I need a little history lesson...

[TheSeventhStooge]

I have a question concerning the Civil War and the right for states to seceed.

I tend to believe that the start of the Civil War was not because of slavery, but because of state's rights. But what was the right that the states were trying to hold onto?

It wasn't just the right to seceed, was it? What was the issue that caused the South to declare itself in rebellion to the federal government? Was it in fact slavery, or was there another issue that was bigger than that and we never hear about it?

And, how do you spell the word "seceed"?

TheSeventhStooge...

[Jaime]

The word is secede (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=secede)

I'll elaborate on the causes of secession later. Gotta go to church.

[Jaime]

Here are a couple of shortcuts. Read the articles and if you have more questions I'll answer or direct you to other sources.

I like Thomas DiLorenzo but there are many others like Clyde Wilson.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo17.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo77.html

[samsamsamm2003]

The rich Southerner's felt there way of life was threatend. The poor did'nt really know what they were fighting for. A few said State rights, a few said to defend there home's, some just did'nt question it. I heard one great interview with Confederate Veteran in the 20's i think who said that when he enlisted he did'nt really know what he was fighting for he just thought it was the right thing to do. Later he said now i think i was fighting for State rights. Good links Jaime i found them interesting.

[TheSeventhStooge]

Thanks for the links, guys,

I'll read these when I have some time to concentrate on them.

Take care,

TheSeventhStooge...

[Flick]

You might also try the book, When In The Course Of Human Events by Charles Adams.

[exmarine]

I have a question concerning the Civil War and the right for states to seceed.

I tend to believe that the start of the Civil War was not because of slavery, but because of state's rights. But what was the right that the states were trying to hold onto?

It wasn't just the right to seceed, was it? What was the issue that caused the South to declare itself in rebellion to the federal government? Was it in fact slavery, or was there another issue that was bigger than that and we never hear about it?

And, how do you spell the word "seceed"?

TheSeventhStooge...

There is an ongoing debate among historians as to the causes of the Civil War. In fact, there are many contributing factors, but slavery was certainly one cause as it denied people created in the image of the Creator their [i}inalienable right to liberty[/i]. In my view, this was the most important result of the War -- this moral travesty (slavery) was a long-standing colossal contradiction to one the most basic founding principles of the United States of America. Even those who believe (and rightly so in many cases) that secession was legal, and that the North was the aggressor and invader, etc., cannnot honestly deny that slavery was a moral travesty that militated against the inalienable right to liberty. Some say the South would have eventually abolished it on their own if left to their own devices, but how long would that take -- 10 years? 100? 200?

On the other hand, the Civil War served to increase the power and scope of the federal government beyond the limits set forth by the Constitution. In this sense, one abiding evil was replaced by another (choose your poison?).

I am an amateur historian and I sympathize and agree with the South in many ways. Many of their leaders were fine God-fearing men who were merely defending their homelands from an invader (Stonewall Jackson, Robert E. Lee, etc.). I find myself cheering inwardly for the southern armies as I read the historical accounts.

In my view, in the final analysis, it is not possible to say the North was good and the South was evil, or vice versa. From a moral standpoint, the Civil War is a complex mixture of good and evil on both sides. A giant paradox, if you will.

[SWhiteman]

I disagree with the notion that the war was about slavery. Lincoln certainly didn't think it was when he unconstitutionally assembled an army in 1861 without the authorisation of Congress. Congress didn't think it was when the "authorised" Lincolns "war powers." The Emancipation Proclaimation didn't free a single slave -- it only freed those those slaves in land not under Union control, and specifically kept those slaves on Union soil bound. It was a war measure to create a domestic insurrection.

Truly, read Adam's book (though not from a strictly "southern" perspective). Also, please obtain a copy of R.L. Dabney's Defense of Virginia from Sprinkle Publications. While not entirely correct, Dabney was a war-time aide to Stonewall Jackson. He was a "Union" man all the way until the Union voided the Constitution and attacked a state.

Also, Dabney did an excellent job running through slavery as a biblically ordained institution for the good of men, even the slave. He objected, as do I, to the Unitarian God-hater making claims on what the God said about slavery when in fact the Bible, the final revelation, makes it plain as day that slavery is permissible. He was wrong, in my understanding, on his belief in the non-requirements of release of the slave on the Sabbath year.

Dabney did make a good explanation of how the Southern man would buy a slave he knew to be kidnapped by a Northern shipping company "in good conscience." Essentially, if the Southron didn't buy it, the Yankee would just throw his "negro cargo" overboard. It is a dilemma. What do you do when you know buying stolen men is wrong, but if you don't buy them, the trafficker will just kill him? Dabney's book is essential, "first person" contemporary reading on the matter.

Remember, a Unitarian commenting on slavery is like the UN commenting on war. The Starting point is so wrong and unChristian that they cannot use scripture in the way they intend to.

http://www.un.org/Pubs/CyberSchoolBus/untour/imgswo.jpg

That is in front of the UN. It is a man turning his sword into a plowshare (http://biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%202:4;&version=9;) . That is a misappropriation of a scripture, giving to the UN what is only Christ's. It is blasphemy and a profanation of the Name of Christ.

Christ will make and end of all war, as Christ will make a release of all slaves. A society of Christians will educate slaves and men and make them free and peaceful.

The Unitarians (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0963838105/102-0567478-0026555?v=glance) who started the War Between the States were evil and violent men. They were willing to use God's word to confuse and mislead, but they were evil from the pits of hell. They used Scripture unjustly to prop up their cause.

