Posted on 08/31/2014 6:04:39 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
“How about the entire Caribbean and South America?”
They ignored Catholic teaching. Yes, and? In terms of slavery they clearly took a Protestant viewpoint (i.e. we will ignore Church tradition).
“Were they (gasp) Southern Baptist?”
No, they were just Protestant like in their attitudes toward slavery rather than actually being so spiritually dead as to form a whole new sect in order to protect their “God-given” rights to oppress and rape their slaves like the Southern Baptists.
“I don’t seem to recall that they were, if so. I recall their being ... Catholic.”
Ones who listened to the Church in regard to its teachings n slavery? Clearly not.
“Where did unreconstructed Confederates go after the war?”
Some went to Mexico - where there was no slavery at that point. Some went elsewhere where there was. All you’re telling me is that those who had the Protestant-like view of slavery congregated together no matter what their professed creed. And?
“And, what religion controlled those countries?”
None. No religion controlled those countries. They all had secular governments. None of them was led by a bishop or pope or ecumenical council.
“When was slavery finally outlawed in those Catholic countries?”
Irrelevant. It only matters when the Church outlawed it - and that was always in essence. When countries - not controlled by the Church - chose to outlaw slavery is irrelevant to the teachings and actions of the Church.
“It was after the US Civil War, I do know that for a fact.”
And what Church “controlled” the U.S.? None. It was a secular country. Does that mean that there were not Protestants and Catholics alike opposed to slavery? No.
“And, what did Pope Pius IX have to say about the matter?”
Nothing unusual. Pope Pius IX, being rather determined to maintain the status quo - he is what would be referred to as a “conservative” - sought to deal with slavery as something that could not be denied as actually existing and tried to mitigate the worst aspects of it. He probably assumed slavery would be around for quite sometime. As someone who wanted to mitigate the worst aspects of slavery, and probably felt that slavery had already been sufficiently condemned by Clement I, Pius II, Paul II, Urban VIII (1639), Benedict XIV (1741), Pius VII, and Gregory XVI, Pius instead did things like canonize St. Peter Claver in 1850. If you know who he is, then you know why. Most likely you don’t know and won’t know why.
Either way, Pius IX called the slave trade “supreme villainy”. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14036a.htm
“He’s oddly absent from certain resources that should hold prior Popes in high regard.”
Well, I guess those “resources” are not as well informed as I just made you.
So I think basically what you’re trying to say is the king of these countries was of course a Catholic and he put in his order each month for couple thousand slaves. Gotcha.
“You appear to be slinging whatever sticks against the wall to distract from the central point pertaining to the failings of your particular set of beliefs.”
Perhaps that’s what you’re doing. I have no particular set of beliefs that have ever failed.
“Rather provincial, wouldn’t you say, Vlad?”
Well, since I’m not doing, no.
“The 100 Irish MPs in 1800 would have been Protestants—Catholics were not allowed to hold office in the United Kingdom at that time.”
Exactly. In other words, the very people who helped oppressive the Irish and helped keep them in a slave like state were the ones who swayed Parliament on the slave trade. Ironic.
“Catholic Emancipation did not occur until several decades later.”
Well, 1832, so it was 27 years later.
No, what I’m saying is that 70 to 80% of the slaves were sent to Catholics.
The use of slaves outside of the Arabs, was mostly a Catholic thing.
African muslims sold other African muslims into slavery. No Portuguese Army went into Africa and started a war to steal slaves.
“The use of slaves outside of the Arabs, was mostly a Catholic thing”.
You seen to be forgetting about the United States, where slavery was mostly a protestant “thing”. Overwhelmingly, the Southern states, that depended on slaves for agriculture, were dominated by protestants.
The Turks used to raid coastal areas in the Mediterranean and take peasants off to be slaves. I think the last case on record is in 1815 or 1816 in Sardinia.
“The use of slaves outside of the Arabs, was mostly a Catholic thing.”
Except for where there were no Catholics, then it was everybody else - like the Protestants.
Of course, Catholics were only using between 70 and 80% of them, that left plenty for Protestants.
“Of course, Catholics were only using between 70 and 80% of them, that left plenty for Protestants.”
You don’t even the problem of you apparently just making up a number out of thin air do you?
“You seen to be forgetting...”
You’re being very generous.
You’ve never looked up where the millions and millions, and millions of slaves were going to?
“You’ve never looked up where the millions and millions, and millions of slaves were going to?”
Yes, I have. Many went to Protestants - but you’re only talking about Catholics, of course. I realize the following is from Wikipedia (which can always be questioned, but...):
“By the middle of the 18th century, British Jamaica and French Saint-Domingue had become the largest and most brutal slave societies of the region, rivaling Brazil as a destination for enslaved Africans.”
