I didn't find his comments to be pro-slavery. He was advocating non-violent approach to solving a social problem. Why are people so angry? I think a lot of people are so full of hate, they aren't even stopping to see who they are hating and why.
The problem is that the non-violent approach only ever applies to the freedom of black people. White people are allowed to use whatever violence and be justified for it. Heck, the south celebrates the confederacy for wanting to rebel against the US and maintain slavery.
If there weren’t violence, people would still be chattel. Lincoln initially didn’t even want to eliminate slavery throughout the country, rather preserve the Union
I think it’s the term Paleo-confederate. Personally after hearing him; I get what he’s saying. But I personally wouldn’t use the term in order to get across what he is saying. There are people who just won’t get it when and if I label myself as suchz
@@Chegui123-k8m The term makes no difference to me. He is saying that we'd have a better relationship on race if there was no war and black people waited until the south was done using us up. Maybe the colonies should have waited instead of having the Revolutionary War but oh wait, even after the revolution and War of 1812 the US manages to have a great relationship with England.
@@darwin6883 HELLO 🚹 +🚻🕎🖖🏼🥷🏿🤜🏾🤛🏼🥷🏼🇺🇲 I'm General David Hunter " Black Dave Your" That's A Stereotype , And Lie From The Father of Lies ,Doug Wilson 🫵🏼 Your A Edomites Babylonian Wolf OF A Small Tower of Pharaoh , For we are all god's children For Greater As he , That's In The Eagles And The Donkeys Than Apollyon That's In The CANE Family Saith The Lord Your God , Do not be conform into the customs of this Culture But Be Transform Into The Renewing of Of One-Cry From Above Saith The Lord , THE The watch tower Is Not of Mount Zion , It Is Anti-Mount Zion.
"Slavery ended in the West, and good riddance. This is the important part." Most people commenting are too ideologically blinded to understand Wilsons point.
@10:17....did he say that all the slaves in the new testament were white?.....someone please find me the verse and scripture where it says that Europeans were slaves in the middle east, thanks in advance
1) I think it is very reasonable to believe that slavery in the South would have ended on its own without a war. 2) The beginning of the expansion of federal/centralized oppression began with Lincoln. Fast forward 150 years. We are now paying for abortions, forced to buy health insurance, and must be immunized to continue employment even if we have natural immunity. 3) No state would ever have joined the union if they thought they would be forced to stay in the union under all circumstances. That’s like saying the colonies had no right to independence. You cannot say one is acceptable and the other is not and be consistent.
The abolitionists were on the move, the fact the CSA was another country was an obstacle, but so was everything to the Christian abolition movement. Slavery was still in the North post war. Lincoln did not go to war because of slavery, but the south did leave mostly because of this.
"federalized oppresion" as you would call it is the only way a state can operate. A strong central government is needed for a strong country. State's rights is a stupid concept. If you're part of the country, you should follow its laws.
@commentatorgunk - your first point is utterly false. Slavery was never more profitable than in the late 1850s and it was continuing to grow, as the price of slaves shows. The Southern states' declaration of secession, the CSA Constitution, and the commissioners to other slave states to convince them to secede all prove how vital slavery was to the South. On that last point, check out the book Apostles of Disunion. These commissioners said things like: “[Mississippi] had rather see the last of her race, men, women, and children, immolated in one common funeral pile [pyre], than see them subjected to the degradation of civil, political and social equality with the negro race.” “Within this government two societies have become developed.” One which was one race, based on free labor, had 2 great relations (husband/wife; parent/child), and the principle of equality as the right of man; the other which was 2 races, based on slave labor, had 3 great relations (husband/wife, parent/child, and master/slave), and the principle that equality is not the right of man but of equals only. “There is and must be an irrepressible conflict between them...” Yankees were committed to “a holy crusade for our benefit in seeking destruction of that institution [i.e., slavery] which...lies at the very foundation of our social and political fabric.” The South’s only hope was in “placing our institutions beyond the reach of further hostility.” The South wasn't giving up slavery without a bloody fight.
@@leahunverferth8247 You can give all the points you think are pertinent. It would have ended in the South on it’s on just like it did every other place in the Americas WITHOUT WAR and without the establishment of the oppressive federal government. It ended in the North without war. It ended in the Caribbean where it was very profitable without war. It ended in Brazil without war where it was profitable. Those are the facts. The South would have done the same. The North did not invade the South to free the slaves. It was to save the federal government, not even the Union.
The Abolitionist; the one who wants blood shed. You mean like the blood shed from over 200 years of shipping people like cargo through the middle passage?
Southern slavery? What about Northern slavery? People act like only the South had slaves. All 13 original states had slaves. Some eventually got rid of slavery and SOLD their slaves to the South, but at the time of the Civil War, there were five slave states fighting for the Union. Grant was also the last slave owner to be president. Wilson asks if there were white slaves in the South. I don’t know but there were in the North - the Irish. There were also black slave owners as well as Native American slave owners. Slavery was wrong and evil, but it was not just white Southerners who owned slaves.
So if any part of it is false we should reject it? But if its all true, including the parts about slavery being supported we should then follow the bible?
@@thebottomline9250 Yes. But caution: the issue for the person judging its truth is: what are you using to determine it’s false? It’s quite risky. I make the comment with the unwavering confidence that is all truth, at its core. And that finding anything false in it, would be something like….me saying I am from Williamsburg, Virginia, but someone else saying that that’s not true. Don’t you live in Arlington, Virginia now? That may be a sub par analogy but I just woke up and I need to go study for the bar exam next week 🥹. Appreciate the comment 😇.
@@indialeestarks3935 First. Good luck on your exam. Second if we don't have a "standard" to determine something as false then how can we determine it as true. In other words, what is the standard used to determine the truthfulness of the word?
📳India Lee Starks • 1y Ago ( Edited) 👎🏿 the laws of nature will not be overcome by 👹🚻 👩🏿💼 evil 💒 but the laws of nature will overcome evil with the ⚖ of 🐑
@@thebottomline9250 📳India Lee Starks • 1y Ago ( Edited) 👎🏿 the laws of nature will not be overcome by 👹🚻 👩🏿💼 evil 💒 but the laws of nature will overcome evil with the ⚖ of 🐑
The Civil War was not started to end slavery. By the end of the war that became a principal war aim of the Union (I tend to avoid saying "North" since four slave-holding "border" aka Southern states stated in the Union). It was started when the militia in Charleston fired on U.S. soldiers after South Carolina seceded to defend slavery from a largely hypothetical threat to the institution. (In my reading it seems the Union taking their slaves wasn't an imminent threat because Congress would have blocked it.) Even when Lincoln signaled he would end slavery in the Emancipation Proclamation, he only ended it in the rebelling states (not in the Union states that still allowed slavery or in any Confederate territory captured and under federal control). I also think, if say slavery would have ended by 1890 on its own (which is not clear, it was more profitable than ever by 1860 in many states-more profitable by a long way in Mississippi and Alabama-but, for the sake of argument we'll say 1890), how many people are allowed to be enslaved and tortured and killed and raped in order to avoid harm to the whites? I am not sure how you ethically make the tradeoff of letting 4 million black slaves suffer under the hands of whites...to avoid the whites coming to harm. I am not sure if you that tradeoff how you can look those blacks in the eyes and tell them their lives are of equal value to the white. To be sure, 360,000 Union whites were also harmed in the war and that is another ethically difficult tradeoff...as they were mostly from non-slave-owning families, but that compared to leaving 4 million or more people in savage bondage for at least another decade and very likely more.
It's astonishing how often I see thoughts rooted in reason hated upon, and those rooted in a taste for absolute overthrow are praised. Human nature is not something to toy with.
"Slavery ended in the western world everywhere else peaceably." That is actually false. Haitian slaves had to kill their French oppressors. Perhaps the pastor would do well to mention the Haitian slave revolts. Another problem with his statements is that it was the South (the "slave states") that declared war on the US constitutional government, not the abolitionists. These are two of the points where I think he's wrong. I honestly believe the pastor is well-meaning, but wrong. For goodness sake! How can you compare people who get into (more or less) voluntary financial debt to people who were kidnapped, separated from their families, in many cases beaten, forced into a ship like sardines, travel for weeks or months under the worst condition, being sold and forced to do back-breaking work for no pay? Are these even comparable at all? Pastor, you ought to pray and read more about this before you give such opinions.