Of course, many Union Army men were not evil, and many were Christians, but they either knowingly or unknowingly fought in an unconstitutional and unjust war. Many are in heaven now, but they bear the burden of being used by Lincoln and the "Radical Republican" Jacobins to kill 300,000 Southern heads-of-household and 300,000 Northern heads-of-household. In the South, that was a loss of about 25% of the leaders of families -- the South has not recovered from it, nor has the Reformed Church in America. For the North, that conscripted Irish immigrants and slaves into their army, the percentage was Northern “men of gentry” that died was not as great, and the North is still "healthy" in a monetary sense. It is morally corrupt, however. The Unitarian Church survived the war and is now on the front lines of the homosexual agenda in the country.

When I worked in Massachusetts, I met many a "queer folk" who claimed they were just doing what their Egalitarian/Jacobin Abolitionist-Unitarian ancestors did in 1861, and I think they are right.

The fight then, as now, is between the seed of the serpent and the Seed of the woman. The seed of the serpent will wound our heal, but He shall crush its head. The Egalitarian/Jacobin/Socialist/Democrat/Atheist/Abolitionist/Unitarian will die and rot in hell, him and all his creations, before the end of the world. We will beat our swords into plowshares after Christ has uprooted all His enemies from the Earth.

"Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." Psalm 110:1

[exmarine]

Also, Dabney did an excellent job running through slavery as a biblically ordained institution for the good of men, even the slave. He objected, as do I, to the Unitarian God-hater making claims on what the God said about slavery when in fact the Bible, the final revelation, makes it plain as day that slavery is permissible. He was wrong, in my understanding, on his belief in the non-requirements of release of the slave on the Sabbath year.



We will simply have to agree to disagree on whether slavery was a causative factor of the Civil War. God-haters? That's a bit strong. And not all were Unitarians either. John Jay, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Elbridge Gerry and many more were opposed to slavery on biblical grounds. In fact, a good portion of the delegates at the Constitutional Convention were opposed to it. As was William Wilberforce, the man who ended slavery in the British Empire. Were these men all God-haters sir?

In fat, sir, Patrick Henry, a slaveholder, was very troubled by slavery. Here is his quote:

"Is it not amazing, that at a time when the rights of humanity are defined and understood with precision in a country above all others fond of liberty, that in such an age and in such a country, we finid men professing a religion the most humane, mild, meek, gentle a nd generous, adopting a Principle as repugnant to humanity, as it is inconsistent wiht the Bible and destructive to Liberty."

Sir, it is a BIBLICAL FACT that all men are created equal as all are created in the image of God. Not only is this truth scriptural, it was held by our founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence. However, the southern slave institution -- chattel slavery -- held that slaves were less than men (Dred Scott decision under Roger Taney encapsulated this belief), and this is proven by the fact that they were denied their God-given right of freedom. You cannot show where Scripture condones the particular case of slavery we are discussing, i.e. the enslavement of Africans by Americans in America, and in direct contradiction to the founding principles. Yes, the bible is clear that ALL men are created in the image of God - including black men -- and the same inalienable rights apply to all. In fact, Stonewall was criticized for teaching Sunday School to slave children. Stonewall Jackson himself agonized over this (he was criticized for teaching sunday school to slave children), as did Patrick Henry before him and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, et al. Because the founders failed to deal with slavery in 1787, and instead deferred the issue, a whirlwind was reaped 60 years later. Slavery was a contradiction to one of the most basic founding principles of America - the God-given right to liberty.

Paul commands masters to love their slaves and slaves to love their masters. The end result of such agape love would of course be the freeing of the slave (as we find in Philemon). "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom." 2Cor3:17

It is simply a fact that southern chattel slavery violated the foundational inalienable (read: God-given) right to liberty declared in the Declaration of Independence and signed by 56 founding fathers, including many southerners. Did that apply to white men only in your estimation?

To be clear, the North can be faulted for many things, but so can the antebellum South, not he least which was much cruelty to black men. I do not agree that such cruelty is biblical or Christian in nature.

Respectfully,
exmarine

[TheSeventhStooge]

There is an anti-slavery verse in the Bible, as well. Look up 1 Timothy 1:8-11, and you will see a list of sins and sinners that are described as being "contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God..." Included in that list are slave traders.

Don Richardson, in his book Secrets of the Koran, makes the following statement: "Paul sought to counteract slavery by attackin gits source- slave trading. If slave trading is abolished, slave taking, sans the incentive of financial gain, will also end."

TheSeventhStooge...

[SWhiteman]

There is an anti-slavery verse in the Bible, as well. Look up 1 Timothy 1:8-11, and you will see a list of sins and sinners that are described as being "contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God..." Included in that list are slave traders.

Don Richardson, in his book Secrets of the Koran, makes the following statement: "Paul sought to counteract slavery by attackin gits source- slave trading. If slave trading is abolished, slave taking, sans the incentive of financial gain, will also end."

TheSeventhStooge...

I have no obligation to listen to a man unlocking the Secrets of the Koran, the book obeyed by the greatest man-stealers in all history. Paul did not seek to counteract biblical slavery, or he would not have returned Omnesius to Philemnon.

Manstealing is a crime punishable by death in the Bible. The New England slave traders engaged in it. The Law of Nations prohibited it, and the United States should have prosecuted it.

Owning a slave was not punishable. Both the North and the South owned slaves, but only greedy New Englanders stole black men from Africa. They literally stole them in some instances, or purchased known stolen property in other instances.

