quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
To return to the original question, ultimately what matters regarding religious questions is not what the authors of Scripture in ancient times meant by their writings, but how they are interpreted.

No offense, sir, but this is leftist thinking. Substitute "Scripture" with "Constitution" and you'll see.

For me, as an imperfect practicing Catholic, I'll take the interpretation of the fellas who actually wrote the Scriptures, and broke bread with the big guy, as opposed to that of folks who came along a millenium (or two) later. Likewise, I'll take the interpretation of the fellas who actually wrote the Constitution as opposed to that of leftists who came along a few hundred years later.

On a note unrelated to biblical interpretation of slavery-related excerpts...

I came across this while skimming the Wikipedia article about the 1804 Haitian Massacre:

At the time of the American Civil War, a major pretext for Southern whites, most of whom did not own slaves, to support slave owners (and ultimately fight for the Confederacy) was fear of a genocide similar to the Haitian massacre of 1804.

I do recall mention of fear of revolt as a motivator for Confederate fighters, in previous school sessions and/or discussions about the Civil War. If you weren't fighting for slavery, or for states' rights, or even merely for your Southern pride after a Union company pillaged your family's farm, you may have been fighting out of fear.

As an amendment to Sigfreund's comment on the British abolition of the slave trade, as he mentioned:

quote:

A significant extract:
“Abolitionist Henry Brougham realized that [slave] trading would continue, and so as a new MP successfully introduced the Slave Trade Felony Act 1811. This law at last made slave trading a criminal felony throughout the [British] empire, and for British subjects worldwide. This proved far more effective and ended the trade across the Empire, as the Royal Navy ruthlessly pursued slave ships. In 1827, Britain defined participation in the slave trade as piracy and punishable by death.”
[Emphasis added.]

The US Constitution when ratified provided that Congress could not abolish the slave trade for twenty years. Congress passed a law in 1807 abolishing the slave trade to the US, which became effective January 1, 1808, the first day permitted by the Constitution.

I will note that the Royal Navy was by far the largest force enforcing the abolition of the slave trade, devoting about 1/2 of the navy's strength to that effort.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
On a note unrelated to biblical interpretation of slavery-related excerpts...

I came across this while skimming the Wikipedia article about the 1804 Haitian Massacre:

At the time of the American Civil War, a major pretext for Southern whites, most of whom did not own slaves, to support slave owners (and ultimately fight for the Confederacy) was fear of a genocide similar to the Haitian massacre of 1804.

I do recall mention of fear of revolt as a motivator for Confederate fighters, in previous school sessions and/or discussions about the Civil War. If you weren't fighting for slavery, or for states' rights, or even merely for your Southern pride after a Union company pillaged your family's farm, you may have been fighting out of fear.

This was the primary motivator for the average non-slaveowning Southerner. That and the desire to not have to compete with millions of former slaves for labor.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
...as opposed to that of folks who came along a millenium (or two) later.

But sadly, you are. Just like the rest of history, even if it was true when it was written, it's been edited over and over again ever since. It's not even disputable, it's documented. (which ironically of course makes it just as suspect as anything else)

quote:

Originally posted by cas:
But sadly, you are

Yeah...not so much. But I won't turn this into a theological tangent thread.

Happy to discuss it otherwise, though.

Does anyone know what themes were used in the recruitment of Confederate soldiers? How did Joe Blo, non-slave-owning southerner perceive the "Northern aggression"?

Also, is it safe to say that the majority of southerners, and the majority of southern fighters, were not slave owners, and not very aware of the political aspects of the Confederacy? That the Confederate "shot-callers" were aristocratic, politically-connected, and wealthy?

John Stacker Brooks pvt.
From his obit.


snip[When asked by his now bereaved parents if he thought he could endure the privations and toils incident to a soldier’s life, he replied firmly, but calmly, “yes,” and obtained their consent to join his brothers in arms, to defend his invaded country and avenge her insulted honor.]


https://bullrunnings.wordpress...-louisiana-infantry/


Then this from a yankee:

snip[in a conversation with many apparently intelligent Yankee prisoners, and from letters picked up on the field of battle, we gain a much better idea of public sentiment at the North than is discoverable from the perusal of the hireling papers of that section. When asked why they had taken up arms against us and invaded our soil, many of the prisoners would reply that they had enlisted for three months with a view of protecting the “National Capital” against a “Southern mob,” and had been marched, against their wills and wishes, into Southern territory, and would prefer to remain prisoners at Richmond until the suspension of hostilities than to rejoin the “grand army” of Northern]

https://bullrunnings.wordpress...rd-and-the-battle-2/

.