Thank you, finally someone that understands. I love Doug but the problem is he talks of America solving according to Paul like America is the church. The question was whether he supported southern slavery, instead of answering that he offers the best way for slavery to end. We know the best way already, it happened in England and other places. The problem in America were the Southerners and he stops short of rebuking the mind set of the Southerners which led to the war rather he rebukes the method to end slavery. Southern slavery was wrong PERIOD. However it ended it ended. Violence is never the best but I will take the violence of ending slavery than one more day of violence and torture not to talk of lack of self determination committed against the slaves. By the way, slaves in Paul's Bible days were actually servants (so like a maid) not the human atrocity called Southern slavery.
@@bradenpowell3824 No. Four months before Fort Sumter the South was already taking the war in to their own hands such January 4, 1861 the governor ordered the state's militia seized a federal arsenal.
1. The Confederate States did not declare war on the United States. The United States invaded the Confederate States. After leaving the Union, the CS wanted to take back land in their states that they viewed as legally theirs. Lincoln refused to give up those forts as US property and withdraw US troops and that lead to the firing on Fort Sumter. The CSA did not initiate an offensive war against the US. Those States simply left the Union. That is very different from launching a war of aggression against the US trying to conquer the US. 2. The Atlantic slave trade has ended by early 19th century. Please note, Atlantic slave trade only comprised about 10% of all African slave trades. About 20% of the African slaves were sold to the Middle East to the Muslims. About 70% remained in Africa and the 10% were sold to Europeans and came to the Americas. And besides a few spots in the Americas, such as Haiti and Jamaica or few other islands, most of the slaves sold to America received a much better living and working condition than remaining in Africa or being sold to the Middle East. So the reality is that if Europeans did not buy these slaves, they would have remained slaves in Africa or sold to the Middle East and generally would suffer a worse fate than coming to the Americas. 3. Source of African slaves were through war between tribes, criminals, and those who offended their chieftains. Are they comparable to indentured servants of the West? Actually indentured servants suffered worse treatments than slaves in the colonies because slaves were expensive while indentured servants were cheaper to hire. 4. Did slaves do harder work than regular free man? Not by much. Before the 1860s, the net profit of slavery were about 12%, while investment in railroads gave a return of about 9%. What it means is that slave owners did not make enormous profit of the backs of slaves. They have to pay for their housing, food, clothing and other needs. So it means the slaves were not totally "ripped off" as we would have imagined it. The fruit of labor they lost is a little above the average profit about 10 to 11% during that era. 5. In the 1880s right after the War, the literacy rate among the black population in the US was about 20%, which is higher than Russia, China or many other countries at that time. Africa and India did not achieve 20% literacy rate until the 1950s. So not to justify slavery, but just to point out that the descendants of African slaves in the US, compared to their African relatives, enjoyed a much higher standards of living. And not just higher compare to the Africans, but higher than most of Eastern Europeans and most of Asians as well. So yes, slavery is evil, but it is a blessing in disguise for most of the slaves and their freed descendants.
@@gsmiro Your statement is why people say white supremacy is still alive. If you are a Christian, you should never be trying to say the conditions of slavery is better here than other places. The south wanted to keep slaves and that is key and it is evil of them. Don't explain that it was a blessing in disguise (it could well be) but you don't make that point as a Christian in the face of addressing whether southern slavery was wrong. The right answer should be slavery was wrong period.
There's a problem with his Doug's statement too. The slavery in the NT that Paul was addressing was very likely not the slavery of the Antebellum period. Pastor Mike Winger has a whole video on this issue. I'd recommend everyone watch.
Exodus 21:16 "And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death." John Brown understood the assignment.
Doug Wilson is erudite, smooth, and sounds noble, yet twisting the Bible to present American history as he sees it. Nothing wrong with thinking the best of America, just don’t twist scripture to do that. Doug conveniently obfuscates many different types of servitude by using the overarching term “slavery”, when referencing the Bible. The question is whether Paul and others condoned “chattel slavery” as practiced in the South. Onesimus runs away from his “slave master” Philemon, to one of Philemon’s close friends, Paul. Can you show me one instance in the south where a slave escaped from his/her plantation and sought refuge with their master’s close friend? Do you see how different the Paul-Onesimus-Philemon dynamic was compared to the South? Do you think Onesimus was a chattel slave? If so, then who are the “kidnappers” Paul mentions (1 Timothy 1:10)? Also see Exodus 21:16. If Onesimus was a chattel slave rather than an indentured servant, do you think Paul would have sent him back to his master? Or, befriended Philemon, and allowed him to be a church member? Remember, this is the same Paul who disfellowshipped a believer for sexual sin (1 Corinthians 5). But, he’d be okay with a kidnapper, or one who bought a slave from a kidnapper, in church? Read the Book of Philemon slowly and carefully. Slavery should have been abolished without armies? But it was okay, even godly, for the Founding Fathers to create armies and shed blood to fight against the “enslavement” of the crown? It not that I disagree with everything Doug says, it’s just the half truths and double standards being peddled. Reminds me of the serpent in the garden.
Woe to you, hypocrites! American chattel slavery was not biblical, simply because black people of Sub-Saharan African descent descended from Cush (Ethiopia), not Canaan (Genesis 9-10; Joshua 9). The land of Canaan in West Asia (Palestine, Lebanon, parts of western Jordan, and parts of western Syria) is not the land of Cush (Sub-Saharan Africa). People who sow chattel slavery, etc, will also reap chattel slavery, etc. (Galatians 6:7; Proverbs 22:8)
I’m not sure I understand what he meant when he discussed the difference between a neo-confederate and a paleo-confederate honestly. I follow things like the Sons of Confederate Veterans and other pro-south organizations that people like the SPLC have described as neo-confederate (which is really just them trying to smear whichever organization it is which has a different view of history than they do). The people in those groups tend to say exactly what he says in this clip (states’ rights, federalism etc.) Maybe I just don’t know what a neo-confederate is?
Sorta disingenuous to compare current debt issues ppl face, to someone being captured or born into chattel slavery. Not the same thing. Doug is dead wrong on this issue. Being a so called “paleo-confederate” means you are fighting to slavery. Go back and read the declarations of secessions, slavery was the penultimate right those guys were fighting for.
And continuing, "....We maintain that racism is a sin against God, and that it will be judged in the light of His holiness at the last day . . . God hates it and He always will . . . This means that regeneration, in the sense I am speaking of here, must include rejection of every form of racial hatred, animosity or vainglory" (Black & Tan, location 236ff)."
As soon as the question of slavery came up he takes this long-winded approach to answer. This guy gives such a load a bull about how slavery should have ended non-violently. 1) Are you forgetting that the slaved trade was ended so that slavery could slowly be phased out but the south had a different idea in mind. 2) Are they forgetting how the abolitionist argued for decades to end peacefully yet the south didn't do it that way? 3) Why is it that when it comes to slavery it should have been dealt with peacefully but it was the south who started the war. What about the American Revolution? Couldn't those things have been dealt with slavery? 4) Seems to me that when it comes to the freedom of white people, violence is the only answer. For everyone else they must do it peacefully.
The Confederates chose to break away, but this was after requesting to peacefully withdraw from the Union. Wilson argues that the Confederates had the right to leave the Union, and it was not right to violently keep them in the nation.
Doug is saying that slavery is evil. No argument there. The key distinction is that Christians don’t fight wars over social evils. Should we fight a war over abortion? Christians pray for our enemies and seek to change hearts. Not to impose our will on others. -also to note, many Protestant pastors such as John MacArthur are against the American revolution as well. Christians don’t fight wars, we submit and pray for our leaders.
@@mosesking2923 So in other words, it was the South who was at fault since they began the Civil War. They struck the first blow. The North for decades wanted to slowly and peacefully end slavery, the South didn't want that. Both sides were Christian but regardless they took up arms. Christians can claim being peaceful but history shows they do otherwise. They will find the verse that justifies violence.
@@thebottomline9250 if you’re saying that Christians are sinners who often fail to live up to the standards of the Bible....well duh. That’s what the Bible literally says.
No one in this discussion is advocating or defending "slavery" as forced subjection. The question here concerns the consequences of waging war in the context of American slavery. You're being asked to think carefully rather than proffer an emotional or fashionable response.
What should it be called when you violate the constitution and redefine "treason" in any way that suits you? Tyranny, and unconstitutional www.lewrockwell.com/2020/06/thomas-dilorenzo/which-side-committed-treason-in-the-civil-war/
I've thought about using all the reason and patience possible, knowing the history of this nation you're saying that a fee white lives being killed off to stop the enslavement of blacks was a "little over the top"?.....please tell me that's not what you're saying because it took a war to stop the demons enslaving others, yall want a pity party for those ppl who died but I choose to focus on the actual victims of American colonization and enslavement.....this isn't your narrative
@@chaboi7 ‘The demons,’ eh? But back in Africa, those black people in Kanem-Bornu enslaving black people at the tine of the Civil War and for decades afterward were not? They are protected by their race from your notice altogether in the matter of slavery? Is racialized slavery worse than non-racialized slavery?