Now, Patrick Henry, et. al., and their views I deeply respect. I believe, as you indicate, that God created men "equal" (as you use the term from the Declaration, it is inappropriate, but I'll accept it for this purpose -- see my forthcoming article "American According to Lincoln").

Men are "born free" and have certain unalienable rights, like life, liberty and property/right of employ/pursuit of happiness. A son born into a family may not properly have his right to liberty waived by his father. Biblically, if one intends to become a slave, he can become an "indentured servant" for six years (released on the 7th) to a master to learn a trade. The Bible not once denounces "slavery."

In fact, your Paul must have been schizophrenic, because you claim in I Tim 1, he denounces slavery, but in fact in I Tim 6 he calls on servants to be obedient to their masters.

In I Timothy 6:1-5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%206:1-5;&version=9;), Paul, in writing to an Elder, Timothy, said from anyone who preaches against submission to masters, "from such withdraw thyself," which is to say, deny communion to the abolitionist.

Now, Patrick Henry (again), John Jay, and John Adams and his son, Elbridge Gerry, &c., I have no indication that they were the god-haters like the Unitarian/Abolitionists. In fact, they were not abolitionists -- they were "against slavery." As Christians, they saw a problem with the Northern manstealing and the Southern purchase of stolenmen. They were concerned, with a Christian eye, that the black men were not being raised to be independant free men to be released as responsible Christians. They all recognised that in a proper Christian society, slavery would evaporate as responsible men were reared from the previously owned slaves.

Abolitionists, on the other hand were blood-thirsty murderers and profiteers who used other blood-thristy men like John Brown to start a war (so in that sense, the War may have been about slavery). In my read, that is due to the fact that the South had already begun to deal with the mantrafficking problem and Virginia had banned any further importation of slaves (the first civil society in the world to do that) by 1788 (if I recall exactly). The profit of manstealing by New Englanders was coming to a close, and the NYC bankers saw it, and decided to subjugate the South, and they did.

So that passions get not hot, please do not respond with the American baggage of "Negro Slavery" or "Southern Chattle Slavery," &c. No person has ever been Chattle in a Christian society. Now, however, we are all Chattle, human resources, of the State. Remember when the director of Selective Services said he was taking a human inventory (http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule/index.php?action=itemview&event_id=210) ?

Write from a Christian perspective and you will not find yourself defending North or South, and either for their sins. I do not defend any sin committed by the South -- in fact, I'm not a Southerner, I was born in Penn. All of my education is above the Mason-Dixon, I went to law school in Massachusetts. I have no family in the South. I am not a knee-jerk Southron. Don't be a knee-jerk Yankee.



---------
I intend to refrain from reviewing and comment in the Forum on the Lord's day, but this thread popped up and it was clearly a conversation about Christian issues that I thought it was a reasonable and proper use of the time owed to God.
---------

[Jaime]

I did research on slavery in the Bible a while back. Unfortunately I had a disk crash and lost it all. I was surprised at what I found. The Bible does allow for slavery in a very limited way.

If memory serves my right:
1) Man-hunting (slaves captured through war of aggression is the same as man-hunting) is prohibited.
2) Jews could not hold another Jew for a slave for longer than 6 years (like loaning/borrowing) because of the year of jubilee.

================================================== ======

To repeat:

The new testament encourages masters to be good to their slaves and slaves to be good wrokers for their masters. Paul even advised a runawway slave to return to his master and Paul advised the master to forgive the slave, as Christ had forgiven him.

But there is no doubt that the overall substance and direction of Scripture is to free those in bondage, as Christ freed us from bondage to sin.

================================================== ======

Jefferson Davis, Gen. Robert E. Lee (CSA) and Gen. Jonathan Jackson (CSA) are other examples of people who thought that slavery was an evil. But they also thought that emancipating slaves wholesale without haveing the slaves trained in freedom was just as big an evil. Jefferson Davis went as far as allowing a degree of slave self-rule (my paraphrase of the situtation).

================================================== ======

Re-read the Dred Scott decision. The issue was not personhood but citizenship, as the the law defined it at the time. And since Dred Scott was not a citizen he had no standing at the SOCUTS and, therefore, the lower court ruling was allowed to stand.


================================================== ======

Let's also drop this "Southern" Chattle Slavery stuff. Yes, there was slavery in the South but not just in the South. The Yankees sold their slaves to the South and in the Caribbean before they decided to be morally repulsed by the "peculiar institution." Then, they kept antisceptic distance, through North-eastern shipping, by carrying their cargo from west Africa to the Caribbean (rum-slaves-molasses triangle), all the while decraying slavery in the South. Never mind that free negroes who ventured into some of those North-eastern States and "visted" for too long were subject to flogging.

================================================== ======

I am not a knee-jerk Southron either but an adoptive one. I was born and raised in Puerto Rico which makes me a little more sensitive to issues of occupation (1898) and the horrible cost of human slavery. Southrons have been brow-beaten and the North allowed self-righteous hypocrisy.

================================================== ======

PS: Mr. SWhiteman, I just noticed that you beat me to the punch.

[exmarine]

Okay, that's two people now who defend slavery. Frankly, this is beginning to scare me. First, I did not mean to use any loaded words in my original post. I have no intention to offend, only to speak the Truth.

That being said, let's apply some simple logic, shall we? If one takes the position that slavery is permissible, that begs the question: Under what specific BIBLICAL criteria or circumstances was it permissible (i.e. justified) in the antebellum south? Further, if it was permissible then, is it now still permissible? It must be. Under what biblical justification? Just saying it is permissible isn't nearly enough. That would necessarily mean that anyone can enslave anyone else against their will and, ex post facto, twist scripture to justify it (I am not saying those here are trying to do that), even though Scripture is clear that liberty is a God-given right that no man can take away. All sorts of evil have been justified in just this manner.

