• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Would religion matter if you're a slave?

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
The first Christians were slaves. Rounded up and thrown into slavery by the Pagans. Thousands were put into arenas to be raped, tortured, and murdered.

. . . and Christians turned around and did the same to pagans and other non-believers.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Slavery existed amongst the christians and jews as per the historical accounts in the Old testament.




But have blacks in christianity received better treatment because of conversion to Christianity,

Not only false, but a very naive selective reading of slavery in the USA and elsewhere. Slavery has always been a cruel, involuntary, and exploitative enterprise of buying and selling slaves as economic capital property.


Often christian scriptures were interpreted to induce submissiveness in the slaves and acceptance of their lot. Abraham Lincoln was a deist from what I know.

I do not believe Lincoln was a deist. In his younger years rejected churches and never joined a church. He attended churches throughout his later years, but never expressed outwardly his beliefs. If he was a Deist more power to him for making that private choice like a number of our forefathers.
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
This question is for religious theists specifically. Would there be a point to having religious faith if you're a slave? I mean, what good would worshiping God or Yahweh do if you're bound by chains?

Any answers?...

Seems to me that religion has often been used to get slaves to accept their place as slaves and not rock the boat. If you can convince people that they were born sinful, then they are deserving of any suffering they might have to endure. Slaves are told to obey their masters and accept the injustices and suffering in this life on the promise that they will receive God's equity and justice in the 'next' life. No matter how awful you are treated, you need to believe that it's all for a reason that's beyond your comprehension and as long as you have faith and do as you're told, God will make it all clear to you after you die. It's a pretty wise strategy when you're among the 5% who is living in lavish luxury, while everyone else is barely scraping by in an attempt to support your extravagant lifestyle. Don't let the masses focus on the misery of this life, but on the marvelous rewards that await them in a promised 'afterlife'. It's been a remarkably effective.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Some did yes.

Some?!?!?! Oh my! Antebellum apologetics. You need to seriously review your history of chattel slavery especially that of the Southern USA. You are tempting me to open a thread on this.

Slavery has has always been a cruel, involuntary, and exploitative enterprise of owning, buying and selling slaves as economic capital property.

As per the the president, and governors of the Confederacy of the Southern States the rebellion by the South was to preserve the institution of chattel slavery, which was the primary capital property of the slave states.
 
Last edited:

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
Some?!?!?! Oh my! Antebellum apologetics. You need to seriously review your history of chattel slavery especially that of the Southern USA. You are tempting me to open a thread on this.

Slavery has has always been a cruel, involuntary, and exploitative enterprise of owning, buying and selling slaves as economic capital property.

As per the the president, and governors of the Confederacy of the Southern States the rebellion by the South was to preserve the institution of chattel slavery, which was the primary capital property of the slave states.

Perhaps you should read some history. Here I'll give you a lesson.

Because it was Christians that started the abolitionist movement in the U.S. Not Baha'i, or secularist. It was the Christians.Abolitionism in the United States - Wikipedia. So you can talk smack all you want but at least my people did something to help slaves.

Btw since you got all self righteous. Ill do you another favor. Did you know that some of the African slaves in the U.S. achieved freedom and then went on purchase slaves of their own? Anthony Johnson (colonist) - Wikipedia

Build a bridge and get over it!
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Perhaps you should read some history. Here I'll give you a lesson.

Because it was Christians that started the abolitionist movement in the U.S. Not Baha'i, or secularist. It was the Christians.Abolitionism in the United States - Wikipedia. So you can talk smack all you want but at least my people did something to help slaves.

Btw since you got all self righteous. Ill do you another favor. Did you know that some of the African slaves in the U.S. achieved freedom and then went on purchase slaves of their own? Anthony Johnson (colonist) - Wikipedia

Build a bridge and get over it!

This is the history of the selective biased exception and not the history of slavery. Early abolitionists were also Jews and Deists like Thomas Payne.