Wilson is saying here that the south should have been given time and negotiated with to peacefully work to abolish slavery. I am a white Mississippian and you can't get more Southern than that, but I also know history which Mr.Wilson does not. Lincoln made it clear that if it would save the union he would allow slavery, but if abolishing slavery would save the union he would end it. There could have been reparations to buy back the slaves from their slavers. The south had been given no ultimatum. There was friction but there was no threat of force from the north. It was southern wealthy landed slavers who controlled southern governments that succeeded. So if there was a sin in not working slavery out peacefully it be my ancestor's heads.
Amen, Max. And after the South's deserved defeat - horribly bitter retribution upon freed blacks including the 1st KKK terrorism program, then Jim Crow discrimination of every kind imaginable, the resurgence of the KKK in the 1920's-30's, continuing discrimination thru WW2 until the Civil Rights act of 1964. After the surrender of 1865 a growing cover up of the reality of Southern atrociousness that continues to this day in the suppression of teaching slavery's history by every school board of every Southern state. It hides the truth AND gives every loyal son of the Olde South "plausible deniability". Well before Dick Nixon ever thought of the concept. Good to be a leader in something' I guess. The South had every opportunity to appeal and negotiate a planned gradual phase out of slavery over 10, 20, 30, ...years, in an honorable fashion but failed to make any offer at all. They backed themselves into the corner they wanted to be in. Bad call. If the North had occupied the defeated South for 50+ years as the the 3 powers (England, America, France) did to Germany, maybe they would have truly repented.Right now, Germany who used slave labor in WW2 has average auto workers at Audi, BMW, Volkswagen, Mercedes being payed $65 per hour PLUS national healthcare. And they still compete handily worldwide with American automakers who make less than half that with seniority and less than half of THAT half in "right to work" Southern states. How can Germany pay more to their auto workers and still compete with us when we make about 1/4 of their pay? They gave up their elitist belief that the few should reap all the profits from the labor of the many AND wrote that into their new post war constitution. German workers have rights. American workers have almost none. That same, good old Southern economic program lives on in our RED states today.
I didn't say he advocated that, I'm pointing out his incongruent dissapproval of abolitionist violence and his complacency with the violence committed under sslavery.
Wilson is addressing the complexity of southern slavery and upholding the idea that more than a war which resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of Americans, both black and white, the Gospel of Christ is the answer to the problem of racism and bigotry. i will remind everyone of Wilson's true sentiment toward this issue with a quote from his recent book Black and Tan, "All sin, if it is indeed sin, is sin against God. It is God's character and law which are offended by sin.
The only sin is White Supremacy...racism isn't this back and forth thing. It's white supremacist oppressing other groups by stripping them of rights and using violence against those who resist. You wouldn't say that the best way to stop bullying is to get both parties to have a truce, it would be to punish the bully. The one and only perpetrator.
@@WretchEph289 Show the history of black people stripping white people of rights. Why is it that when it comes to librty for white people you never hear "lets use non-violence"?
@@thebottomline9250 Read up on what's happened in South Africa in recent years. People are people. Racism isn't unique to any particular race or people group. Hate, including racism, has been with humanity since the Fall.
@@WretchEph289 According to the Christians who created racism, they said racism didn't "exist" in biblical times...but as far as South Africa, the people are obviously reacting to the deep history of colonization and apartheid. They want their land & freedom back from Europeans. Again, its not a back and forth thing. White people took what was not theirs and the people are taking it back.
The most important historical point to understand is that Abraham Lincoln did _not_ run for President in 1860 on a promise to forcefully abolish slavery. He only opposed expanding slavery to any further US state or territory. He believed that its "ultimate extinction" would be a good thing but did not have any policy to end it in the states where it existed. Nonetheless, as soon as he was elected the slave states rebelled and voted to leave the USA. This happened during the lame duck period before Lincoln was actually President. The slave states in the South rebelled _before_ Lincoln had taken office, and despite him having no campaign promise to try and end slavery. So it was the Southern states' determination to keep and expand slavery that started the Civil War; Lincoln did not make abolition a war aim until the war had continued for 2 years.
@@jasonharvey3747 in that speech, Lincoln says “you can have no war except you first be the aggressors.” The war began when Jeff Davis ordered the attack of Ft. Sumter.
Politics and political parties were highly regionalized at this time obviously. The Republicans' support was just about entirely in the North, in some Southern states Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot. His election made clear to anybody that the balance of political power between the North and South had ended in the North's favor, something the Southern states were concerned about since the founding of the Union. Either they could become subjects of the North, or they could try to leave and have control of their own politics.
@@Bane_questionmark if they were successful at leaving would they have been able control their own politics? I believe from how the south economy was built and it’s society was built. The answer is no. As to why? The confederacy only could muster just 17% of the entire United State’s manufacturing base prior to the war. Because of this it was reliant on imports and the exportation of cotton. And any disruption to it would have put it in a bad economic state and that would have happened as Britain and France were less reliant of Confederate cotton and moved to sourcing it from Egypt and India.
@10:17....did he say that all the slaves in the new testament were white?.....someone please find me the verse and scripture where it says that Europeans were slaves in the middle east, thanks in advance
Quite well thought out actually. The end of slavery was obviously a good thing but the way it was done has cost us dearly even beyond the immediate loss of life.
It’s not. His characterization of abolitionist is ahistorical. Claiming American abolitionist wanted a war and bloodshed is a generalization that he provided no evidence to substantiate. Please show me any historical documents from the pre-war period where abolitionist gathered and/or signed a document advocating to use bloodshed to end. John Brown by no means held ideas that were considered the norm. US ethnic conflicts today are not rooted in how slavery ended. Our problems are rooted in the reasoning, customs, laws, language, and practices of discrimination against and exploitation of enslaved Africans and their descendants during and after slavery. Simply ending legal slavery did not end the practices, customs, beliefs, Christian heresy, etc. The labor, legal, and economic practices post-slavery were as insidious as during slavery. It’s is the protracted legal and economic disputes over discrimination that has the US in a quagmire. And we are not alone you can find similar issues in Europe and other parts of the Americas.
You would not think that if you were a slave at the time or descendant of one now, you would think it well worth it. If you think differently ask yourself this question, would you fight a war now to stop yourself and those you love becoming slaves under Islamic state or some evil empire, ??? Yes you would and you know it
@@mkshffr4936 actually iover the years I e devoured every book and documentary I can find in it, I'd say I'm fairly informed but honestly it is a simple thing in the end, yes there is a cost and a bill to be be paid but that is the price of standing up to evil. I notice you avoided my question. Would you fight a war to avoid you and those you love even falling under slavery of the Islamic state for even one day ? You would and you know it. There would have been no civil war in the USA if the southern states did not own slaves and one can dice and slice things anyway one likes but that is the truth. No slavery , no war. The south was well informed by its own and other abolisionists that slavery must end but chose to ignore the warning shot and left no option., Like abortion, it's wrong , one baby matters and one more day in slavery matters. I'm guessing Doug's following is white evangelical because I can't see his appeal to black people if they knew his views here. It now seems to seems to me a very limited offering of Christianity that will only speak to a certain segment of the population in one country, not the Christianity of everyone.
@@adventureinallthings The lack of slavery would not have solved the underlying issues of power and political ideology. And no it is not my bent to sacrifice the good of my posterity for present goals even if those goals were good and Nobel. I really have no idea whether I would have fallen for the war rhetoric or not had I been living at that time. I did during the Bush dynasty so it is entirely possible.
1. "Abolitionist" doesn't equal revolutionary looking for bloodshed 2. The South chose violence themselves rather than moving away from slavery voluntarily 3. Paul's approach in the New Testament is not as easily applied to chattel slavery. Kidnapping men for slavery was against Torah. That form of slavery would never have even started if following the Bible. 4. The gradualist approach is usually favored by those not living day to day under the horrors of southern slavery.
Don Wilson 👊🏿 you have done something to my people you must pay somehow I'm going to get even with you may the Lord hand you to me for the government is upon God shoulders the grace of Frederick Douglass will help me overcome you
Lets address the 3 major points here: bloodshed, the federal oppression of state power, & the economic affect tied to the abolishment of slavery. Slavery would have ended peacefully in the U.S. but there were southern states/citizens who were willing to kill for slavery to continue. Thats ‘being honest with ourselves’. There was only a federal decision regarding slavery because southern states refused to evolve past what most human beings at that time could see was a clear human rights atrocity . Remember, the federal agenda reflected many American states & by ur own admission, what was happening all over the world. Human beings, their thinking, was evolving to understand why slavery was a human rights issue, just blatantly wrong. U cant keep a human rights offense to b decided state by state, it’s impossible to do this. If southern states were only concerned about the economic fall out while admitting the act of slavery was immoral, they could have advocated for federal subsidies to even the economic playing field between northern industrialized states & southern agricultural states. They did not. Instead they fought & killed fellow Americans with hopes to continue this immoral way of life.
