POSTED COMMENT:
the dixies fought for slavery. Christ freed us from it. that's why I found it ironic that the source of that beautiful prayer was from the side of the confederacy….
ANSWER:
On the American South
Actually, on one level, yes, they did fight to “keep slavery.” But on another level, they were fighting for certain principles:
1. The right of a state to govern itself apart from the interference of the federal government. This stems from the concept federalism, wherein the entry of a state into the union is voluntary, thus implying the “voluntary” right to secede. The state also has certain autonomous rights and can exercise a degree of self-governance. That was one of the issues resolved by the war.
Actually, on one level, yes, they did fight to “keep slavery.” But on another level, they were fighting for certain principles:
1. The right of a state to govern itself apart from the interference of the federal government. This stems from the concept federalism, wherein the entry of a state into the union is voluntary, thus implying the “voluntary” right to secede. The state also has certain autonomous rights and can exercise a degree of self-governance. That was one of the issues resolved by the war.
2. The southern states also fought for their “way of life”. Many considered the culturally liberal (and industrial) North to be a threat to their culture, lifestyle and even religion. In everyday parlance, that's "the right to be left alone".
3. The rank-and-file soldiers of the Confederacy were ordinary draftees: farmers, small landowners etc. who believed that a loss for the South would enable the northerners to sequester their land, steal their property, rape their wives, etc. (To a certain extent, some of their fears were realized in the post-Civil War South)
On another level, the North, while propagandizing that they were fighting to “free the slaves”, did not officially make it a reason for the Civil War until the Emancipation Proclamation of Lincoln in 1863.
“During the early part of the war, Lincoln, to hold together his war coalition of Republicans and War Democrats, emphasized preservation of the Union as the sole Union objective of the war, but with the Emancipation Proclamation, announced in September 1862 and put into effect four months later, Lincoln adopted the abolition of slavery as a second mission. The Emancipation Proclamation declared all slaves held in territory then under Confederate control to be "then, thenceforth, and forever free", but did not affect slaves in areas under Union control.” (WIKIPEDIA)
The war was long underway then. What they fought for, among others, was for the principle of the unity of the United States, since allowing secession would set a bad precedent, affect the national economy, etc.
The decision to “free the slaves” was thought to result in several advantages for the North (I am not questioning Lincoln’s motives, though), such as:
Encourage resistance in the South by disrupting the support of the black slaves against their masters, hopefully leading to a 5th column revolution.
1. Give a “holy cause” to the war.
2. Encourage support from England (which was antislavery) and France (which was Republican).
3. Please the abolitionist political and military supporters of the Union.
Take note also of the following: the Whites of the Northern armies generally refused to allow Black volunteers to enlist in their companies, and eventually, all-Black companies were formed by some Union states (http://www.liunet.edu/cwis/cwp/library/aaffsfl.htm#CIVIL). Discrimination against Blacks in the U.S. uniformed service continued until the Korean War (1950s) were Blacks were kept in menial, support functions, rather than in frontline combat duty.
More on the Civil War:
3. The rank-and-file soldiers of the Confederacy were ordinary draftees: farmers, small landowners etc. who believed that a loss for the South would enable the northerners to sequester their land, steal their property, rape their wives, etc. (To a certain extent, some of their fears were realized in the post-Civil War South)
On another level, the North, while propagandizing that they were fighting to “free the slaves”, did not officially make it a reason for the Civil War until the Emancipation Proclamation of Lincoln in 1863.
“During the early part of the war, Lincoln, to hold together his war coalition of Republicans and War Democrats, emphasized preservation of the Union as the sole Union objective of the war, but with the Emancipation Proclamation, announced in September 1862 and put into effect four months later, Lincoln adopted the abolition of slavery as a second mission. The Emancipation Proclamation declared all slaves held in territory then under Confederate control to be "then, thenceforth, and forever free", but did not affect slaves in areas under Union control.” (WIKIPEDIA)
The war was long underway then. What they fought for, among others, was for the principle of the unity of the United States, since allowing secession would set a bad precedent, affect the national economy, etc.
