Acts20.com

The Civil War was not about slavery, but was about the SPREAD of slavery. Lincoln was fine with slave states retaining slavery. He was absolutely opposed to the spread of slavery to new states or territories. But this ran afoul of the interests of wealthy planters who, both wanting and needing more land, were determined to move their slaves ever westward.Cotton apparently depletes the soil more than many other crops. So planters needed new fields in which to plant/harvest cotton. Thus, there was something of a need for new land in which to grow cotton (and, subsequently, the need for, as they saw it, slaves to make it happen).However, much of it was greed. Those who grew wealthy wanted more wealth. And those without wealth wanted more wealth, too. And in the southern mind, cotton was king. Why plant cotton in this field this year, but in that field next year? Why not plant in BOTH of them?

Mmm, let's examine this. First, the greed factor. States further west (Louisiana, Texas) were seeing more cotton production while the old cotton states further east were in decline from soil depletion. West of Texas, where was there fertile ground for cotton? Secondly, the spread of slavery was a term meant to mislead. Yes, the southern states felt somewhat entitled to the spoils of the Mexican War below the Missouri compromise line and to to the Pacific Ocean. But how many slaves would have actually migrated into those areas? A state carved out southern California might have been the main spot. There was one segment of the New Mexico territory where Congress allowed slaves to migrate. By 1860, slavery had been legal in that area for 10 years, and a whopping TWENTY-FOUR slaves had migrated there. So what was the objection to the spread of slavery into the western territories? After all, the actual number of slaves would not have increased. Only their geographical placement would have changed. Was there a moral objection? Hardly. So what was it? The issue was the 3/5 clause of the Constitution. Three-fifths of all slaves were counted in Congressional representation. The creation of 2 or 3 new slave states would have meant more obstacles in Congress to northern economic policy. The 3/5 clause gave the Jeffersonian leaning southern states more Congressional power than they otherwise would have had. At the 1814 Hartford Convention, the disgruntled New England states listed revising the 3/5 compromise as one of their demands. They did not want it to apply to any new states admitted into the Union. Massachusetts threatened to secede from the Union over the Louisiana Purchase because of the 3/5 clause. They were concerned about their power in Congress being watered down by the creation of states where 3/5 of the slaves would be counted in representation. Their Federalist Party dominance was waining and they did not like it. The quarrel that resulted in the Missouri Compromise was over this very issue. One option put forth by the north was allowing the formation of new slave states provided the 3/5 clause did not apply to them. Thus, it was not about moral outrage over the institution itself. The greed factor works both ways. Mercantilism was the backbone of northern economic policy and the 3/5 clause hindered them from implementing it. As for the war being about slavery. The war was over secession. Had the lower south been allowed to leave in peace, there is a good chance the upper south would have remained in the old Union. But the secession of just 7 states and their formation of a low tariff confederation brought the northern economy to its knees. There is your war

I have family that fought in the Army of Tennessee. I am sure they did not believe they were fighting to preserve the institution of slavery or to spread it.But it is inescapable that they were willingly, callously, cruelly, sinfully blind to the wickedness of chattel slavery all around them. It was a part of their life, and it was a part of their life because they did not view blacks as human (or at least not the same kind of human that they were). They did not view slavery as evil because they did not view blacks as people who are created in the image of God.Did they believe they were fighting to preserve slavery? I am sure they did not. Was their fighting inseparable from the preservation of slavery? It absolutely was.

This subject can and will be discussed, argued and fought over until the end of the ages. SMART people on all sides of the issue. I had folks on both sides in my lineage. BUT most from Georgia, poor dirt farm people who just didn't want to be told what they could and could not do.Our problem is WE NONE OF US can travel back to KNOW. I know, yep I KNOW some declare to heavens they can. in my family there is a story of my great great uncle swapping some tobacco for a news paper with Union Soldier as they both stood midwatch after a battle. They even discussed the stupidity of what they were doing. The next day they were shooting at each other.My youth was before Segregation ended in the South. You guys who look back on it WILL NEVER understand the thinking. I watched black students walking by the school I attended to go to THEIR school. My friends who were black and I just accepted that is the way it is. I do not remember discussing one time the right or wrong of it.When I ate at the Davis's house Mammy would not let me sit at the table with them, She would say, It ain't fittin' for whites and blacks to eat together. At my house the Davis kids ate at our table. No one questioned it. Segregation was a weird time but it was 'just how it was.' It is hard to explain wars and slavery, At the time for the poor folk, that is just how it was.Any foolish person who says WE NEED A CIVIL WAR, is ignorant and Myopic. The war was lost, there was stupidity on both sides and we lost more Americans than in many wars. I am amazed at men with seemingly sound mind what holds an automatic weapon and says, this time we will win. OUCH Some facts but mostly just my [email protected]/

Can you cite any writings where they did not regard blacks as human? And I'm sorry, owning slaves does not necessarily make those in the past wicked. It is this attitude more than any other that prevents unbiased historicism regarding this period. All other considerations regarding politics, economics, and the nature of the Union are eclipsed by our modern sense of moral outrage. One cannot be a scholar until they learn detachment

Scripture gives us the standard for objective moral truth, and most people (much less followers of Christ) are able to recognize that torturous chattel slavery is objectively morally wicked -- period, full stop. In all eras, the sin of that's just how it was, as Cojak aptly describes it, blinds people to the true wickedness of their deeds, which is why in my post I said I was sure they did not intend to be wicked, even though they were. Does God offer grace to us for our sinful ignorance? I am sure that He does.

I never defended their participation in the institution. I merely said that historical figures owning slaves does not automatically make them wicked. But those I have studied, yes I defend THEM, not all their practices. I will not renounce our founders or my ancestors, north and south, who were slave owners. They were not wicked. Being slave owners does not define them as people. We are the only society in the free world suffering this mass delusion and self-loathing

It's truly tragic that there are still people today with this view of chattel slavery. I wish I could say it's unbelievable but I've seen enough of it to know it's not.

It's truly tragic that there are still people today with this view of chattel slavery. I wish I could say it's unbelievable but I've seen enough of it to know it's not.May God grant you mercy and grace to repent of this. What I see as tragic is what you are attempting to do here. I never expressed a positive view of chattel slavery or defended it in any way. I wish I could say it's unbelievable but I've seen enough from you to know it's not

I never said you did. But it is undeniable that you are defending its purveyors, as you have many times before.If a young black man was a participant in a mob that attacked an elderly white man, you would have NO problem allowing that action to define him as a person. Anyone who has spent any time reading your posts on this forum will know that is true.