I find these comments slightly worrying but perhaps i missed something, in my opinion I think that it possible to say slavery is bad and not biblical and end it there. Suggested better solutions are okay anything can be improved, but I would simply ask this would any one defending his point be happy to be forced in to slavery and wait peacefully as they are being raped and tortured? Finally I would like to add that biblical slavery is more akin to endured sevetude than chattel slavery. Perhaps I missed his point or read too much in to it but this worrying to me
Doug is saying that slavery is evil. No argument there. The key distinction is that Christians don’t fight wars over social evils. Should we fight a war over abortion? Christians pray for our enemies and seek to change hearts. Not to impose our will on others. Peace to you.
Pastor Doug is just an honest-to-goodness football player, he tackles, he carries, he pushes through, he's brought down, he gets up...I love my brother Doug, I'm not a Presbyterian, but I pray for the continuance of the Lord's ministry through Pastor Doug and his community.
He's right when he says the Confederates had a point about the Constitutional issues, and that the Constitution was fundamentally changed after the war. That's largely what complicated the social problem then and does so today. Therefore I think today we must use the Bible to resolve matters of both racial injustice and Constitutional damage.
Except u seem to avoid the fact that the federal agenda reflected many American states & by Wilson’s own admission what was happening peacefully all over the world. Once people’s thinking had evolved to see slavery as a human rights issue, it could not simply b ignored if a state preferred the practice. If each state had decided to end such practice, there would b no ‘state power verses federal power’ excuse used by apologists today. The bottom line is, these southern states were willing to kill fellow Americans to continue this blatantly immoral practice, putting profit over morality. If economic fall out was their only concern, these southern states could have advocated for a federal subsidy to even the economic playing field between industrialized northern states & agricultural southern states to phase out slavery, they did not. Instead, they attempted to leave our united republic. There is nothing moral about this demand to do so. The moral step would have been to put human beings above profit. The north certainly had a moral obligation to free those southern slaves even if it meant blood shed. Doug Wilson is attempting to claim that fighing over this was immoral & a decision made by northern states with the federal government, yet they were the group all in agreement to evolve their actions to match a moral mindset, that all men were created equal. There is no way to justify fighting against that when injecting morality into the conversation. As well, the Constitution is not a defense for those who were willing to continue a practice AFTER said practice has finally been exposed as being morally wrong.
You already know what he means, unless a real man speaks you're going to be confused to the point the coward is making....this guy is speaking with a forked tongue.
I don't hate Doug Wilson. I just cannot abide his version of Fire and Brimstone view of Theology. As far as being very accomplished one by comparison would say that Donald Trump was very accomplished. Do you see the problem here? Popularity or wealth does not Guarantee virtue. I haven't had a go at Doug for years. What i said i still stand by Micah.
He addressed it around the 8:45 mark quite clearly. It was never a good thing but the way it ended created incredible issues the country is still dealing with today.
Is it? The left will tell you that getting a mortgage to fulfill a requirement for shelter is a “right.” Therefore, lenders MUST loan to people of certain ethnic backgrounds regardless of creditworthiness. Why must it not be a voluntary decision for the lender, who risks ruin in a forced transaction?
Thankyou !!! I believe Mr Wilson is munch smarter than this. Chattel Based slavery and indentured servitude that most people would do during biblical times to relieve debt or access opportunity for economic gain from poor situation. America’s chattel based slavery should’ve been eradicated much faster and all slaves in the New Testament weren’t just white
@@jmcleanable Leviticus 25: 44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.”
I've been watching quite a lot of dougs videos recently having just discovered him but I have to say this was frankly a 'bananas' answer and VERY off the mark , Christian or otherwise. I'm very disappointed in it and have to say it's a reminder none of us are perfect and this is a case of finding out somebody you admired has feet of clay. It's surprising how blinkered even bright people can be when they are culturally close to an issue, I'm not in the habit of getting into writing essays on RUclips comments but I could counter every point he made here but I'll just counter two of them for the sake of standing over what I've written.. Firstly the enslavement of Africans was not stopped non violently around other parts of the world, the world power at the time the British empire used its navy to blast the slave ships off the high seas and they gunned down plenty of slavers such as the Madhi and his army in Sudan and elsewhere. The slaves of Hatia rose up against their slave owning French masters and government History is full of bloody slave rebellions , sone successful some not. They often rose up themselves and many had help. Second point , perhaps the enslavement of so many black people in the USA has left the bad legacy or race relations rather than the war fought to end it as Doug rather insanely posits .. DO YOU THINK DOUG !!! VERY DISAPPOINTED . It's a shameful view to hold as a Christian 😖
@@justanotherbaptistjew5659 obviously not but that is a straw man argument here. You didn't address either point I made above that makes nonsense if the points made by Doug. 1 ) slavery was not ended peacefully elsewhere 2) it was the 2 centuries of slavery in the USA that laid the groundwork for bad race relations not the war that ended it. Doug was using point points to undermine the justification for the war and both points are not true ? Thus is important is this argument because if it was slavery itself that is the prime mover reason for bad race relations and not the war that ended it and if slavery was not ended peacefully elsewhere then what is Doug left with.? It's ok to say you are against all war ( I'm not a pacifist myself ) but I doubt Doug was saying that. I think he is against this particular war which is a very different thing. I'd say Doug would be fine in justifying the allied bloodshed in WW2 without having to drop the gospels but for some reason he can't do the same with the civil war. I admire Doug and listen to many of his brilliant talks but as I said none of us are perfect and in this he shows his flawed humanity. He is a man of his place and time ( of his world ) yes (The world ) and his prejudice shows here . No black preacher that wasn't some kind of black Amish would say the same about the civil war. Doug has got this deep within his Baptist background with his mother's milk and just can't see it.
@@FirstThird Thanks, I put it up some time ago, I still watch Doug and like his stuff but I still think he is way off with this and I'd love to hear him answer me on it some day, his position on this is frankly below a man like him. It's a blind spot for him, we all have them 🤔
Good word. The racial element that is different between Greek/Roman slavery and Southern slavery is essential. The justice difference between Israelite slavery and Southern slavery is also essential. The Israelite slaves were made so judicially to pay off debts. Justice for those to whom money was owed. And a limited period of slavery. Southern slaves were stolen from their homes and treated unjustly for their whole lives. Those who stole them and those who owned them should have been stoned.
To be a confederate of any type -- neo or paleo -- is to be an advocate of slavery as the Confederacy was built on the cornerstone of slavery. Alexander Stephens (the Vice President of the CSA) and several secession statements by Southern states, said so explicitly.
Lincoln said that. Saving the union was more important than banning slavery. They must have been afraid that the addition of other free states would have tipped the balance toward the abolition of slavery. The irony is, their sedition legitimately caused them to be put under martial law because they committed treason and this laid the groundwork for the 13th and 14th amendments
Doug Wilson! "Slave" in the Bible is not the same as slavery in America! "Slave" an English word but the biblical word is more closer to indentured sereventhood!
@@thedon98677 The "slavery" that was acceptable was indentured servitude. When " slave" was spoke of in Bible rather indifferently and morally neutral it wasn't chattel slavery but indentured servitude and under the law of Moses had regulations. Obviously the pagan people's had no regulations or limits on their depravity and the Hebrews weren't entirely safe from their influence. In our translations of the biblical text the word " slave" is used for all and it's up to us to understand the context and customs of the people groups mentioned. There are many fine books that accompany the Bible that explain the customs and traditions of each people group and their history as detailed both from the biblical text and from antiquity. One should not read the biblical text casually and lazily.
