ambrose Bierce's definition of a Christian: "A person who followings the teaching of Christ, as far as they don't interfere with making money."
American slavery is obviously worse than the other forms of labor in the antebellum United States. Who needs that explained?
I remember something in Sunday School about "bearing false witness" against your neighbor. Since slavery in this country was justified by racial bigotry, slavery was based on a falsehood: "false witness" against black people. Indeed one of the worst influences of slavery on the United States is racial prejudice which extends into our own time.
Moving from the Bible to the ancient Greeks, recall the famous incident of Diogenes, the Athenian philosopher. Encountering a friend in the marketplace, he asks the young man why he is in a hurry. One of his slaves has runaway, and he is going to the magistrates! Diogenes sighed. Your slave can do without you, aren't you ashamed to admit you can not do without him?
My favorite Yankee soldier in the world!
Ambrose Bierce who wrote the Devil's Dictionary (after serving in the Union army!)
In his definition of SATAN, he relates the story that Satan wanted to ask a favor of God in relationship to the making of the laws of man. Paraphrased:
"God asks if Satan wants to write the laws...
Satan says no - "I want to ask that man, himself, be allowed to write them!"
Why are you posting these Biblical verses concerning slavery during the Old and New Testaments?
You must have known that most of us are aware that slavery was legal during those times?
Are you actually using the Bible in 2008 to defend slavery in the South?
Do you believe slavery was anything other than an evil institution?
Are you saying slavery was a righteous institution ordained by God?
Why do you not come clean and admit what you believe about slavery!
What has this to do with me?
I bring you an article you may never have seen before, and submit it for your edification, and response, and suddenly, I am John Henry Hopkins in my beliefs?
I answer Jefferson's "trembling" response about Slavery, and gently chide my political hero for cutting up his Bible, and hanging out with too many French Egalitarians, and (unless he was an unrighteous slave master, which I do not believe he was)...
I was merely positing that he had more to fear from his Deism, than from his ownership of slaves...
He might have "comfitted" himself in this wise.
This is a theological thread, is it not? (Don't tell me I am off thread again, and have violated Threadiquette!).
As the Southerners were intense Christians, and I read six pages of how horrible the country was for slavery, because it violated God's laws, I was just showing you where they might have gotten their views of slavery,
and their ideologies...
In helping you to understand them a little bit better, if that is indeed your desire.
I have not begun to say anything significant about my views of slavery, save for the fact that I support the Southern Confederate government and its secession from the Union. In your mind, I realize that makes me a pro-slaver, but it will do me little good to assure you that you have assumed facts not in evidence! I don't believe the war was over slavery!
And many herein, obviously, do.
I would not have owned any slaves, if that helps you any.
I don't see slavery as condemned in the Bible. Have I missed the verses which condemn it?
I don't assume anyone knows anything until he says something about it. And once that happens, I try to see it from all sides.
I just think that if we are going to invoke Spirituality in all of this, we might as well refer to the originating documents!
Beowulf
And, I might ask you, the same thing in reverse... This abolitionist rage against Slavery;
and Lincoln's views on it... I could say, (to the abolitionists, who don't have a Constitutional majority upon which to rely) "Are you using the Bible to condemn
Slavery in 1863"?
Obviously, we know the answer to that one. But where are the proofs of its Biblical egregiousness?
The posters who deplore Slavery as an art form all have a righteous indignation for the institution. (I am just trying to find the 'righteous' part!)
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
