[Sam Gamgee]

In addressing the civil war, I have gone back and forth on my opinions on this. But after careful scrutiny I really can't sympathize with a fraction of the union that thinks it has a right to basically loot the freedom of a person due to their race. The way blacks were treated was disgusting and a disgusting piece of American history. Was their racism in the north and was Lincoln a bit of a tyrant, sure? But I still don't see how that excuses the barbarism of the South. Frankly I think they deserved what came to them. Reconstruction as the extreme radicals of the Republican party was draconian, but it never came to fruition. In fact the South reverted back to intense racism and segregation by the end of the 1800s. I mean consider this - people in the South thought it was OK to tell blacks to get to the back of the bus and get their own washrooms right until the mid-1960s! That is only ONE generation ago. How the Southern Church could have defended that is outright Orwellian and definitely not Christian.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Frankly I think they deserved what came to them. Reconstruction as the extreme radicals of the Republican party was draconian, but it never came to fruition. In fact the South reverted back to intense racism and segregation by the end of the 1800s. I mean consider this - people in the South thought it was OK to tell blacks to get to the back of the bus and get their own washrooms right until the mid-1960s! That is only ONE generation ago. How the Southern Church could have defended that is outright Orwellian and definitely not Christian.

Sowell: Irresponsible 'Education' (slavery)

William Wilberforce

Black Rednecks and White Liberals - Thomas Sowell

Epistle to Philemon

Slavery and the Civil War.

Slavery was an integral part of the Roman Empire at the founding of Christianity. The Book of Philemon (which is only a single chapter) treats the issue of slavery without taking a stand against the institution (Philemon being a slaveholder, and the letter calls for forgiveness of an infraction by a particular slave, whom St. Paul converted and who served Paul until Paul told him to return to his master. The point is, slavery was an established institution in all times and places up to the point when Christianity in general, Protestants especially, and British Protestants in particular adopted a stance rejecting slavery as an institution. British influence worldwide was such that slavery was pretty much abolished “worldwide” (still exists in Africa, IMHO) - but only after the Wilberforce-inspired British revulsion against the institution.

The American South was peculiarly situated to be the last ones to “get the word.” Southerners grew up within the system, were perfectly accustomed to blacks seeming unintelligent (you would seem unintelligent too, if you were raised under the conditions blacks were raised under), and their economy was founded on the premise of black slavery.

[Lee'sGhost]

I guess they did it the same way the northern churches did when they still supported slavery.

[central_va]

Hey Sam, stuff it.

[publius911]

That is only ONE generation ago. How the Southern Church could have defended that is outright Orwellian and definitely not Christian.

It is a facile exercise to judge conditions and attitudes of 165 years ago with the perspective resulting from an equal length of time's worth of hindsight.
And obviously, at the time it was "Christian" by definition, regardless of your current pious redefinition of a dynamic "reality."

Finally, the range of years defining a "generation" is all over the place, but common usage the last 50 years has ranged from 18 to 35 years. Taking the upper value generally accepted, would place the beginning of the change at least two generations ago.