Somehow, Wilson seems to be dodging the point as to the correctness of southern slavery. Was it a deep evil or a Scriptural entity that should be allowed? The fact that ALL slavery in the south was kidnap slavery (in the OT punishable by death) might say something about slavery being wrong. We won't mention that the laws of slavery in the OT were broken in all aspects by American slavery, but to hoots with Theonomy if it happens to affect us personally. The majority of the argument was simply that the North went about it all wrong. Except that the North didn't start the conflict; wasn't Fort Sumpter the confederates firing upon the union vessels, or did I mistake that as revisionist history. The US was the ONLY country that violently freed the slaves? Really!!!! Wasn't the slave rebellion in Haiti a little bloody? Didn't the North attempt for 70 years to give a graceful solution to slavery, even offering to pay the south for the slaves? Or, was that revisionist history? Wilson argues to the similarity with the abortion issue, and defends "state rights". If so, why isn't he content to allow states to decide on the issue? Perhaps, but then abortion really is something that affects the very meaning of personhood, i.e., the meaning of our constitution. The logical result of slavery on personhood (and the constitution) is no different for a black person vs an unborn baby. This is why the founding fathers were very uncomfortable with the slavery issue, but sadly made the union of the states of greater importance than that of freedom of all individuals. They know it was wrong, but incorporated the permission for slavery into the constitution regardless of that. Would slavery have ended within a few years? Any astute reader of history would see that the ability to own slaves exceeded any economic factors. So, no, it's not a fanciful world that would have gone the way we wished, just because we wished it. So far, Wilson's arguments fail in every regard. I'm sure he wants to make a good point but totally fails here.
Good write up, here. I honestly see no reason why he is/was so hung up on an issue that he or anyone else has no power to change. You can't change historical events and you will not change the masses based on a principled argument. No one gives a shit. We're Americans, just give us results.
America fought a war to free slaves on behest of the government; that's different than a slave rebellion. The United States and England were the first countries to end slavery on their own, without outside force. A rebellion isn't a government ending slavery, but a government being overthrown. Regardless, the type of slavery being practiced in the United States was always condemned by the Bible, and is probably why the Civil War was so bloody. I consider it God's judgement on the South for simultaneously preaching His Word and so deeply defiling it.
You don’t know what your talking about. You need to listen and not go with your emotions thinking. You should try to read the south was right we’re it dealt about the slavery problems and how many southern state we’re putting in it effect a way to end slavery before the war started. Do you know the North we’re the one who brought in slavery and Abe did not free any Northern slaves at all. He could done same thing northern state about slavery but he didn’t. The war of states was all about taxes the south and bring in big bank to put you debt.
that is a false narrative, pushed by "Roots" which the author herself said was a Myth she wanted to create for her people to believe in, the American's didn't kidnap anyone, because white men could not (and would not) go into Africa because they were terrified of malaria and they would die, it was the African's who kidnapped other African tribes (listen to Thomas Sowell's discussion on that) who were weaker and more vulnerable to attack and enslavement. so it is true that they were kidnapped, but not by American's specifically.
I love around the Amish, I don't see them preaching the gospel to anyone and I don't see anything but white ppl amongst them... they don't seem to care at all
I'm not Doug, but: I admire the Amish greatly. While I think they aren't entirely consistent in their positions--they've decided that they want no part of modernity, but they have decided to set in stone the modernity of their ancestors--at least it is more coherent than what most other modern Christian societies hold. On the other hand, I do not wish for every society to be like the Amish, as the Amish can only exist among a greater Christendom that protects them by being more willing to engage in the world than the Amish are.
Of course I did, but I simply that I don't accept your premises: There is no point in talking about moral consequences that arise from your particular God believe if you cannot show any evidence for the theory. I could claim that the world was created by a pink invisible dragon that likes when his creation speaks prayer A on sunny days but prayer B on rainy days. We can happily talk what happens if I wrongly use prayer B on a sunny day but it doesn't add to the validity of the pink dragon story.
So, IF he does exist, which Spalmer718 simply asserts and he is the creator of all things, which Spalmy asserts as well, then he overrides my moral judgement - maybe. Although maybe I should believe my Muslim neighbor or the Hindu take away guy, they assert different stories. However, the thinking person that I am and you could be doesn't just make shit up and doesn't jump from "if he does" to "he does", because there is null evidence for that God creature you just assert into existence.
With one thing I agree: Only the fool says there is no God. That's why I don't say that as an atheist, I don't claim that your God does not exists but I simply reject the claim that there is a God until there is sufficient evidence for it.
Three points here: #1 There is nothing in the US Constitution that allows any state to withdraw from the newly formed nation. Period! Once in, never out of the new nation. #2 This man distorts Paul's references to slavery as God's "answer to the "slavery problem". Baloney! Legalistic hair splitting of a hair so thin it doesn't deserve to be split. Paul's reference was his letter to believers whom he had promised that Jesus soon appearance was near. Obviously he (Paul) was very wrong about that. His admonition was not "God's Answer" to the "slavery problem", it was an expedient, loving answer to what in Paul's mind was an ugly, but short termed problem that would soon be resolved when Jesus returned soon in Glory and made all things New. Need I repeat - Jesus hasn't made it back yet. #3 American slavery was not so much about race as it was plain old GREED ! All slavery is at its root GREED. All through the Old Testament, God's prophets RAILED against the Kingdom of Israel AND the Priesthood (their church) when they ignored the poor, the widows, orphans, and had UNJUST scales, and failed to establish FAIR and IMPARTIAL JUSTICE. God abhors EVERY kind of injustice. Jesus plainly taught that the Love of money was the root of ALL Evil. Slavery was/is simply the incredible, prideful greed of those arrogant souls who believe that by force or trickery they deserve to reap the benefits of almost zero cost labor. How the great revivals across the South in the 1840's thru the 1850's produced such a bountiful bunch of lackluster of converts, {between 1/2 to 3/4 MILLION!}, who after conversion, still chose to kill or be killed rather than repent of the purely greedy evil of slavery is a mystery to me, a former RACIST who used to listen to sinfully evasive crap like this. I really want to know how "genuinely saved" souls chose to split their churches, split their families, choose to kill other believers and even to die themselves for the right to own another human being FOR PROFIT! HOW! Something must have been very lacking in their revivals and bible classes and their own sincerity. How many Southern souls died thinking God was on their side only to find the torments of Hell awaiting them? Too harsh you say? The Fiercest of all the "Fire and Brimstone Preachers" of that day were the Southern ones. The shame that should've given pause for sincere repentance is still being obscured, hidden,and resisted to this day. Doug's brilliance at wrongly dividing the word of truth is remarkable. Stunning. Terrible. Unworhty of his "devotion" to truth. Wake up - Repent. Please.
Generally all life on this planet feel pain and lost.Slavery in America was a crime against humanity,an atrocity.You don't curse, rape, hang, beat, shackle,your employees,do you?! Slavery in America was a sick,sick time in America's history. This country gave the psychopaths the go ahead to destroy a people.They were treated worse than animals,they were frail, sacred human beings,snatched,dragged,kidnapped,no negotiations in fair trade,just utter brutality,Texas chain saw massacre style.
Don't know where you learned about the nature of Southern slavery, but you are an ignoramus. The vast majority of ex-slaves interviewed in the 1930's testified that they were well treated and/or expressed fondness for their former masters.
Imagine if he said I am not a Neo Nazi but a Paleo Nazi. Would there be a real difference? Slavery ended in Europe because it was no longer economic. The abolitionists gave it its final push over the edge. In the Southern states it was the basis of their whole economy and supported their whole social structure and would not end without coersion. This 'pastor' seems to think that slavery could have ended peacefully, maybe he is right. It may have ended by about 2005.
Yes, there is a real difference in confederates and Nazis. I can expound on that thought if you'd like. As far as slavery ending in 2005, I don't think that's a realistic thought. The South's economy was export based. Political pressure for compensated emancipation (as practiced in Europe) likely would have made continuing slavery too costly.
Without violence (i.e the Civil War), slavery would not have ended in America. Wilson's failure to understand that shows he knows little about American history, slavery or Southern culture and apparently totally lacks empathy for his African-American brothers and sisters.
Tyler January most likely true...especially considering about 1/3 of the Roman Empire consisted of slaves...the word Slave itself comes from the word “Slav”
I rejoice to hear believers talking about things that matter. 2 things I'd just like to add or suggest to an excellent response. You really should start by addressing the start, man stealing. No way around it, Bible speaks clear. People respect when you say it clear right up front. Last, I believe it's the Ecclesia's(Church) job to communicate truth. 80% of america was in church on Sundays. The church should have been United, and Loudly communicating. One Bible, One Issue, One Spirit, One explanation. It was tough and complicated, I'm very gratefuI I didn't live in those times.
The Bible speaks clear? So all that passionate abolitionist-antiabolitionist debate for decades was what, because people were dimwits? The Devil darkened their intellects? Quite sure of yourself.
@@ZephaniahL uhhhhh, yaaaa, do you need the scripture(s) that strictly and clearly define and forbid "man-stealing"......? There was plenty there to knit pick.........but believe it or not, the fact that some politicians debated about it for a season is unimportant to my point. Like I said, yes, it was a tough complicated issue in that day. But that's because the SIN was tolerated and encouraged for a long long time. It takes tough conversations and plans to untie that knot
@@alberthayes1695 So that's the way the development of theology over time works, does it? People go for centuries without seeing the obvious truths about where sin lies that Albert Hayes discerned, then they have "tough conversations," and come to realize what is now beyond dispute? This is not a good way to teach upcoming generations the history of ideas.