I see nothing in Scripture that would justify the specific enslavement of Africans by Americans in the antebellum south, and I am quite confident that no one can find such justification in Scripture. Historical evidence shows that southern slavery in no way epitomized the benevolent slave/master relationship commanded by Paul (masters, love your slaves; slaves, love your masters). Rather, it was a breeding ground for widespread unspeakable cruelty and evil against those enslaved, to the point where the slaves were considered property and non-persons. This did not resemble bond-servant slavery at all. There was very little that was loving or Christian about it, although I realize that many slaveowners were benevolent (e.g. James Madison, Jefferson, Washington). But these men were the exception not the rule. People were commonly beaten, murdered, worked to death, had family members torn from away and sold, died by the thousands on slave ships (thank the Lord for Royal Navy interdiction!) that rival the Nazi camps in their depraved conditions, etc. If I lived in the antebellum south or north, I would have disobeyed the Fugitive Slave Act, even if that meant my imprisonment, just as today I will disobey any government or man-made law that attempts to force me to contradict God's eternal Law.

I realize that most southerners did not own slaves and that slavery was not the primary motivation for the Confederrate soldier (as adeptly argued by historian Gary Gallagher), however, it will be Judgment Day before all of the injustice and evil birthed by southern slavery is sorted out. And God's judgments are always true and righteous.

In fact, I see key similarities between southern slavery and abortion, e.g. the one with the power (mother, slave master) holds the power of life and death over the slave or baby, as well as the god-like power to declare the victim a non-person. After all, if the object to be killed is deemed to be less than a person, then no real crime has been committed should they be killed. Dred Scott embodied that evil philosophy, and make no mistake - it was EVIL.

Clearly, slaves (before they are slaves) are persons created in God's image, and as such, are entitled to LIBERTY and LIFE. Even slaveholder Patrick Henry saw this contradiction.

The bottom line: If southern slavery was in fact biblically permissible, then there MUST be some clear biblical criteria (and that is the ONLY criteria that counts) which would justify the denial of liberrty to that SPECIFIC group. What is that biblical criteria? What did Africans do to biblically warrant their enslavement for profit by slave-traders and southern landholders? I would love to see someone try to make a biblical case for it.

Respectfully submitted,
exmarine

[Jaime]

Not defending slavery but recognizing that it was an "institution" that has been with us humans since, almost, the begining.

Please notice that there are two ways that someone became a slave, biblically speaking, were ligitimately: as captured enemy in adefensive war and as indentured to pay-off a debt.

Credit cards are the modern version of indentured servitude.

And quit saying slavery in the South. Say slavery, slavery in the New World, slavery in North America. And I do not know what have you read but slavery, in North America, was way more benevolent than in the "latin" countries. On what basis you say that benevolent slave owners "in the South" were the exemptions?

If you need reassurance, I am not in favor and will oppose any attempt to bring about slavery. As if this needed saying! Yeesh.

[exmarine]

Please notice that there are two ways that someone became a slave, biblically speaking, were ligitimately: as captured enemy in adefensive war and as indentured to pay-off a debt.



That was ancient Israel. Can you find any biblical justification for kidnapping people from western Africa and putting them in chains, on putrid slave ships, for a lifetime of captivity in America?

[SWhiteman]

Can you find any biblical justification for kidnapping people from western Africa and putting them in chains, on putrid slave ships, for a lifetime of captivity in America?

Absolutly none, and I believe the New Englanders should repent. :)

[SWhiteman]

Okay, that's two people now who defend slavery. Frankly, this is beginning to scare me. First, I did not mean to use any loaded words in my original post. I have no intention to offend, only to speak the Truth.

...

The bottom line: If southern slavery was in fact biblically permissible, then there MUST be some clear biblical criteria (and that is the ONLY criteria that counts) which would justify the denial of liberrty to that SPECIFIC group. What is that biblical criteria? What did Africans do to biblically warrant their enslavement for profit by slave-traders and southern landholders? I would love to see someone try to make a biblical case for it.

An excellent distillation of the point of this rabbit trail and the call of the question. I will not make the case you have asked to be made, because 1.) I don't believe it can be made, but certainly 2.) I cannot make that case.

But that is not how this conversation began in the seventhstooge's "I need a little history lesson." This is why the distinction must be maintained between the Institution of Slavery as Biblically proscribed and the Institution of Slavery as existant in America. Was slavery in American Biblical slavery?

Biblically there was a difference between the treatment of an Israelite and a Gentile in that the Israelite had to have the opportunity for release presented, whereas, my understanding is that was not required for the Gentile. Now, if the Gentile became a member of the covenant community by being circumcised, I believe he was treated as an member of the covenant and due the opportunity of release.

So, Slavery in America. Were these black men stolen from Africa by New Englanders and sold to Southerners possibly for life Biblically permissible? On the face, "No," as far as the manstealing goes and New England slave traders should have been punished by the United States government for it as a violation of God's Law and the Law of Nations.

I am looking into the Biblical distinctions on purchasing stolen men, which I have previously mentioned does not initially pass the "smell test," but I don't want to rush to conclusions, so the South may have been clear morally on that. I seem to recall reading something from a "Patrick Henry type" (i.e. opposed to slavery) admitting that the purchase of slaves does not require that the slave be justly captured -- like I said, it doesn't sound right to me either.

