Wednesday, January 4, 2012


If you have studied anything about the Civil War, chances are that you have been indoctrinated to believe that the Civil War was only about one thing and one thing only:  SLAVERY.

But this is not entirely true.  In fact, it's not true at all.  That is of course unless you define the term sightly diferently than most people do and and who the term is is applied to.  For there is more than one kind of slavery.

Many today believe the South was the bad guy in the Civil War, and they were "evil" for owning slaves.  But is that true?  Was that really all there was to it?  Or was there more?  If you will study history, you will see there was a whole lot more to it than just the slavery issue.  In fact, the Civil War, like almost every war ever fought in the history of man, had a lot to do with money, land, and power.

Before going any further on the topic of slavery, let me briefly state what I believe personally about Slavery.  I don't like it.  The way I look at it, I would not want to be a slave to anyone, and for that reason, I wouldn't want to own a slave myself.  In other words, because I wouldn't want to be "enslaved," I would not want to partake in enslaving others to myself.  It's that simple to me.  It's so clear cut and to the point.

With this stated, let us get back to our topic at hand:  Slavery and the Civil War.  And we must first ask ourselves why Southerners had slaves.  The reason they had slaves was three fold:


If you know your history, you know that it was the British who first brought slaves to America (or the Portuguese, depending upon which version of history you choose to believe).  And if you have done your homework, you also know that it was the Northern states and their Northern Ships which sold slaves to the South.  So Southerners owned slaves because they were taught by the British and the Northerners that it was okay to have them.   In fact, they encouraged it.  They wanted $, and their practice of capturing and selling negroes brought them a pretty penny.  It was all about money, and the North got rich off of their business of selling slaves.  It was the NORTH who started the slave trade!  Southerners just bought them.  Why?  Because they assumed the Northerners thought it was okay!

The second reason that Southerners had slaves was because it was legal.  The laws at the time allowed it.  And as you probably know, when the Constitution of the United States of America was set up, slavery was written into the document and allowed.  This is important to know, as Southerners were labeled "rebels" by the Northern hordes, and "immoral" for owning slaves.  But they were simply following the laws of the land, laws which were set up in the Northern colonies, in New England.

The third reason that the South owned slaves was because they read that it was allowed in the Bible.  As you probably know, the South was as a whole a very religious and God-fearing people.  They believed the word of God (the King James Bible).  So when they read in the book of Genesis that Canaan was to be "cursed" and to be a "servant of servants" they believed it was to be so.  (For those who don't know, Canaan, was the son of Ham, a black man).
Almost all Southerners read the scriptures, and because of this they believe slavery was not wrong.  For it was clearly something that God allowed in the Bible.  Many Southerners took 1 Timothy 6:1-5 as a very clear passage that the owning of slaves was indeed a Biblical ideal.  There we read: 

6:1  Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
2  And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.
3  If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
4  He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
5  Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

And many Southerners even took verse 3-5 as applying to the North, when they tried to outlaw slavery, even taking the last four words "from such withdraw thyself" as a scriptural passage in favor of sucession from the union.

Southerners, therefore, viewed slavery as something not only that was legal but also something that was Biblical.  And they practiced it not only because it was allowed in the Constitution of the United States, but because it was clearly found in the Bible.

Now whether or not they were right is subject to debate.  Many people today hate slavery, and for this reason they want to demonize the South and uplift the North, and their noble cause to free the slaves.  But to do so is quite hypocritical.  For history clearly teaches us that the North was those who sold the slaves to the South to begin with, and it was the Northern New England States as well as the Southern ones who wrote the Constitution, allowing slavery. 

Thus, wouldn't it stand to reason, that to be against slavery and the South demands that a person be against the Constitution, the North, and the Bible?  (I'll let you answer that one for yourself).

But here, we will not delve into the moral issue of slavery, and whether it is right or wrong to own slaves.  We will leave that to others.  What we need to examine now is whether or not the cause of the Civil War was about "slavery" or not. 