The Baha'i Faith was among the first to condemn slavery in all forms based on scripture. Christianity over the millennia was terribly inconsistent, and the majority justified slavery based on scripture.
 
Last edited:

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
This is the history of the selective biased exception and not the history of slavery.

Horsep00p, It is the real history of slavery in the U.S. You are the one using selective bias to try and ignore facts that counter your own self pitying narrative. Let's not forget the Atlantic slave trades slaves came from African capturing their own people then selling them as slaves to begin with.

Slavery in Africa - Wikipedia

Here is an African slave trade apologist trying to justify it here.

Did We Sell Each Other Into Slavery: Misconceptions About the African Involvement in the Slave Trade | HuffPost

"Very often I see comments by people who argue that Africans sold each other into slavery. There is some element of truth to this, but to speak of the slave trade solely as Africans selling each other t is a gross oversimplification of what was a complex historical event."

The "element of truth" is in the Slavery in Africa article which details the various forms of slavery practiced in Africa. It is true that most slavery was not of the chattel kind until the Trans Atlantic slave route was established. Which cause an increase in demand for chattel slavery for sugar cane production. But it was then as it is now, Africans enslaving and selling their own people for money for hundreds of years. It still happens to this very day in 2018. Slavery in contemporary Africa - Wikipedia.

Take your selective bias and hit the road Jack!
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Horsep00p, It is the real history of slavery in the U.S. You are the one using selective bias to try and ignore facts that counter your own self pitying narrative. Let's not forget the Atlantic slave trades slaves came from African capturing their own people then selling them as slaves to begin with.

Slavery in Africa - Wikipedia

Here is an African slave trade apologist trying to justify it here.

Did We Sell Each Other Into Slavery: Misconceptions About the African Involvement in the Slave Trade | HuffPost

"Very often I see comments by people who argue that Africans sold each other into slavery. There is some element of truth to this, but to speak of the slave trade solely as Africans selling each other t is a gross oversimplification of what was a complex historical event."

The "element of truth" is in the Slavery in Africa article which details the various forms of slavery practiced in Africa. It is true that most slavery was not of the chattel kind until the Trans Atlantic slave route was established. Which cause an increase in demand for chattel slavery for sugar cane production. But it was then as it is now, Africans enslaving and selling their own people for money for hundreds of years. It still happens to this very day in 2018. Slavery in contemporary Africa - Wikipedia.

Take your selective bias and hit the road Jack!

Insults will get you no where. Yes slavery was common world wide involving Muslims, Christians, and blacks, but the history of Christianity is predominantly a justification of the majority for slavery based on scripture.

No, I will not be leaving, nor will I let you rewrite of history based on antebellum apologetics stand without calling you out.
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
Insults will get you no where. Yes slavery was common world wide involving Muslims, Christians, and blacks, but the history of Christianity is predominantly a justification of the majority for slavery based on scripture.

No, I will not be leaving, nor will I let you rewrite of history based on antebellum apologetics stand without calling you out.

No insults were given. Just the facts as recorded in the history books. Your conjecture is of no value to the discussion.

Sure some Christians did use the bible to justify slavery. But many Christians paid for that mistake with blood to rectify it, in the civil war. So I'm gonna call it good. You can ignore and deny it all day, but you can't refute history.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
No insults were given.

Oh yes!!! Insults thrown and acknowledged.

Just the facts as recorded in the history books. Your conjecture is of no value to the discussion.

No, a selective antebellum white wash of your selective citing of history to justify your agenda.

Sure some Christians did use the bible to justify slavery. But many Christians paid for that mistake with blood to rectify it, in the civil war. So I'm gonna call it good. You can ignore and deny it all day, but you can't refute history.

Neither can you you selectively use 'some' to minimalize the history of slavery to justify your agenda.
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
Oh yes!!! Insults thrown and acknowledged.

Prove it. Quote the insult.

No, a selective antebellum white wash of your selective citing of history to justify your agenda.

