Posted on 02/08/2016 2:36:19 PM PST by pgyanke
I am in a discussion with a secular humanist who wants to know why, if our Founding Fathers believed in the inalienable rights of man, they allowed slavery. Can anyone recommend a good, honest book on the subject to share with him?
Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God. Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.
Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable. For this finds favor, if for the sake of conscience toward God a person bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly. For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God.
For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH; and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls.
-The Holy spirit via St. Peter
I’ll suggests Thomas Sowells bookso Ethnic America, Civil Rights Rhetoric and Reality and there is another one but I can’t remember it.
There is a lot of original material from the founding period on the subject of slavery. Lots of people in the north wanted to end it and south didnt. The 3/5 compromise is perfect example. In order to get the various states to agree a compromise was reached. The north already had larger population unless you counted the slaves. It had nothing to do with right to vote or any other rights it was a compromise for enumeration purpose only to determine number of Representatives in House. To protect itself the South wanted all slaves counted. The north no slaves counted. If north won argument they would have had power to end slavery. South won tough to end. Compromise struck which gave parity at time of adoption. North was industrialized so population grew much faster plus British were making concerted effort to end slave trade which substantially cut South slave growth. South fell behind north got more Reps Past law prohibiting importing more slaves and U.S. Navy helped eliminate slave trade.
Adams and others have lots of anti slavery writings.
There's a Russell Adams on the faculty of Howard University, but he probably is not the one you are thinking of. I tried an advanced search on Worldcat, the online library database, on the author "Adams" and the subject "Slavery--United States," but most of the hits I came up with were related to the two presidents named Adams.
Why is it your job to read history for someone else? If your friend has his shorts knotted around his nuts about Slavery, ask him what he is doing about slavery in Muslim countries? Is he ready to go fight to free slaves held by Muslims? Might help to see what the North was up against with the South. If the Civil War is a measure, the Founding Fathers were wise to deal with slavery politically.
Using the quotes at the link, it could be successfully argued that the Revolutionary War with England was the first attempt to end slavery in the British colonies, building on new thought processes brought about by The Enlightenment, and followed two generations later by the Civil War.
Between the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, a prominent concern was fear of a slave revolt such as the one that occurred in Haiti in 1804. This concern is evidenced by the passing of laws in various northern states banning free blacks beginning in 1784, in Jefferson's actions towards Haiti in 1804, in the mass ‘ selling south’ of northern slaves, and even in the eviction of Cherokee by Jackson in 1830.
Emancipation was delayed for two generations while it was debated how best to insulate the North from the effects of emancipation: what impact would an influx of freed Southern and former French/Spanish territory slaves have on Northern society, what was the probability revolting slaves would join with native Indians against the North (or prevent expansion of the North into the west), how likely was the threat of the creation within the nation of an 'independent' state of freemen who may or may not remain loyal to the new nation (and, if an independent state were given to freemen, how did that affect the standing of native Indians - should they get their own independent state?), how would existence of that independent state affect relations with other nations, what would happen to northern land values, how to ensure future centralization of power in the North. All of these concerns needed to be addressed before emancipation could become a reality.
Slavery had been around for thousands of years. It wasn’t a new American concept. Taxpayers are the new slaves without the beatings.
So what? I’m a Christian but I get exposed to humanist ramblings all the time. Besides, just because the other side denies the effectiveness of one of our best weapons doesnt mean we can’t wield it.
Hey dont get us into this!! The British most definitely did NOT start slavery.
No, but it’ why it persisted, and why a whole section of the country was prepared to fight for its continuation.
Because of a misunderstanding of the Bible?
You do not know US history if you think that is true. Where did you go to school? David Barton U?
Apologies. Didn’t realize you are from UK
Your comment is incorrect in its entirety. Slavery was all about economics
Thank you for the story of what happened to General Stand Watie.
You are most welcome. I was blessed to obtain family letters from the Univ. of Oklahoma...fascinating. If you’d like to read more about Watie, freepmail me and I’ll send you some more excerpts.
No I dont mean that slavery persisted because of misunderstanding the bible, I meant it persisted because of the denial and compartmentalisation that the Bible illustrates is part of the Human condition.
However, technically, you couldnt be charged with a crime of owning slaves in the UK until fairly recently - 1998 in fact. That's not to say slavery was legal, its just that if you were enslaving someone you would be charged with breach of other offences (kidnap, failing to pay minimum wages, assault etc).
Slavery was legal in all of the original 13 colonies. Vermont outlawed it in its original 1777 constitution when it seceded from New York, but Vermont wasn’t admitted as a state until 1791. New York, itself, outlawed slavery in 1780, as I recall.
Also, “Complicity: How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery” by Anne Farrow, Joel Lang, and Jenifer Frank.
Also “Southern Wealth and Northern Profits” by Thomas Kettell.
“The World the Slaveholders Made” Eugene Genovese
“Time on the Cross” Fogel and Engerman
Dabney’s Defense of Virginia and the South
Funny how the Media/Political elites don’t want to talk about modern-day slavery...wonder why.....hmmmmmm.....
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.