My own personal belief is as follows:  The Civil War was not about slavery, although the Civil War was indeed about slavery.

Kinda sounds like a conflicting statement, doesn't it?  But please let me explain.  The truth is that in the eye of the beholder, something can look completely different to one person than to another, especially when people don't see eye to eye.  Thus, the issue of Slavery and the Civil War all depends upon the eye of the beholder. 

To the North, many abolitionists believed they were fighting an immoral foe who owned slaves, something they deplored.  So they thought they were fighting a just war, because they were helping to free a certain race of people.  (Note:  Not all Union soldiers thought this way.  In fact, very few did.  The truth is most of the Northern soldiers were drafted and had to fight.  And they didn't really care about black people.  Other Northerners actually owned slaves themselves!  In fact, General Grant owned slaves even after the Emancipation Proclamation and even had them in the White House when he was president!)

To the South, the war was not about slavery at all, rather about "States Rights" or their God-given and Constitutional right to govern themselves.  They did not look at the North as people who were trying to steal their slaves, rather as invaders on their own soverign soil, who were trying to take them over and enslave them to a tyrannical government, who would not even abide by its own laws.  (It's common to hear many stories of black slaves who fought along side their masters.  They too looked at the North as invading their land and trying to take away their soverign right to govern themselves).
So if you look at it from a Southern perspective, the Civil War was not about the slavery of black people, but free Southern Citizens who were fighting for their liberty, desiring not to be enslaved by a tyrannical government in Washington who wished to take away their rights.

Who was right is often a subject of debate, with people forming all sorts of opinions.  Some think the North was right, and are glad the North won.  But such people conviently overlook the horrible atrocities of the Northern occupation, and the many rapes (often on young black girls) and plunder and burning down of whole towns by Sherman's troops.  Nor do they desire to talk about the corrupt rule of the Carpet baggers, or the mass starvation of the South after the war. 

On the other hand, those who think the South was right don't take into consideration the Northern belief of "union" above all, and the desire to have a strong Centeralized big government in Washington under the rule of Lincoln.

One could argue either side.  But let's not argue at all.  Let's look not at the cause of the war, nor the actual war itself.  Instead, let's focus on the fruit of the war.  What did it produce?

The answer is not that simple.  For after the war, the United United States became a very big, powerful, and rich superpower.  It grew by leaps and bounds and eventually became the greatest country on earth!  

But what is it now.  It is better off than before?  The facts are that America today is almost exactly what it was in Lincoln's day.  It is a country divided.  Part of the country wants its freedoms back and wants to separate from a tyrannical government that wants to tax it to death.  The other part of the country likes the idea of communism and socialism, which is nothing sort of trading one's liberty for security, of which Benjamin Franklin aptly put it that if you do, you'll have neither liberty nor security.

In our day, our nation is in debt up to it's eyeballs.  There is more racial tension and terrorism today then ever before in the history of the nation. 

It's hard to find a job.  It's harder to make ends meet.  It's even harder to suceed.  It's almost like we are living just like those Southerners did in the South during the time of Reconstruction.  No one has any money, and for this reason the economy is so bad.

It's almost like the government is once again trying to make slaves out of us all by taking away our rights, our property, our freedom.  No, that couldn't be, could it???

However you look at it, the issue of Slavery is indeed interwined with the Civil War.  But was it really a war to FREE slaves, or was it rather a war to ENSLAVE the populace.  This is something that you must decide for yourself.  Remember, history is always written by the conquering force.  And historically, they always seem to embellish the facts, and try to make themselves look better than they actually were. 


  1. R.R. Breaker,

    I very much favor States Rights. The arrogance displayed by liberal and even conservative states both from all 50 states, I find appalling.