@@ZephaniahL ah, I see, we are speaking about 2 different matters now. I do see you point, I do. But my original point was, the conversation hes trying to have should Start with Gods truth in His Word which forbids man stealing. Then work out how complicated it got from there. AMD it did, I dont ignorantly condemn any and all slave owners, But ya gotta start at the Bible, not something a man said. You do think Theology is simply an attempt to get as close to Gods Word as possible right? 'Be ye Holy as I am Holy'. I want that man to be heard, but I'm just a simple carpenter with a simple suggestion. Start at the Author of Faith's direction. But yes, iron sharpens iron, but Gods Word ain't changing, no matter how much one tries to 'develop' a theology by talking to a lot of people. John 1:1 fellow
The kidnapping/capturing aspect was actually performed by Africans (they were mostly captives of war or criminals), who then sold these captured people to slave traders, in the Atlantic mostly Spaniards, Portuguese, and Jews, who then brought them to the Americas, a minority of which came to the United States. I'm not defending any of this, I'm just unclear if the violation of the OT slavery laws would fall on the original capturers in Africa, the traders, the buyers in the New World, or all of them. And of course many of the slaves Paul was preaching to may have been enslaved this way (or their family was enslaved this way in the past). The Romans enslaved from conquered peoples, and captured slaves were shipped in from abroad and sold in Roman markets. Many slaves were also like what in a more modern context are called indentured servants (and this is the only lawful way an Israelite could own another Israelite), but many were not.
"...thinking person that I am..." Hardly. That was deflection and obfuscation and you did nothing to address what I said. I asserted nothing (and made no "jumps") of what I believe regarding God's actually existence, only the consequences of such a theoretical existence and its bearing on your philosophically bankrupt understanding of morality. I think you just like to hear yourself talk and don't much care what you have to say. I'll join you in the latter. Carry on with your dance.
Robert W. Fogel, who won his Nobel Prize for his work on the economics of slavery, understood that even in the best of cases, slavery was inherently evil as it deprived people of freedom. Had not the Civil War broken out when it did, the South would have continued to grow at twice the rate of the North; southerners would have developed the industrialization of slavery they were already starting, and would likely have won a later Civil War and would have protected and spread slavery.
@10:17....did he say that all the slaves in the new testament were white?.....someone please find me the verse and scripture where it says that Europeans were slaves in the middle east, thanks in advance
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome#Demography though it might be a misstep to say "all", certainly a meaningful portion would have been from britannia, if not other places with a white populace.
@John Cameron Why would you to contend that the bottles are all of nonalcoholic brands? They appear to be beer or Ale bottles. At least that’s the impression the uninitiated would draw from it. What’s Doug’s purpose in displaying these in a prominent place? “Abstain from all appearance of evil.” 1 Thessalonians 5:22 KJV Whether you consider all casual alcoholic consumption to be sinful or not, it’s very common for beer drinking to eventuate in drunkenness, which is evil. Those who teach abstinence as a Christian mandate, “weak” if you will, may be lead into sin by the open promotion of drinking by a leading Christian. Scripture is clear about this display.
What would have happened if the Confederacy had won? Would the South had imposed some “reconstruction” on the Union? Would they have even remained in the union, now that their problem had found a resolution? Would that reconstruction have imposed slavery nationwide? No. The South would have simply departed as they originally wanted. And slavery would have sooner than later come to an end.
Your fucking deluded, they were willingly to wage war to uphold slavery, you treasonous conservatives always pretend the reason why the civil war happened was about state rights or some other nonsense, it was about slavery ,and I can assure had they won, slavery would’ve increased ten fold.
@@nicholasjoost5111 no it’s not but don’t conveniently change the facts, they wanted to leave in order to maintain the institution of slavery, and in order to accomplish that goal they had to declare war on the USA which is the definition of treason and you conservatives honour these people and their flag.
@@keithwilson6060 we are union comprised of various states, I understood the point you were making, if people in a particular state decided to leave the USA, but I was correcting your hypothetical scenario with the actual context of the confederacy.
The South was not going to end slavery anytime soon. This is why they broke away from the Union. They fired the first shots at Ft. Sumpt. And it was on. As Abraham Lincoln stated, for every drop shed with the lash God extracted two with the sword. The Civil War was God's judgment upon the USA for the south practicing it, and the north being willing to live with it. Then again, God delivered Israel from Egyptian bondage/slavery with much blood shed.
+LLoyd David It depends what type of slavery one is referring to. If it is forced slavery, as the slavery that the blacks superimposed on their own blacks, then sold to the Arabs, then sold to the New England ships, then yes. If it is contractual slavery, in which one uses his own volition to turn himself into slavery due to certain conditions, then it is ok. Contractual slavery is the slavery accepted in Bible.
+turi73 There was not contractural form of slavery in the ante-bellum south. The Civil War was not fought over the right for person to voluntarily contract themselves as a slave for seven years as we read in the Old Testament text. The "peculiar institution in the southern United States was slavery forced upon people from the ivory coast aka west Africa.
+turi73 You are correct that there were African tribes who sold other Africans into slavery. These Africans who practiced this were just as evil as the Arabs, Jews, and the Europeans who contributed to the atrocity perpetuated in the pre 1865 United States. But, it must be clearly stated that it was the Caucasians of the New World who were thirsty for slave labor to run the tobacco, cotton, and rice plantations in the Southern States of America. "For every drop of blood drawn with the lash God extracted two with the sword,"and the two equaled to approximately 600,000 dead soldiers from the Union and the Confederacy.
Don't forget that the North (and all Europe since the 1600's) were heavily engaged in the slave trade. In 1772, the Virginia House of Burgesses petitioned King George to stop the slave trade, and in 1778 the Virginia legislature stopped the importation of slaves. They did not free the slaves already there, but they recognized that slavery was a danger. Many Virginia slave owners by mid-century began to free their slaves in their wills, if not before. Slavery is not the fault of the South - it is something which tars ALL of American history. It is one of the greatest sins that Christians have been blind to. Abortion is it modern equivalent.
It is true that slavery was not the fault of the South alone, but it is also true that the South was the primary reason it continued well into the 19th century.
Hmmmmmmmm.....as a black Christian not gonna lie....his response style makes me feel I can't really call him my brother .....?!??? When Egypt enslaved the Hebrews they cried out to God for the harshness of oppression, God heard their cry and delivered them and not so gently from Pharoah and egypt.....likewise the southern black slaves were oppressed harshly and murdered and tortured.......soooooooo not blind to the facts, but feels odd how he chose to respond...but respect his honesty;)so calm urself u nationalist reading this:)
Yup! John brown and nat turner are the closest thing to a hero that America had ever seen, all the others America idolizes are usually ppl who killed innocent ppl and raped men, women and children
I'm so happy he mentioned debt slavery. That's the form of slavery found in the majority of history and in the Bible especially. I wish though he would mention the real reason for the violence that was the Civil War which was tariffs. The North was ripping off the South with very high tariffs and hiding behind the shield of anti-slavery identity politics. Slavery clearly had to go, but if the North hadn't backed the South into a corner (some of the main actors being SJWs like Thaddeus Thomas) they could've easily ended slavery without a bloody conflict.
I don't see how "hypocrite" applies, as he at least had the courage to say (and write) what he thought of the subject, as wrong (and stupid) as it is. The Bible is God's holy, inspired and perfect Word. You have no grounds to call it "immoral" other than your self-made (and likely self-serving) opinions. Wilson's view of Southern slavery is naive and, at the very least, insensitive. He actually held up the old-south as a harmonious society. For that he should repent.
Not well thought out at all. He equates NT slavery (which was not based on kid-napping and race and was not perpetual) with Southern slavery which was all those things. He's ignorant of slavery, history, and Southern culture.
Doug, slavery in Biblical times was different from American slavery. The advise to "work harder" for a Christian master doesn't work when you consider that slaves in Biblical times were either war captives or volunteered for temporary slavery to pay their debt. It also doesn't make sense considering that slaves were to be forgiven their debt in OT law after 7 years. Frederick Douglass wrote that his masters who were professed believers were the cruelest masters. Would u say he shouldnt have run?
Actually this statement is only partially true as slavery in "Biblical times" was incredibly diverse since your are talking about a period that spans from the late bronze age till the Roman Principate. Everything from race based slavery to indentured servitude existed across the Ancient Near East. Furthermore the Bible in both the New and Old Testament asume that slavery is normal economic and social practice. However the Bible does give clearly state that slaves are human beings and brothers in Christ. Which is an important difference.
