You're Confederate ... But Don't Know It?

[John81]

Boy, I sure hope BO doesn't read OB!!!!

They're gonna shut us down!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :Bleh

BO probably avoids reading anything truly Christian. :Green

[HappyChristian]

:thumb to the OP!

[Guest Guest]

John That's why we still refer to it as "The War of Northern Aggression" So well put! Pixiedust

[anime4christ]

Awesome article! :thumb

[OLD fashioned preacher]

The main thing that concerns me about confederacy is the idea of security...the smaller the area' date=' the more vulnerable to outside forces and the more difficult trade and other things are.[/quote']

Tell that to Switzerland.

[ptwild]

If you don't think the Confederacy had slavery at or near the top of their agenda, just read the Confederate constitution. And Lincoln didn't "invade" the South. We (I am a born and raised Georgian) fired on Fort Sumter (a Union fort), thus prompting a counter attack which led to all out war. Although several of the points that have been made are accurate, let's please not down play the role of slavery in the whole mess.

[trc123]

Yeah, but Switzerland is not all that desirable a place to have, it's mainly the Alps. With that terrain to have to "take" who wants the headache. The only they have is Swiss Chocolate and Army Knives!

[trc123]

Yeah, but Switzerland is not all that desirable a place to have.

Come to think of it, neither is the south! whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa................lol

[1Timothy115]

If you don't think the Confederacy had slavery at or near the top of their agenda' date=' just read the Confederate constitution. And Lincoln didn't "invade" the South. We (I am a born and raised Georgian) fired on Fort Sumter (a Union fort), thus prompting a counter attack which led to all out war. Although several of the points that have been made are accurate, let's please not down play the role of slavery in the whole mess.[/quote']

It appears, many of us have accepted views from a secular perspective on the issue of our nation's "Civil War." I too was one of you, until I read about slavery, anti-slavery from the perspective of Christian history during the period.

The following are all excerpts from; A History of American Christianity, by Leonard Woolsey Bacon.

The enterprise of African colonization, already dear to Christian hearts for the hopes that it involved of the redemption of a lost continent, of the elevation of an oppressed race in America, of the emancipation of
slaves and the abolition of slavery, received a new consecration as the object of the dying labors and prayers of Mills. It was associated, in the minds of good men, not only with plans for the conversion of the heathen, and with the tide of antislavery sentiment now spreading and deepening both at the South and at the North, but also with "Clarkson societies" and other local organizations, in many different places, for the moral and physical elevation of the free colored people from the pitiable degradation in which they were commonly living in the larger towns. Altogether the watchmen on the walls of Zion saw no fairer sign of dawn, in that second decade of the nineteenth century, than the hopeful lifting of the cloud from Africa, the brightening prospects of the free negroes of the United States, and the growing hope of the abolition of American slavery.

In New England the focus of antislavery effort was perhaps the theological seminary at Andover. There the leading question among the students in their "Society of Inquiry concerning Missions"...The report of their committee, in the year 1823, on "The Condition of the Black Population of the United States," could hardly be characterized as timid in its utterances on the moral character of American slavery. A few lines will indicate the tone of it in this respect:

"Excepting only the horrible system of the West India Islands,
we have never heard of slavery in any country, ancient or
modern, pagan, Mohammedan, or Christian, so terrible in its
character, so pernicious in its tendency, so remediless in its
anticipated results, as the slavery which exists in these
United States...."

The disastrous epoch of the beginning of what has been called "the southern apostasy" from the universal moral sentiment of Christendom on the subject of slavery may be dated at about the year 1833.

When (about 1833) a Presbyterian minister in Mississippi, the Rev. James Smylie, made the "discovery," which "surprised himself," that the system of American slavery was sanctioned and approved by the
Scriptures as good and righteous, he found that his brethren in the Presbyterian ministry at the extreme South were not only surprised, but shocked and offended, at the proposition.[278:1] And yet such was the
swift progress of this innovation that in surprisingly few years, we might almost say months, it had become not only prevalent, but violently and exclusively dominant in the church of the southern States,...

How came the Christian public throughout the slave-holding States, which so short a time before had been unanimous in finding in the Bible the condemnation of their slavery, to find all at once in the Bible the
divine sanction and defense of it as a wise, righteous, and permanent institution?

But demonstrably the chief cause of this sudden change of religious opinion--one of the most remarkable in the history of the church--was panic terror. In August, 1831, a servile insurrection in Virginia, led by a crazy negro, Nat Turner by name, was followed (as always in such cases) by bloody vengeance on the part of the whites.

"The Southampton insurrection, occurring at a time when the
price of slaves was depressed in consequence of a depression
in the price of cotton, gave occasion to a sudden development
of opposition to slavery in the legislature of Virginia. A
measure for the prospective abolition of the institution in
that ancient commonwealth was proposed, earnestly debated,
eloquently urged, and at last defeated, with a minority
ominously large in its favor."

"The clergy and the religious bodies were summoned to the
patriotic duty of committing themselves on the side of
'southern institutions.' Just then it was, if we mistake not,
that their apostasy began."

"They yielded to the demand. They were carried along in the
current of the popular frenzy; they joined in the clamor,
'Great is Diana of the Ephesians;' they denounced the
fanaticism of abolition and permitted themselves to be
understood as certifying, in the name of religion and of
Christ, that the entire institution of slavery 'as it exists' is
chargeable with no injustice and is warranted by the word
of God."

...throughout the South a constraining power for the suppression of free speech, not only on the part of outsiders, but among the southern people themselves. The r

[John81]

If you don't think the Confederacy had slavery at or near the top of their agenda' date=' just read the Confederate constitution. And Lincoln didn't "invade" the South. We (I am a born and raised Georgian) fired on Fort Sumter (a Union fort), thus prompting a counter attack which led to all out war. Although several of the points that have been made are accurate, let's please not down play the role of slavery in the whole mess.[/quote']

Lincoln pushed for war while only seven States had seceeded. The firing upon Fort Sumter, while written in the history books as the beginning of the war, was not where it began. Shots were fired well before Sumter and Lincoln was aggressively pushing his war aims. Lincoln did indeed invade the South. Had he not invaded the South, there would have been no war.

One might also note that slavery was a subissue of the Consitutional crisis. The American Constitution had clear statements regarding slavery and congress had passed laws regarding slavery. The radical northern abolitionists continually pushed for the ignoring of the Constitution and congressional laws. This was both illegal and unconstitutional. The Constitution provides means for the amending of the Constitution and the changing of congressional laws but increasingly northern politicians determined they didn't have to abide by the law of the land.

That was one aspect of the Constitutional crises, another being tariffs, which northern politicians were pushing through in an unconstitutional manner.

I don't know anyone who denies that slavery was an issue, it simply wasn't the main issue. The main issue was whether or not the Union was going to be governed by the Constitution or by the whims of a newly emerging political majority.

Remember, slavery was legal according to the American Constitution and according to laws passed by Congress and was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. Remember also, the emerging new political majority could have used constitutional means to bring about the end of slavery, just as other nations did, rather than refusing to obey the law of the land.

It should also be noted the New England states several times had considered leaving the Union and there was no talk of the other Constitution-abiding states telling them they couldn't and threatening to force them to remain.

There was a strong and growing abolitionist movement in the South prior to The War. The main difference between the Southern abolitionist movement and the northern one was the Southern abolitionists looked to phase out slavery, just as other nations did, giving slaves the opportunity to learn and prepare for freedom while the northern abolitionists demanded an immediate forced end to slavery which would dump millions of unprepared slaves on the streets and cause economic chaos (which would eventually be seen after The War).

One might note the Bible does not condemn slavery nor call it a sin so I don't think the fact the South didn't prevail is any indication that God was against them because of slavery. One might consider The War and forced reunion as a punishment upon America as a whole which was already drifting from God at that time. Universalism and communistic ideas already had a foothold in America and during The War Lincoln imported tens of thousands of communistic and Catholic folks into America bringing further corruption.

A good book to read is "What Hath God Wrought" by Dr. Grady. It's mostly a history of America from an especially Baptist perspective.

[JerryNumbers]

But for many people the Civil War will always be about slavery. As for Abraham Lincoln, history is indeed being way to kind to him, perhaps in part to the way he died.

[John81]

But for many people the Civil War will always be about slavery. As for Abraham Lincoln' date=' history is indeed being way to kind to him, perhaps in part to the way he died.[/quote']

Very true Jerry. Had Lincoln lived there likely would have been a huge battle between him and congressional Republicans because the majority Radical Republicans differed greatly with Lincoln on how to deal with the Southern States after the war and on how to deal with the freed slaves.

Had Lincoln not been assasinated, and the Radical Republicans determined to make a martyr and hero out of him for the sake of promoting their own wicked agenda, we would likely read of a very different Lincoln in history books.

[PastorHarrison]

In addition to the spoils another thing that goes to the victor is the privaledge to write the history books and haven't they done a wonderful job of that.... "honest abe"?? Give me a break....the man was a notorious liar and his own wife doubted he was saved! :gross:

[heartstrings]

My 3x-great grandfather fought for the South in the War between the States. He lost two of his three sons; one in battle(I believe at Chicamauga) and the other in a Northern prison camp. When the war was over, he became a Baptist preacher. My own father was a "camp commander" in the Sons of Confederate Veterans organization; I never joined. But I'm still a banjo pickin'. cornbread eatin', deer huntin', pickup truck drivin' good ol' boy :Green

I understand that sometime in the 1600's a trading vessel brought some black slaves to the one of the English colonies. Some greedy colonists who were too lazy to pick their own cotton and tobacco evidently thought it would be a great idea to increase their fortunes off the toil, sweat and suffering of others, so they bought them. Even after America won her freedom from the oppression of King George, she continued to deny freedom to others. Fast forward all the way to the 1960's, America had advanced technology beyond belief, blacks had fought and died in WW2........and we still had Jim Crow laws????? I was taught to say the "N' word from the time I first learned my first words and I won't go into any of the pain and trouble that caused. But it's sin pure and simple, folks. Why can't we just love people? I've heard Independent Baptist preachers make racial slurs about blacks and one of my own IFB pastors taught that blacks were ordained by God to be slaves because of the "the Curse of Canaan". But it's not biblical. So what I'm saying is, maybe Lincoln was a bad man and maybe the War wasn't fought over slavery but ,Southern folk sure did a whole lot of mistreating after it was over.

[JerryNumbers]

Didn't the northern white folks do a whole lot of mistreating in the south after the war was over? Carpetbagger comes to mind.

But that said, aren't they many of these type people around today who are taking advantage of anyone and everyone they can while doing this hiding behind the law. A couple of words comes to mind when thinking of them, covetous and lusting.