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.
I'm sure, churches in the South probably did everything they could to buttress the institution of slavery. After all, what are churches for?
The opposition to slavery, from clergymen like William Wilberforce and others, were based on these gentlemen's reading of the Bible. Perhaps their understanding of Scripture is inferior to others, but they obviously didn't think so. Perhaps when John Newton was finally moved to horror by the slave trade, composed "Amazing Grace," and became an Anglican priest, he was mistaken, and he should have struggled to be a righteous slavetrader.
I'm sure, churches in the South probably did everything they could to buttress the institution of slavery. After all, what are churches for?
The opposition to slavery, from clergymen like William Wilberforce and others, were based on these gentlemen's reading of the Bible. Perhaps their understanding of Scripture is inferior to others, but they obviously didn't think so. Perhaps when John Newton was finally moved to horror by the slave trade, composed "Amazing Grace," and became an Anglican priest, he was mistaken, and he should have struggled to be a righteous slavetrader.
I saw that movie. It was excellent. Wasn't the composer of AMAZING GRACE not only a slave trader, but also the captain of a slaving vessel (out of Rhode Island, or one of the Golden Triangle Northern colonies, or even England?).
I separate the TRADE from the OWNING of slaves.
While one is dependent upon the other, there is a decided difference between being born into it in the 1860's, when the slaves are virtual family members, and then its opposite, the going into Africa and making deals with tribal leaders for human cargo, many of which won't make the Middle Passage.
And slavery did go on after the Civil War, through SLOW
emancipation, gradual emancipation,which took years to fulfill.
Of course, we know none of this went on in the South, because, there was no South!
Newton was English, not New English(ha ha). I thought the film was good too.
I think a lot of people seperated trade(bad) from owning(acceptable), then and even now. I'm not sure its a valid distinction.
Not sure what you mean by slavery continuing after the Civil War: here in the states? Or in other countries?
The slaves as family members is taking it too far, IMO. While many slaves might have biological white parents, when push came to shove, they were family members you could sell. If bigger plantations, the field gangs were worked by professional overseers. While slaveowners by Robert E. Lee and the Custis family prided themselves of their paternal care of their slaves, there was a tremendous distinction(revealed by their letters) between their own children and their slaves.
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.
There is much about what happened that has not been made known. There is much information that has been ignored and buried by those who are pro-North. The victors write the history books. I agree when you say "we", instead of "you" or "them".
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.
Unfortunately Southerners did do things right after secession that can't be justified. However, after things had calmed down a bit, the South made many overtures for peace that were rejected by the Lincoln Admin. There is plenty of blame to go around. Unfortunately, South Carolina let itself be tricked in to firing the first shot, thus giving the U.S. the excuse it was looking for to invade the CSA.
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.
That applies to both sides.
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.
So the best that can be said is that both sides moved the Country toward war.
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.
Never said the South did no wrong. I left the SCV because no one in that organization will admit to the South's sins. Do you think the North is blameless?
I'm sorry, but I take that view as being dishonest with true historical fact.
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).
You may be right, I will have to examine myself.
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.
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.
The Scriptures say that God is sovereign and rules over all things. I do believe that God ordained all that you mentioned above, for His purposes and ends.
He did not have to allow any of us to exist. Since we are born sinners, He would have been justified in sending us all to hell the second we were born.
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.
I agree that we are not puppets. The fact that we act and make our own decisions and are responsible, and at the same time our acts and decisions are all God's design
is a paradox. It seems contradictory but is not. God is able to accomplish this paradox because He is God. We can't understand it with our limited, created abilities.
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.
Good point. Just because the South had the correct view of The Constitution and the Scriptures, doesn't make their personal actions or the intent of their hearts any less evil.
The theological view is the most important. Everything that has happened is history is a result of God directing all things for His ends and His Glory, through His interaction with man.
Sincerely,
Unionblue[/quote]
__________________ HenryJackson
Last edited by henryjackson; 02-06-2008 at 01:39 PM.
The theological view is the most important. Everything that has happened is history is a result of God directing all things for His ends and His Glory, through His interaction with man.
Though most of the time man is not cooperating with God's plans...
Not everything that happens on Earth is God's will:
"Our Father, which art in Heaven...
...Hallowed be thy Name...
...Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done...
...in Earth as it is in Heaven..."
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
ISAIAH 46:9-11 - "Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, 'MY COUNSEL SHALL STAND, AND I WILL DO ALL MY PLEASURE: calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that EXECUTES MY COUNSEL from a far country: yes, I have spoken it, I WILL ALSO BRING IT TO PASS; I HAVE PURPOSED IT, I WILL ALSO DO IT."
DANIEL 4:34-35 - "... and I blessed the Most High, and I praised and honored Him that lives forever, Whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and His kingdom is from generation to generation: AND ALL THE INHABITANTS OF THE EARTH ARE REPUTED AS NOTHING: and He does ACCORDING TO HIS WILL in the army of heaven, AND AMONG THE INHABITANTS OF THE EARTH: and NONE CAN STAY HIS HAND, OR SAY TO HIM, 'WHAT DOEST THOU?'"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
Though most of the time man is not cooperating with God's plans...
Not everything that happens on Earth is God's will:
"Our Father, which art in Heaven...
...Hallowed be thy Name...
...Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done...
...in Earth as it is in Heaven..."
Since we should read what people at the time where saying and thinking:
Robert Dabney was a Southern Theologian at the time of the War. Here is his view of things.