However, and this is the important distinction for American slavery, once many blackmen began to learn the language and profess Christianity, there was no law in any State requiring the slave master to bring him the option for release on the 7th year. It seems to me that is morally impermissible, and in that instance slavery in America would be improper if I am reading the Bible correctly on this point.

But to smack the whole Institution of Slavery and the Divine Ordinance of God because of a poor example of how man managed something is not good sense. Would we abolish all marriages because some men are overbearing on their wives, or some wives kick against their husbands? Would we abolish all Church governments because it is oft time arbitrary and capricious? Would we abolish all Civil governments because this one puts to death innocent men in unjust wars?

Shouldn't we rather work specificially against the specific instances, like toward the reconciliation or divorce in that particular marriage? Or the rectification of that Session of Presbytery? Or the abolition of that particular national government that has committed its men and women to slaughter and be slaughtered?

I hope to not continue the heated debate. I hope this was more amicable and kind, and I repent of any contribution I made in heating things up. But I want to be seriously ardent and systematic about how scripture is handled in this forum. Do not come to this forum with a light understanding of the Institutions God has ordained for man's benefit. Remember, even God's harshness is more merciful than our mercy. When we do an end-run around God's Law, thinking we are helping Him and man out, we have strayed to the right or the left, and will be judged.

So it may be difficult to grasp, but there are things that God does in His holiness that will offend unholy men -- I know much of His Word offends my natural sensibilities -- and I ask that you would pray that the offense would be removed from me, not from God.

[wmgreene]

A fairly accurate history lesson is available at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams120298.asp and a small section is presented herewith:

History books have misled today's Americans to believe the war was fought to free slaves.

Statements from the time suggest otherwise. In President Lincoln's first inaugural address, he said, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so."

During the war, in an 1862 letter to the New York Daily Tribune editor Horace Greeley, Lincoln said, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery." A recent article by Baltimore's Loyola College Professor Thomas DiLorenzo titled "The Great Centralizer," in The Independent Review (Fall 1998), cites quotation after quotation of similar northern sentiment about slavery.

Lincoln's intentions, as well as that of many northern politicians, were summarized by Stephen Douglas during the presidential debates. Douglas accused Lincoln of wanting to "impose on the nation a uniformity of local laws and institutions and a moral homogeneity dictated by the central government" that "place at defiance the intentions of the republic's founders." Douglas was right, and Lincoln's vision for our nation has now been accomplished beyond anything he could have possibly dreamed.

A precursor for a War Between the States came in 1832, when South Carolina called a convention to nullify tariff acts of 1828 and 1832, referred to as the "Tariffs of Abominations." A compromise lowering the tariff was reached, averting secession and possibly war. The North favored protective tariffs for their manufacturing industry. The South, which exported agricultural products to and imported manufactured goods from Europe, favored free trade and was hurt by the tariffs. Plus, a northern-dominated Congress enacted laws similar to Britain's Navigation Acts to protect northern shipping interests.

Shortly after Lincoln's election, Congress passed the highly protectionist Morrill tariffs.

That's when the South seceded, setting up a new government. Their constitution was nearly identical to the U.S. Constitution except that it outlawed protectionist tariffs, business handouts and mandated a two-thirds majority vote for all spending measures...

One of my first writings with respect to my discovery of the fact that the slaves were never freed, but rather that their ownership was merely transferred from the individual property owners to the US Corporation, is reported here:Government Corruption -- Title: Sunmount Developmental Center In Tupper Lake NY, the Federal Court Of Northern NY, And More Sunmount Developmental Center in Tupper Lake NY were my introduction to the matrix, for real! (http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff73538.htm). One of my more recent posts is here (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/legality-of-income-tax/message/32127), and of course, I am out on a limb with my views, but the way I see it I'm not a particularly brave person, so sometimes I'm not really sure why I seem to try to stand up for what I see as right, but, as stated in 1 Corinthians 7:23, I was bought at a price; to not become a slave of men.

Blessings,
Bill

[Jaime]

For more info on Lincoln go to my blog (I use it primarily to check on my kids' postings) at: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Confederate_Coqui

[TheSeventhStooge]

Wow.

This isn't exactly what I had in mind when I originally asked the question. So I think I will just read the links that have been sent my way and go from there.

Thanks for the answers to my question!

TheSeventhStooge...

[samsamsamm2003]

Absolutly none, and I believe the New Englanders should repent. :)

I'm sorry i have to comment on this. First the New Englanders were the first to disapprove of slavery only a few were slave trader's and it was the New Englander's put the issue of slave trading on the table. Also only 2 slave states remained loyal to the "North" and both of them sent troops to the Confederacy all slave states sent troops to the Confederacy only one Free state (California) sent troops to the Confederacy and there were only 60 of them. At the end of the day there is only two countries in the world who continue this racial form of Slavery Mauritania, and Sudan so why are we putting the slavery on the shoulder's of New Englander's?

[SWhiteman]

At the end of the day there is only two countries in the world who continue this racial form of Slavery Mauritania, and Sudan so why are we putting the slavery on the shoulder's of New Englander's?
If it was not clear from the " :) " submitted, I put the "blame of slavery on the shoulders of New Englanders" to simply counteract the allegations that the South bears the sole responsiblity for all things evil in America.

It was the New England slave ships that brought the slaves here.

BTW, if New Englanders disapproved of slavery first, why was Virginia the first jurisdiction on the face of the earth to prohibit the further importation of slaves into their Commonwealth (1788)? They beat England to the punch, which is credited as being the first Country to ban man-trafficking.

