Top Figures in Conservative Movement Spreading Crazy Lie That Faith in God Ended Slavery

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The fanatical right in the US has a problem on its hands and that problem is American history. History tells a tale that does not fit the narrative of the Tea Party and libertarian version of American's founding and history.

That was evident this week, when former senator Jim DeMint, who is head of the Heritage Foundation, a libertarian think tank, made the claim that it was not the government that freed the slaves, but faith.

Talking to Jerry Newcombe on the radio show Vocal Point, DeMint said, “[Abolitionism] came from a growing movement among the people, particularly people of faith, that [slavery] was wrong.” DeMint goes out of his way to say big government had nothing to do with freeing the slaves; it was on the Constitution and Lincoln, because obviously neither of those is big government. DeMint goes on to say:

The reason that the slaves were eventually freed was the Constitution; it was like the conscience of the American people. Unfortunately there were some court decisions like Dred Scott and others that defined some people as property, but the Constitution kept calling us back to ‘all men are created equal and we have inalienable rights’ in the minds of God. But a lot of the move to free the slaves came from the people; it did not come from the federal government. It came from a growing movement among the people, particularly people of faith, that this was wrong. People like [british abolitionist William Wilberforce] who persisted for years because of his faith and because of his love for people. So no liberal is going to win a debate that big government freed the slaves. In fact, it was Abraham Lincoln, the very first Republican, who took this on as a cause and a lot of it was based on a love in his heart that comes from God.

DeMint misses some important historical points here. For starters, while he is correct that Lincoln was a Republican, he ignores the history of the Democratic and Republican parties and their ideologies at the time. The roles of the party had been reversed and did not fully change place until around the time of President Roosevelt’s New Deal.

Secondly, there is no historical evidence Lincoln governed with faith. Lincoln never joined a specific religion, yet he did appear to believe in some form of God or deity. This however is not sufficient evidence that Lincoln fought to free the slaves because of a religious or faith-based obligation to do so.

DeMint also misses another important piece to the historical puzzle: most churches refused to take part when offered a leading role by abolitionists. As historian John R. McKivigan explains in his book The War Against Proslavery Religion: Abolitionism and the Northern Churches 1830-1865, "All but a few small denominations balked at a commitment to uncompromised abolitionist principles and programs. As a result, civil war and government ended slavery in 1865.”

History is not on the side of DeMint, who is fighting to change the country's history to fit a new narrative he has for the Tea Party and the far right. DeMint knows the true history of this country is built upon the backs of liberals, union men and women, and those who fought against an oppressive South, ruled by then conservative Democrats, who are now in turn the conservative right’s Republican Tea Party.

http://www.alternet.org/print/tea-party-and-right/far-right-spreading-crazy-lie-faith-god-ended-slavery

Edited April 23, 2014 by Porterhouse

[JohnR! 5,495]

Which begs the question... If god put an end in slavery, why did it allow slavery in the first place?

[Danno 1,228]

Bro, give it up.

History is clear on this, not just here but all across the "civilized" world.

While it is true Abe was not motivated by faith, much of the country was and his mishandling of events brought us to a civil war over these issues

Don't make me post facts again.

Edited April 23, 2014 by Danno

[decocker 7,198]

people of faith most certainly were abolitionists, but the end of slavery was not brought about by organized religion. it was people of faith taking a stand with their own personal morals and what they felt was right and humane against the popular views of christian leaders at the time.

danno, go back to school. take an american history lit class. start with uncle tom's cabin.

[Danno 1,228]

people of faith most certainly were abolitionists, but the end of slavery was not brought about by organized religion. it was people of faith taking a stand with their own personal morals and what they felt was right and humane against the popular views of christian leaders at the time.

danno, go back to school. take an american history lit class. start with uncle tom's cabin.

Why don't you name some of the big denominations which were all in for slavery..... that the North had to quiet down.

[decocker 7,198]

Why don't you name some of the big denominations which were all in for slavery..... that the North had to quiet down.

i'm not dicing into denominations. reread what i wrote, i don't think you fully grasped what i said.

[Danno 1,228]

i'm not dicing into denominations. reread what i wrote, i don't think you fully grasped what i said.

You mentioned people of faith bucking their religous leaders to help bring abolition.

I simply asked for some of these leaders.... don't keep it a secret.

<<<people of faith most certainly were abolitionists, but the end of slavery was not brought about by organized religion. it was people of faith taking a stand with their own personal morals and what they felt was right and humane against the popular views of christian leaders at the time.

.>>>

[decocker 7,198]

You mentioned people of faith bucking their religous leaders to help bring abolition.

I simply asked for some of these leaders.... don't keep it a secret.

<<<people of faith most certainly were abolitionists, but the end of slavery was not brought about by organized religion. it was people of faith taking a stand with their own personal morals and what they felt was right and humane against the popular views of christian leaders at the time.

.>>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_slavery

... the right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example.

—Richard Furman, President, South Carolina Baptist Convention^[110][111]

Every hope of the existence of church and state, and of civilization itself, hangs upon our arduous effort to defeat the doctrine of Negro suffrage.

—Robert Dabney, a prominent 19th-century Southern Presbyterian pastor

[slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts.

—Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America^[109]

big secrets on wikipedia people!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_slavery

... the right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example.

—Richard Furman, President, South Carolina Baptist Convention^[110][111]

Every hope of the existence of church and state, and of civilization itself, hangs upon our arduous effort to defeat the doctrine of Negro suffrage.

—Robert Dabney, a prominent 19th-century Southern Presbyterian pastor

[slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts.

—Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America^[109]

big secrets on wikipedia people!

