Posted on 03/15/2015 3:13:24 PM PDT by rickmichaels
I think it was the War Criminal Lincoln did that?
Win the war. That was General Grand and General Sherman’s job.
William Wilberforce.
‘nuf said.
the NAACP showing Christianphobia. Without the involvement of Christians the civil rights movement wouldn’t have been so successful.
Well put!
That’s PRECISELY how slavery was ended in the British Empire.He holds pretty much exactly the same position RE Lee held about slavery, that it could only be ended over some looonngg period of time by God working on the hearts of men.
Slavery was an accepted institution worldwide and throughout history, including for well over a millennium and a half after the advent of Christianity. I’d say that that qualifies as a "looonngg period of time.” The worldwide abolition of slavery cannot be realistically attributed to any institution, religion or philosophy other than Christianity as it has evolved in the past 200 years.The largest impetus was provided by the British Empire, and by the American Civil War. Both motivated by modern Christianity. Thus, a Christian must consider it the Lord’s doing.I’m not seeing the “moron” thing, myself.
In the South the instutition was not only hanging on, it was growing and becoming steadily more profitable.
Growing? Only because of government interference and the unintended consequences thereof.
Profitable? Nothing is profitable forever, in particular anything that is technologically backwards.
I don’t see what the problem is with the observation.
It was God who compelled good men and women to remove this scourge from our land.
The guy in this story, and most certainly RE Lee, made the point that such issues could only be settled by the slow operation of God on the human heart.
But the end of the slave trade and slavery in the British Empire was brought about by government action making them illegal and enforcing the prohibition by force when needed.
The proponents of the diversity rules in question would say exactly the same thing, they want to use government power to impose their vision of morality on the rest of us, just like Wilberforce did.
That I agree with Wilberforce doesn’t change the fact that this is what he did. He used the power of government to end a great evil.
And who appointed them to command and supported them after setbacks?
If your daughter was being held in slavery by ISIS in Syria, would you consider it sinful impatience to wage war to free her?
I don’t have a daughter, I have two sons.
But if any child of mine was enslaved by ISIS in Syria, the first thing I’d wonder is how they got there in the first place.
As far our disgust at Syrians tolerating slavery goes, we could do what the British could have done: make it unprofitable by not giving them money, by not buying their goods, etc. etc.
And now we begin with the leftist ad hominem.
If you call someone racist, you can ignore them.
Also, your hostility seems to hint at atheism, which is another leftist pillar.
Slavery is not being revived, it has always existed. It doesn’t exist on this soil anymore because of our Christianity (thanks to posters SoFloFreeper and conservatism_IS_compassion for saying exactly what I wanted to say):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3268229/posts?page=23#23
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3268229/posts?page=26#26
And you seem to think loving God involves sitting on your behind doing nothing. That is simply not true; most people I’ve conversed with who believe that are atheists who believe in some sort of cartoon version of God.
If you examine why slavers in a particular situation take slaves, you can find an effective way to take their incentive to enslave away. Most times, it involves removing the profit from slavery. Some times, it is necessary to go to war. It all depends on the rationale.
The Middle Eastern slavers probably are motivated by things so deeply ingrained, it may take genocide to change their minds. I would hope not, but it may.
Well, I must say I disagree 100%. Slavery is ongoing kidnapping, and frequently involves brutal beatings and rape.
It is among the most horrible crimes in world history. The notion that we should passively sit around and wait for it to become unprofitable is disgusting.
For what other crimes would you propose such action? If someone breaks into your home to steal, do you think the appropriate thing to to is to try to make fencing the stolen property more difficult? Reduce the profitability of home invasions, and maybe they’ll become less common.
If a communist revolution were to take over America, would you resist it, or go along quietly in the serence assumption that at some distant point in the future the revolution would wear itself out. Which it probably would, though you and I might very well be dead by then.
IOW, if violent action to destroy slavery is not justified, what does justify it, and why?
He used the power of government to end a great evil.
Wilberforce had been retired from Parliament for seven years when slavery was abolished in Britain. He died a few days after the law passed.
I guess he should have had dragoons burn down cities and shoot people while he was still active in Parliament. That, after all, is the proper way to eliminate slavery.
Except of course that the south fired on the north and declared secession and war....other than that no problem
“On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.”
from Lincoln’s second inaugural address
Perhaps you should place the sinful impatience blame at the feet of the southern men who insisted on secession in order to keep their peculiar institution
Wow. What an amazing misunderstanding of history.
Wilberforce was primarily active in the campaign against the slave trade, though he also campaigned eventually against slavery itself.
Parliament outlawed slavery. Had the Jamaican planters attacked Crown forces in resistance to enforcement of that law, the dragoons would certainly have been sent in to put that rebellion down.
In our own country, the slavers seceded and then attacked the United States simply when it became obvious there was some chance of such a law being passed at some time in the future. The dragoons and shooting of people was entirely a consequence of their actions.
Well, I must say I disagree 100%. Slavery is ongoing kidnapping, and frequently involves brutal beatings and rape.
Now you’re compounding the crimes.
How many blacks were kidnapped to bring to America as slaves?
How was a farmer supposed to make a profit by damaging his very expensive farm equipment (i.e. “brutal beatings”)?
I’m not going to argue about rape, since some owners did take inappropriate liberties with slaves. That does call into question, however, whether or not American slave owners thought their slaves were subhuman. That would mean the owners engaged in what was thought as bestiality.
No, genocide to the point of ethnic annihilation is the worst crime in world history.
Slavery was, at one time in world history, a way to avoid wholesale genocide and inculcate civilized ideals in barbarians.
And as I’ve said before, sitting around is not how you do it. Not even prayer alone is how you do it.
And now I’m disgusting. Call me a racist bigot homophobe misogynistic conservative teabagger and get it over with.
As I said before, it depends. If it’s a fellow countryman engaging in institutional slavery to make money from agrarian products, that’s a good bit different than a religious zealot who thinks his god wants him to make the world submit to his and his deity’s will.
A deity that happens to be a 7th century moon god is in essence the same thing as one that happens to be a totalitarian government based on a cult of personality. No real difference.
The dragoons and shooting of people was entirely a consequence of their actions.
Which is exactly why Wilberforce should have done it, instead of being all disgusting by sitting by and letting God take care of the horrid British slavers.
It’s bedtime for this disgusting, ignorant, misogynistic, homophobic, racist teabagger. Good night.
The killing to get rid of slavery in this country was entirely a consequence of violent resistance to even the idea of abolition.
In the British Empire, the slaveowners, however grudgingly, obeyed the law, and therefore little killing was involved.
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.