Thus, the claim that Abolition was tied to Profiteering. Once the money of man-trafficking looked like it would dry up, a bunch of NYC bankers starting opposing slavery. Convenient -- and highly moral, I'm sure. The love of money is the root of all evil, and these NYC bankers, and the Secret Six, loved money more than their countrymen.

Not much has changed, btw, since NYC bankers still can get us into unjust wars. For such, one would think a state could consider seceeding. Which several did in 1861.

Further, please stop tying the war together with slavery, since they had nothing to do with each other at the beginning of the war. Slavery was invoked only when the blood-thirsty tyrant needed some high moral ground to justify the killing of his own countrymen.

This thread has devolved into what any conversation of this type does when people without a similar understanding of the greater issues, or people genuinely interested in searching out the truth in history, like thesevenethstooge who asked the first question, have this conversation. Theseventhstooge asked about secession, and here we are writing about slavery, getting hot over it, invoking scripture improperly as if that is the be-all-end-all of the conversation. He has since expressed his intention to withdraw from the conversation. I think he is wise, and we should all consider doing the same.

So if this thread is to continue, let us move off of the racial slavery conversation. I'm possibly the most ardent Southron here (not a knee-jerker, though) and I claimed that slavery as practiced in America, without the requirement of bringing release to a Christian black man, was wrong.

[exmarine]

But to smack the whole Institution of Slavery and the Divine Ordinance of God because of a poor example of how man managed something is not good sense. Would we abolish all marriages because some men are overbearing on their wives, or some wives kick against their husbands? Would we abolish all Church governments because it is oft time arbitrary and capricious? Would we abolish all Civil governments because this one puts to death innocent men in unjust wars?
...

I hope to not continue the heated debate. I hope this was more amicable and kind, and I repent of any contribution I made in heating things up. But I want to be seriously ardent and systematic about how scripture is handled in this forum. Do not come to this forum with a light understanding of the Institutions God has ordained for man's benefit. Remember, even God's harshness is more merciful than our mercy. When we do an end-run around God's Law, thinking we are helping Him and man out, we have strayed to the right or the left, and will be judged.

So it may be difficult to grasp, but there are things that God does in His holiness that will offend unholy men -- I know much of His Word offends my natural sensibilities -- and I ask that you would pray that the offense would be removed from me, not from God.

I also do not wish to have a heated debate, but the topic is important. Also, I have no ill feeling toward you sir. Iron sharpens iron, does it not?

I simply do not believe the bible teaches that slavery is ordained by God for our day, or for any day other than for ancient Israel. If no one cannot make a bonafide biblical case for it, then it doesn't exist.

On the other hand, scripture does teach God takes the evil that men do and turns it to Good for His purposes (Joseph's plight is one such fine example). However, the Good done by God does not necessarily mean that no evil was done, nor erase the sin of those who caused the evil. Joseph's brothers sinned against God but later repented. It may be true that many slaves' souls were saved after being enslaved, but that does not erase the evil done by the slavetraders and slaveholders, and it certainly does not mean that God willed those people to be enslaved. It may mean that God accomplished His purposes in spite of man's evil.

The ordnances for Israel are not necessarily the ordnances for us. God also gave Israel numerous dietary laws and Sabbath laws - that we do not follow and are not obligated to follow. God also ordained death for homosexuals and adulterers and children who disobey their parents - should we apply those today? I don't think you will find many theologians who would say that we should.

Final word on slavery: No one in the modern world can point to scripture and say, "this instance of slavery, or that instance, is permissible, but this other instance is not." God Himself specifically ordained slavery in ancient Israel, but it would be a big mistake to extend that ordnance to all times and peoples. The logical end of that thinking is that any slavery whatsoever may be deemed permissible, because it can ex post facto be justified and rationalized as being an ordnance of God...which is precisely what happened in the antebelllum South. Thus, if one instance is permissible, then they all are, because in the absence of clear revelation, anyone can simply say, after the fact, that "God ordained it...it was His will." Do you see the trap here? Was southern slavery biblical, but West Indies and Brazilian slavery unbiblical? On what grounds? If one instance is permissible, then why not all? Even if slaves were treated kindly, does that justify the taking of their liberty? Not necessarily. It may simply mean that God made good out of evil.

In the vernacular of Dirty Harry, "You have to ask yourself one question:" Is it wise for a slave-master to justify himself based on an esoteric or loose reading of scripture at the expense of violating the very clear unalienable God-given right of Liberty to each man? Such a man is treading on very thin ice indeed, and I would not want to be in his shoes. That is some pretty shaky moral and biblical ground from where I sit.

This is my final word on the matter, is submitted with humility and respect,

Respectfully submitted,
exmarine

[exmarine]

Getting back on topic, I have studied the history leading up to and including the Civil War. It is clear to me that if slavery was not the direct catalyst or a primary cause of the Civil War, it was most certainly and irrefutably a highly aggravating factor!