No your the one guilty of selective bias. By ignoring the abolitionist movement in the U.S started by Christians. Just to push your bias against Christianity by only acknowledging the very small % of Christians that used the bible to justify slavery.

I am not white washing anything. Christians worked to free the slaves. Some of those Christians were black. :eek: So you insult them by white washing them, not I.

Neither can you you selectively use 'some' to minimalize the history of slavery to justify your agenda.

It is the truth though. I don't have an agenda, other than relaying the truth of history. You ignore, omit, and spin history to support your false narrative. You are the one with an agenda, and just admitted as much.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Prove it. Quote the insult.

"Take your selective bias and hit the road Jack!"

No your the one guilty of selective bias. By ignoring the abolitionist movement in the U.S started by Christians. Just to push your bias against Christianity by only acknowledging the very small % of Christians that used the bible to justify slavery.

All the Southern States is not a small %. You are not aware of the attitude even in the north by many concerning the problem of freeing slaves.

I am not white washing anything. Christians worked to free the slaves. Some of those Christians were black. :eek: So you insult them by white washing them, not I.

Again, you are selectively white washing the history of slavery. Opposition to slavery in the North was far from unanimous. In fact there was wide spread support for slavery for various reasons such as competition for jobs when free blacks moved north.

From: US to 1865: The Southern and Northern Pro-Slavery arguments

"This has had a significant impact on fundamentalism in the United States. For southern clergy, the religious argument against slavery could be --and was -- seen as infidelity and a challenge to the literal authority of the Bible. I suppose it's ironic that people who refer to a passage in Leviticus to condemn homosexuality are using a tactic that found its first expression in the United States to defend slavery. The Methodist Church split into Northern and Southern branches based on their support or opposition to slavery in 1844; the Baptists did the same thing in 1845.

As the 19th century went on, some southerners began to describe slavery as a positive good, the most harmonious association of work and capital, and recommended it be expanded to all workers regardless of their race.

Now, for the Northern defense of slavery. It's mostly based on economics: Northern politicians asserted that slavery was a “southern” problem and that Northerners should leave the South alone, while textile mill owners and other merchants argued that slavery was the best way to produce the raw materials they needed for their mills. Anti-antislavery Northerners also argued that slave-produced products like sugar, rice and tobacco were vital to the national economy. but the North wasn't free of racist arguments either -- the Free-Soil Democrats believed that the West should be a “white man’s country.”

As the 19th century went on, the South became more strident in its defense of slavery, while the North mostly moved away from an anti-antislavery position, but those developments wouldn't become obvious until the Mexican war was well underway. Racism? The only American I could find in the antebellum United States who didn't have a racist bone in his body was John Brown, and we'll discuss him at length later in this series."

Of course the Black Christians opposed slavery. What would you expect?


[/QUOTE]
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Again . . .

From: Tracing Center | Northern Involvement in the Slave Trade

"A central fact obscured by post-Civil War mythologies is that the northern U.S. states were deeply implicated in slavery and the slave trade right up to the war.

The slave trade in particular was dominated by the northern maritime industry. Rhode Island alone was responsible for half of all U.S. slave voyages. James DeWolf and his family may have been the biggest slave traders in U.S. history, but there were many others involved. For example, members of the Brown family of Providence, some of whom were prominent in the slave trade, gave substantial gifts to Rhode Island College, which was later renamed Brown University.

While local townspeople thought of the DeWolfs and other prominent families primarily as general merchants, distillers and traders who supported ship-building, warehousing, insurance and other trades and businesses, it was common knowledge that one source of this business was the cheap labor and huge profits reaped from trafficking in human beings.

The North also imported slaves, as well as transporting and selling them in the south and abroad. While the majority of enslaved Africans arrived in southern ports–Charleston, South Carolina was the largest market for slave traders, including the DeWolfs—most large colonial ports served as points of entry, and Africans were sold in northern ports including Philadelphia, New York, Boston, and Newport, Rhode Island."