The True Purpose of the War
by Robert Lewis Dabney
We all know that the professed purpose of the war party was to preserve and restore the Union over all the States. But the disclosures made above by Colonel Baldwin of the aims of the head of that party, are sufficient to prove that the real purpose was for other than the pretense — to enlarge and perpetuate the power of his faction. This had just seized the reins of Federal power by an accident, being in fact but a minority of the American people. This people had condemned it to a righteous exclusion from power for forty years. Its leaders were weary, envious and angry with their long waiting, and hungry for the power and the spoils of office. These cunning men were fully conscious that their tenure of power, won by luck and artifice, would be precarious and brief. The old party of Federal usurpation and centralization had dubbed itself, by a strong misnomer, the Whig party. The people, at ten presidential elections, or congressional issues, had rejected their project. At length, despairing of victory by its old tactics, it had thrown itself into the arms of the later born and despicable party of the Abolitionists, who had at last succeeded in their purpose of raising, in numerous States, their designed tempest of fanaticism. Thus the older and larger party gave itself away to the younger, smaller, and more indecent one; and by this traffic the two had won in November, 1860, an apparent success, so far as to make its leader a minority President. The manipulators well knew their dangers from "the sober second thought" of the American people. It was but too probable that the elements of justice and conservation, unfortunately divided in 1860, would reunite in 1864 to restore the Constitution. Hence, "had they great wrath," because they knew their time was short. They knew that something more must be done to inflame the contest between fanaticism and conservatism, or glorying would be short.
"The consolidation of the Government of Great Britain over the Colonies, was attempted to be carried out by the taxes. The British Parliament undertook to tax the Colonies, to promote British interests. Our fathers resisted this pretension. They claimed the right of self-taxation through their Colonial Legislatures. They were not represented in the British Parliament, and, therefore, could not rightly be taxed by its Legislation. The British Government, however, offered them a representation in Parliament; but it was not sufficient to enable them to protect themselves from the majority, and they refused it. Between taxation without any representation, and taxation without a representation adequate to protection, there was no difference. In neither case would the Colonies tax themselves. Hence, they refused to pay the taxes laid by the British Parliament." "And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British Parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States, have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue - to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures."
"There is another evil, in the condition of the Southern towards the Northern States, which our ancestors refused to bear towards Great Britain. Our ancestors not only taxed themselves, but all the taxes collected from them, were expended amongst them. Had they submitted to the pretensions of the British Government, the taxes collected from them would have been expended in other parts of the British Empire. They were fully aware of the effect of such a policy in impoverishing the people from whom taxes are collected, and in enriching those who receive the benefit of their expenditure. To prevent the evils of such a policy was one of the motives which drove them on to revolution. Yet this British policy has been fully realized towards the Southern States by the Northern States. The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three- fourths of them are expended at the North. This cause, with others, connected with the operation of the General Government, has made the cities of the South provincial. Their growth is paralyzed; they are mere suburbs of Northern cities".....South Carolina Secession Declaration
Dear HenryJackson,
As per post 64, while its a cliche that history is written by the victors, I don't know if that's the case with the Civil War. A very deliberate attempt to formulate and promote a pro-Confederate interpretation of the war, starting in the 19th century, has resulted in that interpretation being the general consensus. I'm from Maine, and we were herded into "Gone with the Wind" as a school field trip.
In more recent decades a lot of that interpretation has been challenged, and this new scholarship is what a lot of posters here, and frankly most historians, accept.
As per your post 68, any analogy with the Revolution is flawed. The citizens of the South were full and equal citizens with any other American citizen. In fact, you might argue that the 3/5s Compromise gave slaveowners special privilege and power within the Constitution. American colonists were not represented in Parliament, and were without a voice in the British government. The colonists were literally 2nd class subjects, and because of the distances and communication of the 18th century, they could never be anything but 2nd class subjects.
If you read the entire ordinance of secesssion of South Carolina and of the other seceding states, the defense of slavery is the most prominent feature of those documents.
Dear HenryJackson,
As per post 64, while its a cliche that history is written by the victors, I don't know if that's the case with the Civil War. A very deliberate attempt to formulate and promote a pro-Confederate interpretation of the war, starting in the 19th century, has resulted in that interpretation being the general consensus. I'm from Maine, and we were herded into "Gone with the Wind" as a school field trip.
To add to Matthew's comments I'd like to point out the following:
Early in the 20th-century, the United Confederate Veterans (UCV) and the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) went on a textbook crusade throughout the south and pressured publication companies throughout the U.S.. Their intent was to correct “Yankee falsehoods.” Mildred Rutherford, president of the UDC listed these instructions to teachers and librarians in 1919:
Reject a book that speaks of the Constitution other than as a compact between Sovereign States.
Reject a text-book that …does not clearly outline the interferences with the rights guaranteed to the South by the Constitution, and which caused secession…
Reject a text-book that says the South fought to hold her slaves
Reject a book that speaks of the slaveholder of the South as cruel and unjust to slaves
Reject a text-book that glorifies Abraham Lincoln and vilifies Jefferson Davis
Reject a text-book that omits to tell of the South’s heroes and their deeds.
Rutherford also lists her “historical facts” to consider when evaluating history. They include:
Southern men were anxious for the slaves to be free
More slaveholders and sons of slaveholders fought for the Union than for the Confederacy.
Despite the absurdity of her “facts”, Rutherford was highly successful at her lobbying campaign, especially with textbooks below the college level. Eventually, however, these lobbying groups also were successful at revising college textbooks by 1920
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