In fact, slavery was a hot button issue from the time of the 1787 Constitutional Convention (which almost broke up over the issue!) up to Fort Sumter in 1861. Here is a short list of some major conflicts over slavery:

-The Northwest Ordnance banned slavery in the new territories (Ohio river and surrounding)
-The Missouri Compromise (1820): admitted Maine as a free state and Missouri as a slave state, while banning slavery north of 36'30''
-Compromise of 1850 (Henry Clay, Calhoun, Douglas, et al) - California admitted as free state, Texas boundary dispute ended, slave trade banned in DC, and Fugitive Slave Act was passed.
-The Kansas-Nebraska Act 1854: Said new territories would decide on legality of slavery by Popular Sovereignty (spear-headed by S. Douglas - his last hurrah). Direct violation of Missiouri Compromise.
- Popular Sovereignty led directly to "bleeding Kansas" - a cross-border war between free-soil Jayhawkers and pro-slavery Missourians - directly over the issue of slavery and whether it would be allowed to flourish in Kansas. Does anyone want to pretend that "bleeding Kansas" had nothing to do with slavery?
-Whig Party destroyed and broke up due to sectional tensions related to slavery.

That is just a short list. All of these occurred as a result of the desire by one side to stop the spread of slavery and the desire of the other to spread it into new territories. It raised tensions to a super-heated level, and most certainly was one contributing factor to the start of the Civil War.

Slavery caused tremendous resentment and rage on both sides, and served to widen and deepen the differences between the southern culture and northern culture.

Respectfully submitted,
exmarine

[Jeffrey Butler]

This thread was originally dealing with:

I have a question concerning the Civil War and the right for states to seceed.

I tend to believe that the start of the Civil War was not because of slavery, but because of state's rights. But what was the right that the states were trying to hold onto?

It wasn't just the right to seceed, was it? What was the issue that caused the South to declare itself in rebellion to the federal government? Was it in fact slavery, or was there another issue that was bigger than that and we never hear about it?

And, how do you spell the word "seceed"?

TheSeventhStooge...

[Jaime]

Here is a link that might be of interest to y'all:
http://rightreason.ektopos.com/archives/2005/08/the_battle_hymn.html

Y'all will recognize the ebb and flow of the discussion. Yours truly has posted several responses.

It is a discussion following a blob entry that begins thusly:

The Battle Hymn of the Republican
I've been reflecting lately on the words to "The Battle Hymn of the Republic." This reflection is occasioned by the fact that it is one of Youngest Daughter's favorite songs. She sings it at the top of her lungs fairly frequently and requests that I sing it, too.

(snip)


Then it states somewhere in the blog:

... "The southern states were, or had previously been, part of the United States. So it was legitimate to send in federal troops to make sure that they didn't do things they shouldn't do." Really? What things?

url]http://rightreason.ektopos.com/archives/2005/08/the_battle_hymn.html[/url]

[TheSeventhStooge]

The ordnances for Israel are not necessarily the ordnances for us. God also gave Israel numerous dietary laws and Sabbath laws - that we do not follow and are not obligated to follow. God also ordained death for homosexuals and adulterers and children who disobey their parents - should we apply those today? I don't think you will find many theologians who would say that we should.



You won't find many theologians that would say that we should still have the death penalty for sins such as adultery, homosexuality violating the Sabbath, or disobeying their parents, but we need to remember that the death penalty is still in effect, even if we do not hold the sword to execute that judgment. God always has the sword and gavel in hand, and whether it is under the sun or in the age to come all sin will be punished with death (Romans 6:23). Right now God is staying the execution in order to give as many as possible the chance to repent and turn to him, but ultimately the day of grace will pass.

I do not believe that the Law, along with its punishments, was nullified when Jesus came. In fact, Jesus himself said he didn't come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it, and not one letter will be eliminated from the Law until everything has been accomplished. The Law was given in order to show men their sinfulness and their need for a Savior (obviously, that savior is Jesus) and to declare God's holiness and righteousness before men. "This is the standard," God says. "If you want me to grant you eternal life based on your merits, this is how you must live." When men realize they cannot ever match that standard, then they cry out, "How then can we be saved?" And that is where the good news of Jesus comes into play.

Therefore, we may say that such punishments are not enforced in our country, but don't think that God will not. His justice and righteousness are sure, and his holiness will come through.

I hope I was clear in this post; I know I don't always get the words down right.

TheSeventhStooge...

[DixieCol]

I have been enjoying the give and take on this particular subject. As a new member, I was drawn to this particular board by my interest in so-called "Civil War" history.

I have noticed some discussion on the biblical authority for slavery, conduct of slaves, conduct of masters, etc. I have spent a good deal of my life, especially during the last 20 years or so, studying the 19th Century period of American history, and I have read somewhere that prior to the "Civil War" (I believe the name War For Southern Independence more accurately describes it) it was generally believed that the institution of Negro slavery was biblical because of the so-called "Curse of Ham". According to the Bible in Genesis 9:20, Noah had a son named Ham. One day Noah got drunk and passed out in his tent in the nude. Ham gazed upon Noah's nakedness, thus showing an extreme lack of respect for his father, and when Noah awakened and discovered what had happened, he placed God's curse upon Ham's son, Canaan. As a result, Canaan's skin turned dark and his hair became fuzzy (he became a Negro). Canaan was then ordered to serve his light-skinned brothers in perpetuity.

Although I have personally never found the entirety of this "Curse of Ham" in the Bible, I have read that Ham was generally cursed and condemned for his actions. At any rate, frequent references were made in churches during the early 19th Century to the "Curse of Ham" as the biblical basis for Negro servitude, therefore making the institution of Negro slavery "ordained of God".

Slavery began in North America in approximately 1635 in Massachusetts, and, at that time, Massachusetts was the largest slaveholding colony. Slavery existed in the Northeast right on through the War For Independence, and was gradually phased out in the North during the early 19th Century as immigration and indentured servitude made the cost of purchasing and maintaining slaves less profitable to the North. Purchasing and caring for slaves can become very expensive (like caring for livestock), whereas paying low wages to immigrants or indenturing servants meant the businessman owed no additional care to his workers.