    The clashing of Social moralities has no place in D.C. We can't dictate how someone should live their life. But we shouldn't have to reward bad behavior with our tax dollars. Which is why I favor States Rights. Liberal States like California would eventually run out of funding causing a Liberal meltdown, because large corporations will find more Conservative states to operate, in order to avoid the tax burdens they are enduring because of moral decay.

    States Rights would've allowed Boeing to go to South Carolina and seek damages from the Gov't from the lawsuit they made Boeing endure.

    I attend a Baptist Church in a Northern State that wasn't involved in the Civil War. The term "Confederate Baptist" is distracting and prideful, that is getting in the way of battling immorality in this nation. You may or may not be a racist, but having a Blog that embraces being a "Confederate Baptist", isn't going to get Obama out of office.

    Some Southerners (Northerners do it as well) are still recklessly hanging onto their past failures, blaming others for practicing sin and embrace being Geographically Self-Absorbed with an "elite" mentality that is full of arrogance, that is not biblical.

    No matter how you slice it "Southern Pride" or "Northern Pride" is creating enough bickering among Conservative Christians that is preventing a combined effort for "States Rights" to exist, while at the same time strengthening the Big Gov't Liberal movement.

    There are enough Conservatives in this nation now, like there were during the Civil War for States Rights to exist. But the immoral bickering and behavior topped off with Geographic Pride between Conservatives is getting in the way. The immoralities that happened to Slaves from Baptist Slave masters did get in the way of "States Rights" becoming a reality. The KKK is another disgraceful part of history that created enough anger and resolve in our nation to help enable the Liberal Movement to exist even further.

    Now the Confederate Baptist is combining his Biblical beliefs with his historical roots with an arrogant moral elitism that I would compare what the Pharisee's were doing to the Tax Collector and Sinner, (while rebuking Christ) in the book of Mark. (KJV)

    They pride themselves with impeccable good manners, Southern hospitality and sound Biblical Doctrine, while the SBC is going through Doctrinal Strife that is dividing churches, because the Hyper-Calvinist and the Hyper-Arminains fail to come up with a consensus on their conflicting views of how we attain salvation.

    I have had the misfortune of knowing some Southern Baptist who have an unhealthy, legalistic and geographic Biblical pride of themselves unlike any other Baptist from other regions of this nation.

    In Genesis, Adam blamed the woman for eating the forbidden fruit. Your historic statements is blaming the English and North for the immoral practice of Slavery that ended in the South and hiding behind "States Rights".

    Part of the States Rights issue was that some Confederate Baptists wanted to have the right to continue slavery. That meant slave owners could continue to physically, mentally and sexually abuse other human beings if they wanted to, because they were property.

    If you want to keep the spirit of being a Confederate Baptist alive, understand that many of us Baptist will find it difficult to recognize your Biblical spirituality. If anything the Non-Confederate Baptist will recognize Biblical Hypocrisy. Any good intentions that may exist in your heart may be overshadowed with pride and unforgiveness. (this is something most of us Christians have practiced not only on the lost but also on each other)