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Bro, give it up.

History is clear on this, not just here but all across the "civilized" world.

While it is true Abe was not motivated by faith, much of the country was and his mishandling of events brought us to a civil war over these issues

Don't make me post facts again.

Post facts again? I'm sure that nobody is in fear of you posting facts, and again means that you have previously posted facts. Danno-logic and facts are really quite different.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

The fanatical right in the US has a problem on its hands and that problem is American history. History tells a tale that does not fit the narrative of the Tea Party and libertarian version of American's founding and history.

That was evident this week, when former senator Jim DeMint, who is head of the Heritage Foundation, a libertarian think tank, made the claim that it was not the government that freed the slaves, but faith.

Talking to Jerry Newcombe on the radio show Vocal Point, DeMint said, “[Abolitionism] came from a growing movement among the people, particularly people of faith, that [slavery] was wrong.” DeMint goes out of his way to say big government had nothing to do with freeing the slaves; it was on the Constitution and Lincoln, because obviously neither of those is big government. DeMint goes on to say:

The reason that the slaves were eventually freed was the Constitution; it was like the conscience of the American people. Unfortunately there were some court decisions like Dred Scott and others that defined some people as property, but the Constitution kept calling us back to ‘all men are created equal and we have inalienable rights’ in the minds of God. But a lot of the move to free the slaves came from the people; it did not come from the federal government. It came from a growing movement among the people, particularly people of faith, that this was wrong. People like [british abolitionist William Wilberforce] who persisted for years because of his faith and because of his love for people. So no liberal is going to win a debate that big government freed the slaves. In fact, it was Abraham Lincoln, the very first Republican, who took this on as a cause and a lot of it was based on a love in his heart that comes from God.

DeMint misses some important historical points here. For starters, while he is correct that Lincoln was a Republican, he ignores the history of the Democratic and Republican parties and their ideologies at the time. The roles of the party had been reversed and did not fully change place until around the time of President Roosevelt’s New Deal.

Secondly, there is no historical evidence Lincoln governed with faith. Lincoln never joined a specific religion, yet he did appear to believe in some form of God or deity. This however is not sufficient evidence that Lincoln fought to free the slaves because of a religious or faith-based obligation to do so.

DeMint also misses another important piece to the historical puzzle: most churches refused to take part when offered a leading role by abolitionists. As historian John R. McKivigan explains in his book The War Against Proslavery Religion: Abolitionism and the Northern Churches 1830-1865, "All but a few small denominations balked at a commitment to uncompromised abolitionist principles and programs. As a result, civil war and government ended slavery in 1865.”

History is not on the side of DeMint, who is fighting to change the country's history to fit a new narrative he has for the Tea Party and the far right. DeMint knows the true history of this country is built upon the backs of liberals, union men and women, and those who fought against an oppressive South, ruled by then conservative Democrats, who are now in turn the conservative right’s Republican Tea Party.

http://www.alternet.org/print/tea-party-and-right/far-right-spreading-crazy-lie-faith-god-ended-slavery

Yeah cause the real truth is that it was Republicans who ended slavery and passed the Civil rights Bill. Oppss Now that is a real inconvenient truth isn't it.

Edited April 23, 2014 by The Nature Boy

[GandD 5,966]

Yeah cause the real truth is that it was Republicans who ended slavery and passed the Civil rights Bill. Oppss Now that is a real inconvenient truth isn't it.

I thought Republicans didn't claim Lincoln anymore.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I thought Republicans didn't claim Lincoln anymore.

I don't know.. Let me speed dial a few right wingers and I will get back to ya !

[Danno 1,228]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_slavery

... the right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example.

—Richard Furman, President, South Carolina Baptist Convention^[110][111]

Every hope of the existence of church and state, and of civilization itself, hangs upon our arduous effort to defeat the doctrine of Negro suffrage.

—Robert Dabney, a prominent 19th-century Southern Presbyterian pastor

[slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts.

—Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America^[109]

big secrets on wikipedia people!

You seemed to misunderstand the question all together.

No one doubted that Churches in the South failed to come out in large numbers against slavery but that wasn't the question.

Lets examine her claim- "the end of slavery was not brought about by organized religion. it was people of faith taking a stand with their own personal morals and what they felt was right and humane against the popular views of christian leaders at the time."

The question was- Where did the North get the will to repeal Slavery?

I maintain the same place it came from in every country... the Church.

That anyone doubts that indicates a lack of appreciation of how religious were the now secular countries in the 1800's.

To be sure, there were Secular voices and groups which also took part in the push but even then, when you look at the founders and leaders in those societies you find devoted people of faith.

Part of the reason the Church played such a big roll was because it was already organized and easily mobilized.

The church also caused activist to take on the burden as a holy cause, not just a moral one.

So much so that John Brown was willing to kill to light the fuse.

Of course the person in the North had a great luxury, they need not consider in their quest, what the result might be.... while those in the churches of the South did.

For one, What is to become of Millions of Slaves suddenly free with no means or even the ability to handle money if it were given to them.

This is one of the reasons Honest Abe thought returning Blacks to Africa might be the best course of action (impractical as that was).

We are talking about millions of people who have never had to care for themselves, when one thinks of what could happen (and did happen) one might can understand why those Northerners thousands of miles away might be more apt to be for abolition. especially if they never have even seen the South.... such as the Author of Uncle Toms Cabin (Ohio).

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Slavery would have ended on its own with the dawn of industrialization. Slavery was cradle to grave. With industrialization, you only paid for productive employees, which is a much more economically sound strategy than housing, clothing, feeding, and seeing to the medical needs of unproductive workers.