When would slavery in the Southern States have ended...

Post Reply New Topic

Yes they where the British viewed them as subhuman.

A dense population, in extreme distress, inhabit an island where there is an Established Church, which is not their Church, and a territorial aristocracy the richest of whom live in foreign capitals. Thus you have a starving population, an absentee aristocracy, and an alien Church; and in addition the weakest executive in the world. That is the Irish Question

Typical hyperbole.

I think probably within 20-40 years with mechanization and the realization that slavery is less cost effective than paying your workers a wage and having them support themselves rather than buying them as property that they had to feed, house, stop from escaping, and force to work. I would have to imagine that the morality of the average southerner would evolve to see slavery as wrong eventually as well as it did everywhere else in the world. I think a lot of the prevailing racial problems in the south were influenced in large part by the devastation the south was left in after the Civil War. It's hard to say the death 600,000+ Americans were unavoidable when no other country in the world had to have a war to end slavery.

NOPE A HISTORICAL FACT

Repeating a lie does not make it true.

That applies just as much to you as it does to the conservatives who use that tactic here.

Well, at first we WERE. Baptists in the south, like I said, were trying to win over Anglicans; by attracting the gentry, they also got pro-slavery church leaders.


Maybe. But you also have to take into account that the segregationists became even more entrenched in white Baptist churches during the Civil Rights era. Two things have to happen for change to become evident. First, you have to get enough church leaders willing to stand on principle rather than bending to political pressure. Second, you have to allow enough time to pass for at least two generations of hateful people to die out of the church. OK, so "hateful" might be a little harsh. My grandparents didn't, strictly speaking, harbor any hatred for black people--but they would say that black people have their place and we have ours. OK...so that's not entirely accurate either...they would have used the n-word instead of "black people." But hopefully you get my point. Once a generation passes where concepts like segregation and miscegenation are completely unheard of, it's easy to come forth as a unified body to denounce former sins. Even back in the 1980s there were still quite a few in SBC churches that remember those tumultuous times all too well. Even worse, they were taught by their parents that that's just how it was and how it should be. Coming forth against their behavior during Civil Rights early on might have been the better thing to do, but it also would have destroyed the unity of the church and made all the good that they DID do meaningless. All things considered, I think coming out in 1995 was taking a big risk for us. But also keep in mind that 1995 was a culmination of many, MANY years of SBC leaders discussing and praying about the matter.


I was a senior in high school back in '95 and was nowhere near the Convention that year. I hadn't planned on attending, but neither did I ever plan on attending LifeWay conferences at Ridgecrest, North Carolina until someone gave me the money to do it. So maybe I'll go one of these days. You're probably right, though. However, you know good and well there were likely some older guys there foaming at the mouth over the issue. Many of those people are too old and too few to matter these days. Give it another 15-20 years and you won't even recognize the place.

Not a lie a fact.

So, I gather that the old geezers foaming at the mouth over the issue of Civil Rights have zero chance of getting into Heaven. And, those who supported slavery during their lifetimes are now wishing they hadn't, as Hell can get a tad uncomfortable.

Is the Southern Baptist Convention still exclusively White?

So, I gather that the old geezers foaming at the mouth over the issue of Civil Rights have zero chance of getting into Heaven. And, those who supported slavery during their lifetimes are now wishing they hadn't, as Hell can get a tad uncomfortable.

Joker is right. The Irish didn't need whips and chains to be enslaved. For the longest time there was nowhere for them to go to get away from the transplanted British nobles. For about 120 years the US wasn't much better for them. In fact, that's where the term "white n****r" came from. The Irish often could only find the same kinds of jobs as slaves (sometimes working on different parts of the same task) and were considered less valuable to a business than slaves despite not being forced labor, and businesses frequently used Irish for dangerous jobs they didn't want to risk losing the use of a slave over.

How could Britain have wanted the United States to re-enter that which had never existed? The first use of the term in relation to the British Empire does not appear until 1884. There were not even any self-governing realms at the time--Confederation would not occur in Canada until 1867. And perhaps most importantly there was no theory of state that would have allowed for the presence of the United States within the British Empire as anything other than a subordinate jurisdiction--the personal union of the Crowns of the self-governing realms did not arise until 1926 and was not given legal effect until 1931.

But even allowing for errors of nomenclature, I see no evidence that the British were ever labouring under the misapprehension that there might be a basis for the Confederate States to rejoin the Empire. To the contrary, British policy was far more motivated by a fear that any action that could be interpreted by the Union as aggressive would lead very quickly to the annexation of the remaining British colonies in North America, and a cessation of grain supplies that the United States had been exporting to Britain.

Joker is right. The Irish didn't need whips and chains to be enslaved. For the longest time there was nowhere for them to go to get away from the transplanted British nobles. For about 120 years the US wasn't much better for them. In fact, that's where the term "white n****r" came from. The Irish often could only find the same kinds of jobs as slaves (sometimes working on different parts of the same task) and were considered less valuable to a business than slaves despite not being forced labor, and businesses frequently used Irish for dangerous jobs they didn't want to risk losing the use of a slave over.