@@j.p.4910 No. it doesn’t. The LITERAL word for slavery in scripture literally means bond servant. You’re reaching. Not the same, no matter how much you cut it.
Doug Wilson has always been a fool as far as I am concerned; but to argue that slavery is justifiable on the basis of a few biblical verses. Wilson says as much in his book. But the bible, when read correctly, is the anti-slavery text par excellence! The whole narrative sweep is about God leading his people from the slavery of death and sin to life and resurrection. If that narrative is not more generally applied to socio-political realities then we have lost our way.
bayreuth79 Doesn't seem like he's saying that here, at least. I haven't read the book, so if you could link me to a passage where he says as much, I'd appreciate it. As I understand what he's saying here, though, he's simply making the point that slavery as an institution existed in the early church of Greco-Roman times, and that Paul's teaching was meant to subvert and transform the institution, never to condone its manifest ethical evil. If Wilson, in his book, somehow sees Paul's teachings as justifying slavery, then he was clearly missing the point 16 years ago.
"And nothing is clearer - the New Testament opposes anything like the abolitionism of our country prior to the War Between the States. The New Testament contains many instructions for Christian slave owners, and requires a respectful submissive demeanor for Christian slaves." (Doug Wilson, Southern Slavery as it was). At the very least Wilson is saying that slaves should be submissive to their owners and that this is ordained by holy-writ. Well, I'm sorry, but I think that is absurd. The oppressed have a right to resist their oppression. If there had not been a civil war, if there had not been an antagonistic civil rights movement, black people in the US would still be held in chains (so to speak). Doug Wilson is a bloody fool.
+bayreuth79 I'm not sure what you're saying re southern slavery and the Bible. Are you advocating for a violent uprising?I ask because there arent any biblical examples of that. You cant actually argue for the opposite.
The Exodus narrative of the OT is the anti-slavery text par excellence. That was an uprising against the dominion of the Egyptian Pharaoh. It ended in the violent deaths of the Egyptian warriors. The OT prophets are frequently to be found condemning injustice in quite violent terms. People like yourself seem to think that we are obliged to submit to the status quo; and I say that is absurd.
He advocates slavery nowhere. Quite to the contrary actually, "...Slavery ended, and good riddance, in the Western World..." Or did you just conveniently forget that part of his answer?
So you still need to tell me how you get from the "ought" to the "is". Moreover you have to tell me why I need to throw morality overboard if your God doesn't exist, because you haven't shown that morality is something that can only be given to me by a God creature. I would even question that the God as he is portrayed in the Bible is a moral being and if you want to adopt your God's moral standards then you need to be ready to defend them: slavery, genocide and all the others. Are you?
I really don't know what atheist you're trying to convince with your Bible. Your book is not worth more than Harry Potter in my eyes, no matter how much you like it to be true.
Wilson's equating of so-called "debt slavery" to actual slavery (i.e. the owning of one human being by another as property) is nothing more than a pathetic apologetic ploy. Shame on you, Dougie Boy. You can't hide from what you wrote back when no one was looking. Your little pamphlet extolled the virtures of the Old South social order. The stupid (and bigoted), it hurts...
@@landanstones1722 The Boogaloo is slang for another American Revolution. Not to do away with the government, but to put government back into its proper, constitutional order. As Jefferson said, the tree of liberty must be watered occasionally by the blood of patriots and tyrants. The difference between those of us in the Boogaloo movement and the more traditional, mainstream militias is that we are 0 compromise, we don't care, in general, about political party, we come from a wide and diverse range of backgrounds, we are generally on the (very broad) Libertarian spectrum, and the one thing that completely unites us is our shared dedication to the 2A.
@@caedmonnoeske3931 I’ve gathered over the years through experience that Libertarianism tends to slope towards anarchy, not recognizing the importance of government. Lacking the appreciation of a proper government affording the protection of law and common defense of each sovereign state, my Libertarian friends disregard the notion of states rights in favor of central government when it benefits individual freedom. That catch 22 that does so much more harm to individual freedom in the long run, which is to take a dump on states rights in favor of the centralization of powers begs the question, “why care about the 2nd Amendment of a document when anarchy is the ultimate goal?”
I’m Obviously not Doug Wilson, but I think the answer to that lies in that the American ‘Revolution’ was not a revolution in the sense of the French Revolution. It was more of a reformation in which the English American colonists were fighting for the rule of law to be upheld. They fought because their leaders were not following the law. Hence they fought against an external Tyranny so they could maintain the system of government established in the colonies, not overthrow it.
@@BroJ3221 slavery isnt inherently wrong. There is nothing immoral in me deciding to sell myself to another person if I so wanted to. What is wrong is slavetrading and not treating your slave as you would treat yourself
@@BroJ3221 what I'm saying is that if someone wants to sell themselves into slavery for whatever reason and another person accepts, that's not an immoral action. What is wrong is kidnapping African people and bringing them to the US to sell them into slavery against their will. What is also wrong is preventing the slaves from running away from abusive slaveowners. What is also wrong is treating them poorly and beating them for no good reason
@@apracity7672 Ok, I agree with all the points you made. So what was your purpose for your original comment? Just stating that technically by definition it’s not morally wrong or were you trying to make another point?
I think the biggest problem is that Doug Wilson makes an argument from looking at indentured slaves and being slaves to Banks and things of that sort. Also I believe that may be Doug has fought racism which is just my opinion and maybe in Christ he has won that battle but some of the habits of the flesh say things sometimes that defend what should not be defended. It was not one person seeking vengeance but it was a war. Not sure if it was done wrong or right but I agree that some things we're good about the Confederate stance. But the Jews in Auschwitz we're fed and closed and Planned Parenthood gives examinations that are good but they have something in common with Southern slavery. They were not considered people and when you're not considered people then what argument do you have but to fight for Your Life. It was already a war because he spoke of 600,000 killed. How many were murdered before that that were black and not considered people? Some thrown off of the boat chained together to make the boat lighter even on the way to America and hung at will for trying to escape. The Bible said that if a slave runs away to not return him. That was a different kind of slave Doug was speaking of and as I said he equivocates often in this video but I love him dearly and hope he rethink some of what he says. This will not stop me from hearing his views on the gospel and being on one Accord with God's word but I probably shouldn't have listened to him speak about this LOL. And by the way I don't believe a big part of the war had to do with slavery. God bless
He said clearly "good riddance" to slavery. What do you think he's defending? Do you know how many blacks died in the war and as a result of sickness and starvation afterward? The war didn't save black lives, it was a catastrophe. Slavery would've ended anyway, as it did elsewhere.
@@briancooper2833 Still two completely different things in function and culturally from antebellum south. “Man stealing” is EXPLICITLY spoken against in scripture.
Happened to rewatch this to check for additional comments and Doug's comments about "Wage Slavery" caught my ire. Doesn't he see that the modern day wage slavery he's talking about has its deepest existence in the South? What a coincidence that the area of our country that was so addicted to low(no) wage slave labor that they rebelled from the Union for it, are the primary "Right to Work" non-union states. God forbid an average worker in the south should have a union card and take home a living wage with decent benefits. It might upset the "Fine" folks who deserve to have more than the lowborns. Low wage, low tax, low education, a few very wealthy living off the low people. Still the same damnable Southern sin justifying mindset.
I didn't find his comments to be pro-slavery. He was advocating non-violent approach to solving a social problem. Why are people so angry? I think a lot of people are so full of hate, they aren't even stopping to see who they are hating and why.
The problem is that the non-violent approach only ever applies to the freedom of black people. White people are allowed to use whatever violence and be justified for it. Heck, the south celebrates the confederacy for wanting to rebel against the US and maintain slavery.
If there weren’t violence, people would still be chattel. Lincoln initially didn’t even want to eliminate slavery throughout the country, rather preserve the Union
I think it’s the term Paleo-confederate. Personally after hearing him; I get what he’s saying. But I personally wouldn’t use the term in order to get across what he is saying. There are people who just won’t get it when and if I label myself as suchz
@@Chegui123-k8m The term makes no difference to me. He is saying that we'd have a better relationship on race if there was no war and black people waited until the south was done using us up. Maybe the colonies should have waited instead of having the Revolutionary War but oh wait, even after the revolution and War of 1812 the US manages to have a great relationship with England.