    In Christ
    David M. Adams

    1. Mr. Inflation,

      Thanks for you comments. I too am very much in favor of State's Rights. I also favor Individual's Rights. Sadly, our rights have been erroded away the last 100 years. I too find the arrogance of modern politicians appalling, especially when they treat us like cattle, rather than citizens.
      Truly, we most certainly should not "dictate how someone should live their life."
      So you don't like the term "Confederate Baptist?" I hate that you think the title is distracting and prideful. I am not a racist. I don't believe one race is superior than another. I believe all people should be judged upon their merit and their character.
      You say, "...having a Blog that embraces being a "Confederate Baptist", isn't going to get Obama out of office."
      That's not my intention. My blog was only to resurrect my 3rd grand-father's paper.
      I agree with you that some people are "still recklessly hanging onto their past failures, blaming others...with an "elite" mentality that is full of arrogance, that is not biblical."
      Sadly, many view the Civil War as an EMOTIONAL issue, and not HISTORICAL. Mike Scruggs has written a very good book showing the truth about the Civil War. It can be found at:
      You state: "No matter how you slice it "Southern Pride" or "Northern Pride" is creating enough bickering among Conservative Christians ... while at the same time strengthening the Big Gov't Liberal movement."
      I agree with you. PRIDE is a problem.
      Yes, there are lots of Conservatives in our country, but I'm inclined to believe there aren't enough to change things. God prophesied that there would be apostasy in the last days, so I see the downfall of our country as just a fulfillment of prophecy. I wish it wasn't so.
      You say, "Now the Confederate Baptist is combining Biblical beliefs with historical roots..."
      I don't see that. I'm not being prideful or arrogant. So I feel you've mis-judged me.
      I see the Civil War and all the things that led up to it are some of the EXACT SAME THINGS we see happening today. It scares me. It's almost like there's another Civil War brewing. I wish it wasn't so. So to me, the Confederate Baptist is just a way to show people history, and hope they'll learn from it.
      You wrote: "I have had the misfortune of knowing some Southern Baptists who..." I too have had the misfortune to know such people. It's sad.
      You say, "Your historic statements in blaming the English and North for the immoral practice of Slavery ... Part of the States Rights issue was that some Confederate Baptists wanted to ... continue slavery. That meant slave owners could continue to physically, mentally and sexually abuse other human beings if they wanted to, because they were property."
      Well, the truth is the NORTH did sell the slaves. So what's wrong with what I said? Also, Slavery is in the Bible, and God allowed it. Now I'm not for it, but if God allowed it, then what evil did the Southerners do in having slaves? They only followed the Bible.
      Those men who physically, mentally, and sexually abused their slaves were SICK! They ought to go to jail! But if you study history, most of the Southerners were God-fearing, and they treated their slaves like family. And their slaves they didn't have to work too hard. The South was an agricultural economy. That means they picked cotton only about 7 months out of the year and they usually had 5 months off. Most masters gave their slaves homes to live in, and even a gun to go hunting with. Can you imagine if we could do this today? I'd jump at any job in which my employer said I only had to work 7 months and I had 5 months off!!!
      So thank you for your response. I appreciate your comments.
      Robert Breaker

  2. Robert,

    In scriptures I found there were several types of Slavery. One in particular was a slave would work under their master in order to pay off a debt.
    Another was when the Egyptians held the Hebrew Slaves under bondage.

    Many Slave Masters in the South of the 1850's who were less abusive to their slaves would not tolerate a Slave who decided to leave the Plantation.
    The penalty for most slaves leaving the Plantations was brutal beatings and sometimes death.

    There are many different career options where they could enjoy extended periods of time off. And many of them also enjoy weekends and holidays off.

    For instance, Educators, Tourism, Loggers, Oil Rig Crews, Tug Boat and Merchant Marine, Farms including Orchards Orange and Cotton growers and I'm sure some of these Plantations may still offer modest housing and 3 squares a day. But these professions in America 2012, will not beat or put these people to death if they refuse to work or decide to walk off the job. They would be fired.

    You made it sound like the majority of the slaves living and working conditions were better than the majority of the Free's living and working conditions in justifying Slavery in the South.

    Further more you minimalized the atrocities practiced by Southerners including the KKK who terrorized many Blacks while burning their churches.
    Many "Self-Respecting Southerners practiced arrogant swagger, enforcing separate drinking fountains laws, lasting all the way into the 1960's.
    There were Southern opportunist that practiced some of the same things Carpet Baggers from the North were doing.

    Another words you were magnifying the Sins of the North, while minimalizing the sins of the South.

    The atrocities practice by both Southerners and Northerners alike are a regrettable part of American history.

    I am failing to recognize the connection of being a Confederate and a Baptist. The Bible has been around a lot longer than the Confederate States of America. By appearance I'm seeing you combine "Southern Pride" with your Baptist faith. And I don't think that is your intention.
    Sincerely Yours
    David Adams