As the North became more industrialized, the South continued to be agrarian. The North continued to gain immigrants, while the South gained very little in population; however, as the North became more industrialized, an increasing portion of the nation became dependent upon the South as its "breadbasket". Therefore, the South (with less population than the North) had to continually increase the size of its crops in order to feed and clothe (through the growth of cotton) the entire country. As a result, the South had to rely upon slaves to perform the labor-intensive work required to grow and harvest crops. As the North was beginning to sell off its slaves, the South became a ready buyer for the North's slaves.

As the North's population increased, their representation in the U.S. Congress began to far surpass the representation of the South, and therefore the U.S. Congress was able to "ram through" a great deal of legislation that favored the North at the expense of the South. By the 1850's, due to the passage of much Congressional legislation that was unfavorable to the South, approximately 75% - 80% of the overall Federal budget was paid by the South in the form of tariffs, and the majority of this money went to Northern projects, while only approximately 25% of Federal monies went to Southern projects. By 1860, it became very clear to Southerners that remaining in union with the Northern States was not in their best interests financially, and therefore, the Southern States decided they would be better off attempting to go it alone outside the Federal Union.

It should be noted that prior to 1860 there was little question amongst Constitutional scholars as to the legality of secession. It was believed that since the States were independent and sovereign entities who had voluntarily joined together to form the Union in the first place, it was within their right to voluntarily withdraw from the Union. In fact, the State Constitutions of both New York and Virginia included the maintenance of that right. The secession of States had been threatened on several occasions prior to the 1860's. For instance, the New England States threatened to secede from the Union in 1814 over the war with England (the War of 1812). Only the end of the war prevented the New England States from seceding from the Union at that time.

It should be noted that Amendments IX and X of the U.S. Constitution expressly reserve the rights of the States and the People to make any decisions not expressly delegated to the Federal government, so when some of the Republicans began demanding an end to the institution of slavery throughout the entire Union, it was generally believed that that was a decision that should be left to the sovereign States and their citizenry, and was not within the purview of the U.S. Congress to decide.

It should also be noted that President Buchanan took no action when South Carolina seceded from the Union, because he did not believe he had any Constitutional power to take any action to prevent secession. Abraham Lincoln had stated the same opinion prior to 1860 in a debate with Stephen Douglas.

It should also be noted that the majority of the Southern States who seceded did so ONLY after President Lincoln ordered each of the States in the Union to send him 70,000 troops so that he could invade the Southern States that had seceded.

It should also be noted that throughout the entire duration of the War, the "Slave States" of Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Missouri remained in the Union, and at no time during the War were the slaves in those States freed. As previously stated somewhere in this discussion, the so-called Emancipation Proclamation pertained only to freeing the slaves in the "States in rebellion"--the Southern States over which President Lincoln exercised no control. He took no action to free the slaves over which he could exercise some control.

It should also be noted that the Southern States which seceded followed to the letter the legal procedure for seceding from the Union. They held a vote by the registered voters of each State, held a Secession Convention at which a vote was passed to secede from the Union, and the States reassumed their sovereignty and independence which they had retained ever since declaring their independence from Great Britain. Therefore, when the Southern States left the United States and eventually formed the Confederate States, the formation of the Confederacy was entirely legal and valid. When the various armies of the Confederacy were defeated in 1865 (the last one to be defeated was the Army of the Trans-Mississippi commanded by General Stand Waitie, an American Indian), the Confederate government never formally surrendered to the United States--it was simply disbanded. Essentially, the territory of the Confederate States was "absorbed" by the United States, and became an occupied nation, much as did the Baltic States of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania when they were "absorbed" by the Soviet Union following World War II.

I apologize for getting so "windy" on my first post as a member, but, as I said, this is a subject which is of great interest to me, and I have really enjoyed reading all of the posts.

[TimV]

Good post.

[TheSeventhStooge]

Very interesting. Some of these things I vaguely remember learning years ago, but not all of it.

Thanks!

TheSeventhStooge...

[Will]

The really ironic thing about The Civil War is that the industrial revolution was just getting started. The war delayed it for about twenty years. If industrialization had taken place in the 1860's, the south would have abolished slavery of it's own accord, the way the north did a few years earlier. Those who espouse the fact that the north abolished slavery because it is immoral are fools. The north abolished slavery because it became uneconomical to own slaves, not because they found it immoral. Machinery would have replaced slave labor for the production of agricultural products in the south the same way it replaced slave labor in the north for producing manufactured goods. Owning slaves would have gone the same way that owning horses did later. Another ironic thing is that the former slaves suffered because the white population of the south were antagonistic about thier being freed by force, where the white population would not have harbored such ill-will if slavery had been abolished voluntarily within a few years. incidentally, I was born and raised in the north. After the brainwashing that I underwent, it took me many years to straighten out in my mind what should have happened if it hadn't been for such zealots as John Brown fomenting the north against the south.

[SWhiteman]

If industrialization had taken place in the 1860's, the south would have abolished slavery of it's own accord, the way the north did a few years earlier.
Verify. Slavery was not abolished until the XIII Amendment. The North did not abolish it, nor did the Emancipation Proclaimation.

[Will]

Verify. Slavery was not abolished until the XIII Amendment. The North did not abolish it, nor did the Emancipation Proclaimation.

Scott:

I gather from your post that it's OK if I post an answer.

You are right, but many northern states abolished or abandoned slavery, not "the north." (Semantics?)