The southern coastal states from Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia and Maryland were therefore home to the vast majority of enslaved persons. But there were slaves in each of the thirteen original colonies, and slavery was legal in the north for over two hundred years. While the northern states gradually began abolishing slavery by law starting in the 1780s, many northern states did not act against slavery until well into the 19th century, and their laws generally provided only for gradual abolition, allowing slave owners to keep their existing slaves and often their children. As a result, New Jersey, for instance, still had thousands of persons legally enslaved in the 1830s, and did not finally abolish slavery by law until 1846. As late as the outbreak of the Civil War, in fact, there were northern slaves listed on the federal census.

In the south, men, women and children were often forced to work on large plantations, which could employ the labor of hundreds or even thousands of enslaved Africans. In the north, farms were smaller and those farmers who owned slaves would generally have only a small number. However, it was fairly common during slavery in the north to find one or two slaves in the households of farmers, merchants, ministers, and others.

Sources: “Africans in America Part Two: Revolution.” WGBH Interactive. Africans in America | Part 2 | Freedom and Bondage in the Colonial Era; David Eltis, Stephen D. Behrendt, David Richardson, and Herbert S. Klein, eds., The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade: A Database on CD-ROM (Cambridge, 1999); Joanne Pope Melish, Disowning Slavery: Gradual Emancipation and “Race” in New England, 1780-1860 (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1998)."

Actually the role of slavery in the history of the USA was economics. Slavery in the South was declining until the Cotton Gin was invented and slaves became the largest capital investment in the cotton farming and industry. In North pragmatism and self interests ruled as attitudes toward slavery changed over time.
More to follow if necessary . . .
 
Last edited:

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
"Take your selective bias and hit the road Jack!"

LoLz


It's a song, not an insult.

All the Southern States is not a small %. You are not aware of the attitude even in the north by many concerning the problem of freeing slaves.

Yes it is. Because only a small % of people in the south owned slaves.

Viral post gets it wrong about extent of slavery in 1860

"Using Census data to research his book, Glatthaar calculated that 4.9 percent of people in the slaveholding states owned slaves, that 19.9 percent of family units in those states owned slaves, and that 24.9 percent of households owned slaves."

25% of Households in the south owned slaves. Not all of those households were Christian. So yes even in the worst case scenario 25% is a small % compared to the other 75% of households that did not own slaves in the south.

Again, you are selectively white washing the history of slavery.

You are the one white washing. I haven't brought up white folks even once. You seem to equate being Christian with being white. Your disdain for Christians is obvious. What does that say about you?

Of course the Black Christians opposed slavery. What would you expect?

For them to at least be given credit for it. Which you refuse to do by white washing them repeatedly.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
LoLz


It's a song, not an insult.

In the song neat. From you an insult.


Yes it is. Because only a small % of people in the south owned slaves.

So what?!?!?

The percentages are not small, [19.9% and 24.9%] this is the dominant economic heart of the South, and the South both slave owners and non-slave owners benefited collectively on the capital property of slaves in the South. Your neglecting the industrial South that depended on white labor too and white labor that were interdependent on the economic capital of slave.

The whole South supported the Civil War unanimously in support of preserving the institution of slavery.

My sources are accurate and descriptive of the problem of slavery in the history of America
 
Last edited:

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
the song neat. From you an insult.

No, if I was to insult you I would get my money's worth and use some naughty words.

So what?!?!?

I'll put this is very simple terms for you to understand.

25%<75%

Your neglecting the industrial South that depended on white labor too and white labor that were interdependent on the economic capital of slave.

Yes I know because it was my white ancestors! Irish migratory workers that moved from town to town depending on where the work was. My family only settled down and bought land in the 1950's after 300 years of constantly roaming the U.S. doing migratory work. Competing with slaves up until the civil war. Abolition of Slavery was a good thing for us as much as it was for the slaves!