That means British Protestants were taking in an awful lot of slaves. Not just them, but they were doing it.
Again, from Wikipedia:
“The death rates for black slaves in these islands were higher than birth rates. The decrease averaged about 3 percent per year in Jamaica and 4 percent a year in the smaller islands. The main causes for this were overwork and malnutrition. Slaves worked from sun up to sun down in harsh conditions. They were supervised under demanding masters, who gave them little medical care. Slaves also had poor living conditions and consequently they contracted many diseases. The diary of slaveowner Thomas Thistlewood of Jamaica details the extreme violence against slaves, and constitutes important historical documentation of the conditions for Caribbean slaves.”
Thomas Thistlewood - when it came to punishing his slaves - preferred “Derby’s dose”. Look that up. Then remind yourself that he was a Protestant. He also raped 138 women. Remind yourself that he was a Protestant. Enjoy.
Gosh, you learn that 70 to 80% of the slaves shipped to the new world went to Catholics, and you start naming individuals who did bad things, who cares?
No one is arguing that 20 to 30% of slaves didn’t to Protestants.
Actually, the 70-80% seems to be too low from what I’ve seen. I googled slavery and North America and South America and all the sources with a number have so far said over 90% went to South America.
For example, from PBS’ site, “How many slaves landed in America,” it says from the shipping records, I believe, they show that 12.5 million African were shipped to the Americs, 10.7 survived the trip, and of those only 388,000 were sent to North America.
Bishop Lynch of Charleston, South Carolina, in ordering a Te Deum on the occasion of (presumably) the assault by Pierre G. T. Beauregard, a lesser CSA general, might have been engaging in an act combining Catholicism and patriotism as a citizen of South Caroline (one of THESE United States) but, in fact, if you check out the Wikipedia article on the Te Deum (which includes in Latin and in English the thoroughly non-political lyrics of Te Deum), it is a very eloquent song praising Almighty God and is sung, inter alia, on all Sundays other than those in Lent. Were the Northern bishops and the Vatican itself Confederates for ordering what Canon Law required to be ordered regardless of any context of historical events or absence thereof. We Catholics also "celebrate" the Mass every day, historical context or not. We do not normally think of it as a political statement, simply the praise and worship of God, no more political than Amazing Grace or A mighty Fortress is Our God, and perhaps less so.
As to Maryland, it was founded and granted by Charles I on the Calvert Family to be a specifically Catholic colony. Its proprietors welcomed Reformed Christians to its territory and that turned out to be a tragic mistake when the Catholics became outnumbered by aggressive Reformers who took control of the colonial government in 1689, moved the state capital from St. Mary's City to Annapolis and then burned St. Mary's City to the ground to show that there was no going back. Look at Wikipedia's entry for St. Mary's City, Maryland for more atrocities.
AND, the fact is that most Catholics in the US, by far, are descended from Irish fleeing the Potato Blight of the 1830s-1840s, Germans coming here after the general European revolutionary uproar of 1848, and later waves of Italians, Ples and others. There were a relative handful of French and Spaniards (Florida and New Orleans) and a small number of English Catholic refugees from the likes of regicide Oliver Cromwell and the later misnamed "Glorious" Revolution of 1688 which deposed James II.
You omitted at least three relevant facts. Confederate General Patrick Ronayne Claiborne was Irish by his birth in County Cork which heavily suggests his having been Catholic. He urged upon fellow leaders of the Army of the Tennessee that the slaves be freed and enlisted as Confederate soldiers. Also Pope Pius IX was quite sympathetic to the Confederacy in general and to Jefferson Davis in particular. The pope fashioned a crown of thorns with his own hands to be delivered to Davis in his prison cell after the war. Pius IX was elected as a "liberal" in Church terms but was soon turned by the Masonic invasion of the Papal States. Jefferson Davis was, though Protestant, educated in Dominican order Catholic schools in Kentucky after his parents moved to Mississippi. Lieutenant General James Longstreet converted to Catholicism after the war in 1877.
I do agree with you that we are all human and fallible. If you find any of the foregoing inaccurate, be assured that I welcome correction.
God bless you and yours!
Is this the General Cleburne?
“Gosh, you learn that 70 to 80% of the slaves...”
Where did I learn that? I saw you make a claim. I have no reason at this time to ascribe any factuality to that claim. After all you are so often wrong on other topics that I cannot assume something is true just because you post it.
“No one is arguing that 20 to 30% of slaves didn’t to Protestants.”
Again you state these percentage claims as if they’re facts. I have seen no facts from you just claims. Your track record is so notoriously bad that I can never simply take what you post at face value.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.