The decision to “free the slaves” was thought to result in several advantages for the North (I am not questioning Lincoln’s motives, though), such as:
Encourage resistance in the South by disrupting the support of the black slaves against their masters, hopefully leading to a 5th column revolution.
1. Give a “holy cause” to the war.
2. Encourage support from England (which was antislavery) and France (which was Republican).
3. Please the abolitionist political and military supporters of the Union.
Take note also of the following: the Whites of the Northern armies generally refused to allow Black volunteers to enlist in their companies, and eventually, all-Black companies were formed by some Union states (http://www.liunet.edu/cwis/cwp/library/aaffsfl.htm#CIVIL). Discrimination against Blacks in the U.S. uniformed service continued until the Korean War (1950s) were Blacks were kept in menial, support functions, rather than in frontline combat duty.
More on the Civil War:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans_in_the_Civil_War
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/warweb.html (LOTS HERE!)
I was surprised myself, because I once thought in black-and-white, good-versus-evil paradigms when reading about the American Civil War, until I tried to probe for the deeper reasons behind the conflict.
Furthermore, Gen. Lee of the army of Virginia was a deeply religious man, and it is said that there were many religious revivals among the Southern soldiers. They fought for what they believed in, and many in their ranks sincerely thought that the Bible allowed slavery.
“Christ freed us from it.”
“It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery”. (Galatians 5:1, NIV)
Christ freed us from the slavery of sin in order for us to serve God as “slaves to righteousness” (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%206:15-22;&version=31;) but this does not necessarily entail freedom from physical slavery. Note that during the New testament period, slavery was the norm, and yet the Bible never speaks of slaves being liberated from their physical masters. There was no physical emancipation here or a call to abolish slavery, only spiritual. Thus, the Biblical references to being “set free” pertains primarily to spiritual freedom: the freedom to obey Christ as one’s Lord after one has received Him as Savior. Can this be applied to physical freedom? Of course, but contextually and hermeneutically, this was not the original meaning.
“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.” 1 PETER 2:18-21
“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free. And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.” EPHESIANS 6:5-9
There is also a letter written by Paul to Philemon, a Christian slave-owner about his runaway slave who became a Christian, Onesimus. It’s in the New Testament:
(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=PHILEMON%201;&version=31;)
Does that mean that the Bible approves of slavery?
No. But that’s a tricky question. Here is one good study on the issue:
http://www.rbc.org/ds/q1109/q1109.html
This is one kind of slavery that the Bible approves:
http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1614
This is one kind of slavery that the Bible approves:
http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1614
6 comments:
very complicated talaga ang civil war nila. I guess the reason why I have such black and white view on that conflict is because everytime I see burning crosses and hooded Klansmen the flag of the confederacy hangs over them. It is unfortunate that the KKK has obscured and hijacked the side of those who fought the only lost cause worth fighting for (whatever that means. it's the only line I remember gable delivered in the movie gone with the wind)
yes they sure did. ironically, these white supremacists have become rallying points for disgruntled qand impoverished whites (their masa), the ex-slavers, some of the so-called respectable minority that longed for the race-based social classification, religious extremists who misread their Bible, and others who were simply looking for someone else to torment.
in our case, ingat din tayo when we deal with our "cultural communities" or the mionority groups here. we might be just as discriminating, consciously or not. peace! alam mo, wala akong idea kung sino ka. ka-office pa man din kita. taga-CO ka? I was there 2 weeks ago for the planning/budget workshop
m Not exactly a blogger myself. I'm a weekend webmaster of sorts. I prefer reading interesting blogs instead of writing them. i like your blogs not just for your erudition but for the passion behind it.- marvzmd@gmail.com
ulp...not all i've posted are original compositions. most are from other sites, etc.
a friend did point out once that she wants to read original rantings and ravings from me, but i don't have much time.
besides, i write better when bitter (hehehe) and i'm quite happy now...
"soul on ice" was a much better read than "soul on fire." atleast that's what the americans think. the former was written when the author was with the black panthers. full of rage. the latter was when he became "born again" I think soul on fire flopped and never made it in the best seller's list- unlike the cold blooded soul on ice
By chance, do you know the biblical background/implication on slavery?
--------
Jesus said in Luke 12:47 "That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows".
Post a Comment