That's a move in the right direction, I think. Thank you, Greymann.

I reckon determining the motivation of the men on the line is what tells us what the South was fighting for. It's estimated that Confederate mortality was around 260,000 (combined KIA and disease). Those 260,000 men didn't die so the institution of slavery could persist, in my opinion. They didn't meet the Union on the battlefield so a minority wealthy elite could retain their slaves.

If Pvt John Stacker Brooks' motivation was shared by the overwhelming majority of Confederate troops, then it's easy to understand why the Confederate sympathy is strong to this day. It is arguably a very American sentiment.

*Another ~30,000 died in Union prisons.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
what the South was fighting for

The tidbit below is not true for every state and not necessarily even for every individual fighting for North Carolina:

When I first moved to North Carolina and started learning the local history, I was fascinated to find out that North Carolina had been subjected to a Federal naval blockade before the state legislature had decided whether or not to secede.

Considerable opposition to the idea of secession existed in NC, and the issue was not determined at that point - but after a Federal blockade of the coast, there was no serious opposition.

So, for NC at least, some of the motivation of the volunteers was reacting to use of Federal force against the home state. I would imagine anyone, even today, whose home state was subjected to something similar might be willing to defend their state against overreach like that.

Anyway, as a military historian since, essentially, childhood and living, working and studying previously entirely in northern/non-slave states, that tidbit was entirely new to me, so it may also be new info for other folk as well.

Also - re: secession and slavery being inseparable.

Not necessarily. For the Civil War, yes - without the issue of slavery the matter of secession wouldn't have come up. But there were other secessionist movements that had nothing to do with slavery.

As I noted earlier in the thread, the 1860s was not the first time that secession was under serious discussion and the topic at that time had nothing to do with slavery - Massachusetts wanted the ability to sell fish to the Spanish colonies and didn't care about what the Spanish demanded in return.

RE: Secession itself as a concept

Interested parties will also note that the sum total of Confederate soldiers and officials tried after the war for rebellion or treason was......drum roll please... zero.

(Yes, there was a war crime trial for the Andersonville prison camp and the commandant, as I recall, was hung for his action. Note - war crime and not for rebellion or treason.)

The reason for this was, there is nothing in the Constitution one way or the other about how a state gets out. How they get in...yep. That's covered.

But going the other way, nothing specific. So that's a judgment call. Could the US decide to turn a state back into a Territory? Not covered. Can a State just take off? Also not covered. If the US lost a war and had to give up an entire state or states, what would happen then? Not covered.

It could be argued that splitting territory off a state and making another state out of that part without consent of its current state government isn't covered, either (WV, I'm looking at you) but with Federal troops all over it at the time, the point was never seriously challenged.

Anyway, the point is that it's ambiguous. So there was considerable concern that in an actual trial, with competent defense attorneys and honest judges, that it was entirely possible that a defendant would have been found 'not guilty' and that would have been a political disaster of the highest order. Not a sure thing either way but there was not a lot to gain - and a lot to potentially lose - so they just let it all slide.

RE: religion and slavery
Keep in mind that some very religious states in the north had slavery for years. For example, say, Massachusetts. Founded in the 1620's, Massachusetts did not outlaw slavery until the 1780s. Point being, it was not just southern Christians who found a way to reconcile religion and slavery.

It's unimaginable to us, as slavery is abhorrent and against the basic principals of most religions, but it had been around forever, and was accepted practice for far too long.

For anyone interested, I just started reading this on my Kindle and it's been pretty good so far.

Takes place in an alternate 1881 where the Confederacy won the Civil War and became their own country and the former USA is split into the United States and the Confederate States.

A disgraced and still-alive Abraham Lincoln travels what's left of the US making speeches to whomever will still listen and in one sad/humorous scene he is approached by a disheveled and drunken man who he realizes is Ulysses S Grant: