The Debate on Slavery

Stuart and Civ are gonna get really mad.....................lLOL

Not really. They're above that. At any rate, you really can't argue against facts. And, like we said, we aren't saying the reason for the war was slavery. It's just a single cause.

Hey Oppie, good to see you back and ready to debate. I'd love to make a full response right now, but I can't, so I'll just address a few quick points:

Going by round numbers, an estimated 25% of the South might have owned slaves, but only one-seventh of that number represented plantations (fifty or more slaves). That rounds out to about 3.5% of the South equalling plantations.

Secondly, you dug up a quote: "Freedom is not possible without slavery"... Yes, this would be a perplexing expression in itself. But first, I would like to point out that it was coined by a certain Richmond newspaper in 1856, according to your source, which would put it smack in the middle of the heated Fremont-Buchanan '56 presidential election. I can understand some bogus statements such as this one making it into the newspapers during such a hotly debated contest. That doesn't excuse the message behind the words, but I would hope that you hold off from thinking that this represents the feelings of the 10 million people in the South at the time.

Thirdly, you sited a Rep. Keitt, from South Carolina, as debating this very prospect, that freedom is not possible without slavery. From the portion of his speech that you quoted, Oppie, I think his meaning is clear, and understandable: as he stated, a cornerstone of the South's economy was slavery. Attacking that institution was merely a front for many Northern industrialists to attack their natural economic rival in the South. And by attempting to dismantle slavery, they were preaching the dismantling of a major portion of the South's economy. So, as Keitt said, to attack one was to attack the other. The existence of the South was directly linked to the existence of slavery, so far as it depended on its export of cash crops.

Of course, we can now see that the rationales created by certain people of the South to justify slavery were pointless, and actually do much to hurt their case at this point in time. I don't endorse this way of handling the issue, but remember, they were following the status quo in the best way they knew how: many felt it was the whites' job to civilize the Africans, and introduce them to Christianity.

That's all for now, but it's great to get this part of the debate back up and running, Oppie.

General Stuart wrote:

...... but I would hope that you hold off from thinking that this represents the feelings of the 10 million people in the South at the time.......

Oh ofcourse not, I mentioned that this was not an account of every southerner. Thats basically impossibly to tally....though I'm sure if one had access to old letters and such a near accurate number might be reached. anyway I do understand the reasoning of that day an age and I understand where you're coming from...but doesnt excuse the reasoning behind the man. Anywayyyy i'll be back

correction.....35% of southerners owned slaves.

5%-more then 20
30%-less then 20

General Stuart wrote:

....many felt it was the whites' job to civilize the Africans, and introduce them to Christianity...

daa daa daa dont think so, in the same scenario as Sherman, good intentions are not always enough. As in these cases...now I dont really agree with the conduct of the north, or south, in whole because it was very.....wrong in a lot of places. But, the main reason for succesion was fear of loosing their biggest money maker...slaves. Lincoln, although not immedietly, began to fight for total abolishment of slavery. Granted, I dont question the confederates soldier dedication to its family, relatives and its home. However,to fight for your home was to fight your slavery, and to fight for your family was to fight for slavery, for it was the very foundation of their world. To endure such tragedy for ones family..? Noble, but in the same process endorse slavery by fighting for a country that depends on it...very very wrong.
I think I'll close with a statement by General Lee...who said himself if it had not been for his family and his home, he would never had fought for the confederacy...


With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have therefore resigned my commission in the Army, and save in defense of my native State, with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed, I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword...
General Robert E. Lee of the Confederate Army

Ohhh and one more thing I think its important to mention. Acute taxation(which had different factors to it) was also a reason for succession, but the root being slavery anyway. I understand that Union slogans such as"All southerners owned slaves" or, "the south was completely evil" are untterly wrong. I dont condone them or live by them, but I also understand that a lot of southern supportists like to say that slavery was not a major factor and that the main one was completely different, or insinuate it...even though it was.

Okk better put on my battle helm *hides in the rocks and waits for Stuart with bow and arrow*

ohhh and I thought this might come up, so I decided to get some scripture references that though not specifcally talking about salvery, apply to it nonetheless. Slavery as it was in the south was not condoned by the Bible..and in the north likewise(dont think I'm saying they were ok to keep them )

"....When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years...."
From what I've read, being bought is when you are selling yourself. This is biblical. And if you were not, the Bible does not condone it. Now..if you commit a crime and cannot pay it, you are also subject to enslavement by whoever you wronged. This is biblical. (Books of Moses Leviticus,Exodus,ect..) There are also things about selling your own children;keep in mind there are rules to this and they are listed. Also remember that in the new testament, things like that were done away with such as sacrifices. Paul had a servant, not a slave. The meanings greatly differ.


servant-one that performs duties about the person or home of a master or personal employer.

slave-a person held in servitude as the chattel of another




Romans 13:10 Love does nowrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."

definition of wrong accordian to the Bible...

wrong = sin

sin= anything contrary to the word of God

Contrary to the word of God includes the following-Hate, (greed[ greed= inslavement of your neighbor for your own gain ), dishonesty,pride, and so on.

"Matt 22:36 Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law? 37 And he said to him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."

If this is the second greatest commandment...it must be followed and taken very literally. the core maessage of this commandment is love. Love is very clear cut in its meaning.

Corinthians 13:4-7
4 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 6 it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. 7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

"John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends."

No southern master would have ever laid down their own life for a slave...this is not love. It is greed which the bible clearly speaks against..

Galatians 5:13-26 13 For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 15 But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another. 16

"Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21 envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law."

None of you had better say the Bible does not speak out against slavery. Because it does very boldly...

the subject came up before so...yeah

The Opposition wrote:

daa daa daa dont think so, in the same scenario as Sherman, good intentions are not always enough.

Good intentions don't apply to Sherman's case at all, Oppie, as I've asserted in that topic specifically. Sherman's intentions were to bring war to civilians and non-combatants. This is a war crime, and a crime to humanity in its origin.

the Opposition wrote:

"....When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years...."
From what I've read, being bought is when you are selling yourself. This is biblical. And if you were not, the Bible does not condone it. Now..if you commit a crime and cannot pay it, you are also subject to enslavement by whoever you wronged. This is biblical.

Sorry Oppie, not meaning to be a pain or anything, but I couldn't help but notice that your quote, which you didn't site, seems to only apply to Hebrews...
Yes, I agree with just about all of what you said, especially about the meaning behind the Bible, and the messages it presents. However, you haven't been able to provide any scripture passage that directly addresses slavery, and renounces it as a practice.

the Opposititon wrote:

No southern master would have ever laid down their own life for a slave...this is not love. It is greed which the bible clearly speaks against..

That, my friend, is an opinion. Hardly an effective bit of evidence, especially if your whole point is that slavery, as it was practiced in the US, was a violation of the "love" expressed in the Bible. I'm sorry, but it's not enough to nearly convince me that the Bible makes a strict statement on this subject. But I'd love to hear it when you do find such a passage.

Oh, and I'd like some more info on this line:

Quote :

Galatians 5:13-26 13 For you were called to freedom, brothers.

Can you give me the story/context behind this? It might prove to be a consequential bit of evidence for you, but, again, it seems very limited in the extent it speaks of slavery as an institution. Thanks.

The Opposition wrote:

Lincoln, although not immedietly, began to fight for total abolishment of slavery. Granted, I dont question the confederates soldier dedication to its family, relatives and its home. However,to fight for your home was to fight your slavery, and to fight for your family was to fight for slavery, for it was the very foundation of their world. To endure such tragedy for ones family..? Noble, but in the same process endorse slavery by fighting for a country that depends on it...very very wrong.

Oppie, I like how you're thinking, it shows you've really come to a deeper understanding of the subject. And the way you're thinking of it makes sense overall, but you're forgetting one vital thing: You freely acknowledge that Lincoln's war policy did not remotely include emancipation when the war began. Well, it just so happens that the people involved chose there sides at just that time: the beginning. We, in hindsight, can discuss whose cause was more pure after the fact, especially when one side's aims semi-altered during the war, but that was not possible for those involved.

I like to loosely fashion myself as a Virginia-secessionist: I wouldn't join the original secessionists, because I don't think their reasons for leaving were justified (they never gave Lincoln time to confirm their fears or not) and very likely did center upon the future of slavery; however, once I saw the Federal government's willingness to raise an army for the purpose of invading the states she had fought alongside of to gain her independence from Britain, I would have renounced my allegiance to the U.S. and joined my sister states in the new Confederacy.

Quote :

correction.....35% of southerners owned slaves.

5%-more then 20
30%-less then 20

Just curious, could you provide a source for these numbers?

Dont Anger the kitty

Its on google buddy. if they're wrong CIV SAID IT FIRST!

[quote="General Stuart"]

The Opposition wrote:

however, once I saw the Federal government's willingness to raise an army for the purpose of invading the states she had fought alongside of to gain her independence from Britain, I would have renounced my allegiance to the U.S. and joined my sister states in the new Confederacy.

Hehehe it sounds like you're trying to say they didnt all seccede for a common purpose. Are you?

The Opposition wrote:

Its on google buddy. if they're wrong CIV SAID IT FIRST!

Great, blame it on me. I've seen it on a bunch of websites... BTW Oppie, I said "I've heard reports of..." not "this is how it was" I"m still checking my sources as everyone says something different.

the Opposition wrote:

Hehehe it sounds like you're trying to say they didnt all seccede for a common purpose. Are you?

....Oppie, why do you think that the Southern states seceeded in two groups? If they all went for the same purpose, chances are, they all would have left at the same time, don't you think?

So far as the numbers thing, I got my stats (25% owning slaves, 3.5% with 50+) from a history book, so there.

Civility_C wrote:

The Opposition wrote:

Its on google buddy. if they're wrong CIV SAID IT FIRST!