My sources are accurate and descriptive of the problem of slavery in the history of America

Except for the omission of the abolitionist movement.

And horsep00p.

non-slave owners benefited collectively on the capital property of slaves in the South.

Flat out horsep00p. If you can back that claim up then do it. If not I call horsep00p!
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I'll put this is very simple terms for you to understand.

25%<75%

Classic misrepresentations of statistics

The following article calls you out concerning the claim that there was a "small percentage" of slave owners in the South, and you are dodging the matter of interdependence of the whole South regardless on the greatest capital in the South 'Slaves.' Some others make bogus claims concerning the number of soldiers owning slaves.

Small Truth Papering Over a Big Lie
The claim that few of the troops of the Confederacy did not own slaves.

"But even if it is narrowly true, it's a deeply, deeply dishonest statistic. It is, as The Raven would say, a small truth used to paper over a big lie. A majority of those young men who marched off to war in the spring of 1861 were fully vested in the "peculiar institution." Joseph T. Glatthaar, in his magnificent study of the force that eventually became the Army of Northern Virginia, lays out the evidence.

Even more revealing was their attachment to slavery. Among the enlistees in 1861, slightly more than one in ten owned slaves personally. This compared favorably to the Confederacy as a whole, in which one in every twenty white persons owned slaves. Yet more than one in every four volunteers that first year lived with parents who were slaveholders. Combining those soldiers who owned slaves with those soldiers who lived with slaveholding family members, the proportion rose to 36 percent. That contrasted starkly with the 24.9 percent, or one in every four households, that owned slaves in the South, based on the 1860 census. Thus, volunteers in 1861 were 42 percent more likely to own slaves themselves or to live with family members who owned slaves than the general population.

The attachment to slavery, though, was even more powerful. One in every ten volunteers in 1861 did not own slaves themselves but lived in households headed by non family members who did. This figure, combined with the 36 percent who owned or whose family members owned slaves, indicated that almost one of every two 1861 recruits lived with slaveholders. Nor did the direct exposure stop there. Untold numbers of enlistees rented land from, sold crops to, or worked for slaveholders. In the final tabulation, the vast majority of the volunteers of 1861 had a direct connection to slavery. For slaveholder and nonslaveholder alike, slavery lay at the heart of the Confederate nation. The fact that their paper notes frequently depicted scenes of slaves demonstrated the institution's central role and symbolic value to the Confederacy.

More than half the officers in 1861 owned slaves, and none of them lived with family members who were slaveholders. Their substantial median combined wealth ($5,600) and average combined wealth ($8,979) mirrored that high proportion of slave ownership. By comparison, only one in twelve enlisted men owned slaves, but when those who lived with family slave owners were included, the ratio exceeded one in three. That was 40 percent above the tally for all households in the Old South. With the inclusion of those who resided in nonfamily slaveholding households, the direct exposure to bondage among enlisted personnel was four of every nine. Enlisted men owned less wealth, with combined levels of $1,125 for the median and $7,079 for the average, but those numbers indicated a fairly comfortable standard of living. Proportionately, far more officers were likely to be professionals in civil life, and their age difference, about four years older than enlisted men, reflected their greater accumulated wealth.

The prevalence of slave holding was so pervasive among Southerners who heeded the call to arms in 1861 that it became something of a joke; Glatthaar tells of an Irish-born private in a Georgia regiment who quipped to his messmates that "he bought a negro, he says, to have something to fight for."
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
The claim that few of the troops of the Confederacy did not own slaves.

What is true today was true back then. That truth is rich people don't fight their own wars. They get others to do it for them.

Even more revealing was their attachment to slavery. Among the enlistees in 1861, slightly more than one in ten owned slaves personally.

That still only 10% roughly still under my 25% number.

Combining those soldiers who owned slaves with those soldiers who lived with slaveholding family members, the proportion rose to 36 percent. That contrasted starkly with the 24.9 percent, or one in every four households, that owned slaves in the South, based on the 1860 census.

That is misrepresenting stats. Your counting the same household twice in some instances to fudge the numbers. Which is why you arrive at almost double the census data which is solid.

As I said it's horsep00p propaganda to push an agenda. Slaves were extremely expensive. Both in the buying and upkeep, food, clothing, and housing. Only wealthy could afford them. The average price of a slave in 1860 was $800.

Typical wages in 1860 through 1890

Here is the average hourly wage:

  • Occupation 1860, 1870, 1880, 1890
  • blacksmith, 0.178, 0.304, 0.259, 0.271
  • carpenter, 0.182, 0.410, 0.276, 0.322
  • machinist 0.158, 0.260, 0.227, 0.243
  • laborers, 0.098, 0.156, 0.135, 0.151
Here is the average weekly wage for 60 hours a week:

  • Occupation 1860, 1870, 1880, 1890
  • blacksmith, 10.68, 18.24, 15.54, 16.26
  • carpenter, 10.92, 24.60, 16.56, 19.32
  • machinist, 9.48, 15.60, 13.62, 14.58
  • laborers, 5.88, 9.36, 8.10, 9.06
Just so we are clear these are non slave/plantation owners.

Blacksmith made $552.24 per year, on avg in 1860.

Carpenters made $567.84 per year.

Machinist made $492.96 per year.

General Laborer made $305.76 per year.

It doesn't take a masters in economics to notice that most non-plantation owners in the south could barely feed themselves, let alone afford slaves. A single slave was several years worth of money saved. So your 40% number is a complete lie used to push an agenda.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
What is true today was true back then. That truth is rich people don't fight their own wars. They get others to do it for them.



That still only 10% roughly still under my 25% number.



That is misrepresenting stats. Your counting the same household twice in some instances to fudge the numbers. Which is why you arrive at almost double the census data which is solid.

As I said it's horsep00p propaganda to push an agenda. Slaves were extremely expensive. Both in the buying and upkeep, food, clothing, and housing. Only wealthy could afford them. The average price of a slave in 1860 was $800.

Typical wages in 1860 through 1890

Here is the average hourly wage:

  • Occupation 1860, 1870, 1880, 1890
  • blacksmith, 0.178, 0.304, 0.259, 0.271
  • carpenter, 0.182, 0.410, 0.276, 0.322
  • machinist 0.158, 0.260, 0.227, 0.243
  • laborers, 0.098, 0.156, 0.135, 0.151
Here is the average weekly wage for 60 hours a week:

  • Occupation 1860, 1870, 1880, 1890
  • blacksmith, 10.68, 18.24, 15.54, 16.26
  • carpenter, 10.92, 24.60, 16.56, 19.32
  • machinist, 9.48, 15.60, 13.62, 14.58
  • laborers, 5.88, 9.36, 8.10, 9.06
Just so we are clear these are non slave/plantation owners.

Blacksmith made $552.24 per year, on avg in 1860.

Carpenters made $567.84 per year.

Machinist made $492.96 per year.

General Laborer made $305.76 per year.

It doesn't take a masters in economics to notice that most non-plantation owners in the south could barely feed themselves, let alone afford slaves. A single slave was several years worth of money saved. So your 40% number is a complete lie used to push an agenda.

It is the interdependence of all aspects of the Southern economy that lead to universal support for slavery as an institution that the South was dependent on not playing manipulation games of percentages. You cannot deny the the overwhelming support in the South for slavery and the Rebellion to support slavery

Your classically misrepresenting my sources to justify an antebellum agenda, and no the forty percent is not a lie, it is your ENRON bookkeeping of antebellum manipulation of the sources, which neglects the facts that the interdependent relationships of agriculture commercial and industrial South was dependent on the largest capital in the South 'Slaves,' then the South almost universally supported the War of Rebellion to preserve the institution of slavery that the whole south is dependent on.

You have also neglected the role of the North and the attitudes of the North on slavery.
 
Last edited:
Top