Great, blame it on me. I've seen it on a bunch of websites... BTW Oppie, I said "I've heard reports of..." not "this is how it was" I"m still checking my sources as everyone says something different.

dont worry you are

General Stuart wrote:

the Opposition wrote:

Hehehe it sounds like you're trying to say they didnt all seccede for a common purpose. Are you?

....Oppie, why do you think that the Southern states seceeded in two groups? If they all went for the same purpose, chances are, they all would have left at the same time, don't you think?

So far as the numbers thing, I got my stats (25% owning slaves, 3.5% with 50+) from a history book, so there.

blahhhhhh blah blahhhh abhh blahhh big woop it's relevancy isnt much if the entire populace was ok with it so HA.

Ohhhhh and btw.....in case this comes up again...Stuart. eh hem
You know how you said I havent shown you a passage that speaks out specifically about slavery by naming it out? If you're going to look at the Bible that way, then there isnt much sense in reading it. You're missing the entire point because I dont need a pinpointing passage to back up what I said.

General Stuart wrote:

So far as the numbers thing, I got my stats (25% owning slaves, 3.5% with 50+) from a history book, so there.

I've read a science book. Wanna know what it said? "The world took 5 BILLION years to evolve." Um... we all kinda know that not true. Yet, it was still in a book.

I"m not disagreeing with you, I"m just sayin'

the Opposition wrote:

I dont need a pinpointing passage to back up what I said.

Right. And I don't need any facts to back up what I say. The fact that I say it should make it good enough.

What you're saying could be understood as 'interpreting' the Bible so as to make it seem to agree with your way of thinking... I'm not saying I don't trust you, but this kind of reasoning could be used by everyone, and then we wouldn't get anywhere in this debate.

General Stuart wrote:

the Opposition wrote:

I dont need a pinpointing passage to back up what I said.

Right. And I don't need any facts to back up what I say. The fact that I say it should make it good enough.

What you're saying could be understood as 'interpreting' the Bible so as to make it seem to agree with your way of thinking... I'm not saying I don't trust you, but this kind of reasoning could be used by everyone, and then we wouldn't get anywhere in this debate.

I gave you plenty of facts, and you're giving me a line commonaly used by liberals. The constituion is very clear, and if the few things that are unspecified can be easily interperted by observing the lives of the poeple who wrote, and signed it. How is it then, that poeple are allowed to twist it in so many differnt ways? In the name of individual interpretation. you're treating the bible the same way liberals treat the constitution.

Civility_C wrote:

General Stuart wrote:

So far as the numbers thing, I got my stats (25% owning slaves, 3.5% with 50+) from a history book, so there.

I've read a science book. Wanna know what it said? "The world took 5 BILLION years to evolve." Um... we all kinda know that not true. Yet, it was still in a book.

I"m not disagreeing with you, I"m just sayin'

THAT=TRUE.




Just sayin:P

Oppie, all I said was that anyone could "interpret" the Bible anyway they wanted to, especially when the only passages that they site concern love... This doesn't have anything to do with my beliefs on this subject, or the particular way you're interpreting these passages. More like, this is a common phrase used in serious debating: you need to come up with something that resembles evidence pertaining to the subject when you try to site a specific source (in this case the Bible). You might be completely convinced that the messge behind the Bible speaks unfavorably of slavery, but if you can't find such a place in the Bible that can even strongly hint at such a message, it doesn't make for good evidence in such a debate as this. At that point, it would be appropriate for you to forget about factual evidence and debate off of values. That would allow you to site the messages of love contained in the Bible, by arguing how they should affect us and our outlook upon slavery, without having to find some solid piece of Biblical text that would uphold your argument.

General Stuart wrote:

Oppie, all I said was that anyone could "interpret" the Bible anyway they wanted to, especially when the only passages that they site concern love... This doesn't have anything to do with my beliefs on this subject, or the particular way you're interpreting these passages. More like, this is a common phrase used in serious debating: you need to come up with something that resembles evidence pertaining to the subject when you try to site a specific source (in this case the Bible). You might be completely convinced that the messge behind the Bible speaks unfavorably of slavery, but if you can't find such a place in the Bible that can even strongly hint at such a message, it doesn't make for good evidence in such a debate as this. At that point, it would be appropriate for you to forget about factual evidence and debate off of values. That would allow you to site the messages of love contained in the Bible, by arguing how they should affect us and our outlook upon slavery, without having to find some solid piece of Biblical text that would uphold your argument.

Like I said...you're treating this like a Liberal would. It may be a common practice of debating, ok, but but that practice is set here in a liberal nation.

And please dont give me any hypothetical scenarios

Please note how Oppie is skirting my statements.

I'm not skirting them, I'm telling you that you shouldent analyze things with that mentality. I dont want to hear what could, or could
not be interpreted a certain way. I'm well aware of
interpretations...and the reasons for them. Now, can you, from the reasoning that YOU have, tell me that I'm wrong?

P.S please dont give me any politically correct answers either if you dont mind