@@darwin6883 HELLO 🚹 +🚻🕎🖖🏼🥷🏿🤜🏾🤛🏼🥷🏼🇺🇲 I'm General David Hunter " Black Dave Your" That's A Stereotype , And Lie From The Father of Lies ,Doug Wilson 🫵🏼 Your A Edomites Babylonian Wolf OF A Small Tower of Pharaoh , For we are all god's children For Greater As he , That's In The Eagles And The Donkeys Than Apollyon That's In The CANE Family Saith The Lord Your God , Do not be conform into the customs of this Culture But Be Transform Into The Renewing of Of One-Cry From Above Saith The Lord ,
THE The watch tower Is Not of Mount Zion , It Is Anti-Mount Zion.
"Slavery ended in the West, and good riddance. This is the important part."
Most people commenting are too ideologically blinded to understand Wilsons point.
You get it. Thanks for the listen!
@10:17....did he say that all the slaves in the new testament were white?.....someone please find me the verse and scripture where it says that Europeans were slaves in the middle east, thanks in advance
@@chaboi7 he’s not talking about Europeans, he’s talking about Greco-romans.
7:30 "peaceably in the West" -- not in Haiti.
@James G Howard Zinn is an absolute socialist. No good!
1) I think it is very reasonable to believe that slavery in the South would have ended on its own without a war.
2) The beginning of the expansion of federal/centralized oppression began with Lincoln. Fast forward 150 years. We are now paying for abortions, forced to buy health insurance, and must be immunized to continue employment even if we have natural immunity.
3) No state would ever have joined the union if they thought they would be forced to stay in the union under all circumstances. That’s like saying the colonies had no right to independence. You cannot say one is acceptable and the other is not and be consistent.
The abolitionists were on the move, the fact the CSA was another country was an obstacle, but so was everything to the Christian abolition movement. Slavery was still in the North post war. Lincoln did not go to war because of slavery, but the south did leave mostly because of this.
"federalized oppresion" as you would call it is the only way a state can operate. A strong central government is needed for a strong country. State's rights is a stupid concept. If you're part of the country, you should follow its laws.
How many generations of slaves would have to wait to be freed? More than 1 would be unbearable.
@commentatorgunk - your first point is utterly false. Slavery was never more profitable than in the late 1850s and it was continuing to grow, as the price of slaves shows. The Southern states' declaration of secession, the CSA Constitution, and the commissioners to other slave states to convince them to secede all prove how vital slavery was to the South. On that last point, check out the book Apostles of Disunion. These commissioners said things like:
“[Mississippi] had rather see the last of her race, men, women, and children, immolated in one common funeral pile [pyre], than see them subjected to the degradation of civil, political and social equality with the negro race.”
“Within this government two societies have become developed.” One which was one race, based on free labor, had 2 great relations (husband/wife; parent/child), and the principle of equality as the right of man; the other which was 2 races, based on slave labor, had 3 great relations (husband/wife, parent/child, and master/slave), and the principle that equality is not the right of man but of equals only. “There is and must be an irrepressible conflict between them...”
Yankees were committed to “a holy crusade for our benefit in seeking destruction of that institution [i.e., slavery] which...lies at the very foundation of our social and political fabric.” The South’s only hope was in “placing our institutions beyond the reach of further hostility.”
The South wasn't giving up slavery without a bloody fight.
@@leahunverferth8247 You can give all the points you think are pertinent. It would have ended in the South on it’s on just like it did every other place in the Americas WITHOUT WAR and without the establishment of the oppressive federal government. It ended in the North without war. It ended in the Caribbean where it was very profitable without war. It ended in Brazil without war where it was profitable. Those are the facts. The South would have done the same. The North did not invade the South to free the slaves. It was to save the federal government, not even the Union.
(9:29) _this was a screaming social, religious, ethical problem which cannot be solved by armies_
The Abolitionist; the one who wants blood shed. You mean like the blood shed from over 200 years of shipping people like cargo through the middle passage?
Not all abolitionists were like John Brown.
There is such thing as a just war. Sometimes blood has to be shed for a greater cause, such as the defense of the innocent (abolition of slavery).
Southern slavery? What about Northern slavery? People act like only the South had slaves. All 13 original states had slaves. Some eventually got rid of slavery and SOLD their slaves to the South, but at the time of the Civil War, there were five slave states fighting for the Union. Grant was also the last slave owner to be president. Wilson asks if there were white slaves in the South. I don’t know but there were in the North - the Irish. There were also black slave owners as well as Native American slave owners. Slavery was wrong and evil, but it was not just white Southerners who owned slaves.
And 100% of all slaving ships were from the North. There wasn’t a single Southern slaving ship.
The Bible is right, period. It doesn’t matter how you “feel.” Either all of it’s true, or none of it’s true. So, well said Doug. 👍🏾
So if any part of it is false we should reject it? But if its all true, including the parts about slavery being supported we should then follow the bible?
@@thebottomline9250 Yes. But caution: the issue for the person judging its truth is: what are you using to determine it’s false? It’s quite risky. I make the comment with the unwavering confidence that is all truth, at its core. And that finding anything false in it, would be something like….me saying I am from Williamsburg, Virginia, but someone else saying that that’s not true. Don’t you live in Arlington, Virginia now? That may be a sub par analogy but I just woke up and I need to go study for the bar exam next week 🥹. Appreciate the comment 😇.
@@indialeestarks3935 First. Good luck on your exam. Second if we don't have a "standard" to determine something as false then how can we determine it as true. In other words, what is the standard used to determine the truthfulness of the word?
📳India Lee Starks • 1y Ago ( Edited)
👎🏿 the laws of nature will not be overcome by 👹🚻 👩🏿💼 evil 💒 but the laws of nature will overcome evil with the ⚖ of 🐑
@@thebottomline9250
📳India Lee Starks • 1y Ago ( Edited)
👎🏿 the laws of nature will not be overcome by 👹🚻 👩🏿💼 evil 💒 but the laws of nature will overcome evil with the ⚖ of 🐑
The Civil War was not started to end slavery. By the end of the war that became a principal war aim of the Union (I tend to avoid saying "North" since four slave-holding "border" aka Southern states stated in the Union). It was started when the militia in Charleston fired on U.S. soldiers after South Carolina seceded to defend slavery from a largely hypothetical threat to the institution. (In my reading it seems the Union taking their slaves wasn't an imminent threat because Congress would have blocked it.) Even when Lincoln signaled he would end slavery in the Emancipation Proclamation, he only ended it in the rebelling states (not in the Union states that still allowed slavery or in any Confederate territory captured and under federal control).
I also think, if say slavery would have ended by 1890 on its own (which is not clear, it was more profitable than ever by 1860 in many states-more profitable by a long way in Mississippi and Alabama-but, for the sake of argument we'll say 1890), how many people are allowed to be enslaved and tortured and killed and raped in order to avoid harm to the whites? I am not sure how you ethically make the tradeoff of letting 4 million black slaves suffer under the hands of whites...to avoid the whites coming to harm. I am not sure if you that tradeoff how you can look those blacks in the eyes and tell them their lives are of equal value to the white. To be sure, 360,000 Union whites were also harmed in the war and that is another ethically difficult tradeoff...as they were mostly from non-slave-owning families, but that compared to leaving 4 million or more people in savage bondage for at least another decade and very likely more.
The civil war was started by the south to preserve, protect and expand slavery. The north fought to suppress a rebellion.
@@GentlemanJack295 Well and succinctly put.
@@GentlemanJack295vast oversimplification and not supported by scholars of the 1800s U.S.
@@arcanum3882 Pretty much the truth. The South caused the Civil War
@@GentlemanJack295 This was 3 years ago you made this comment, but I wanted to chime in and say it is absolutely spot on and well said.
It's astonishing how often I see thoughts rooted in reason hated upon, and those rooted in a taste for absolute overthrow are praised. Human nature is not something to toy with.
"Slavery ended in the western world everywhere else peaceably." That is actually false. Haitian slaves had to kill their French oppressors. Perhaps the pastor would do well to mention the Haitian slave revolts. Another problem with his statements is that it was the South (the "slave states") that declared war on the US constitutional government, not the abolitionists. These are two of the points where I think he's wrong. I honestly believe the pastor is well-meaning, but wrong.
For goodness sake! How can you compare people who get into (more or less) voluntary financial debt to people who were kidnapped, separated from their families, in many cases beaten, forced into a ship like sardines, travel for weeks or months under the worst condition, being sold and forced to do back-breaking work for no pay? Are these even comparable at all? Pastor, you ought to pray and read more about this before you give such opinions.
Thank you, finally someone that understands. I love Doug but the problem is he talks of America solving according to Paul like America is the church. The question was whether he supported southern slavery, instead of answering that he offers the best way for slavery to end. We know the best way already, it happened in England and other places. The problem in America were the Southerners and he stops short of rebuking the mind set of the Southerners which led to the war rather he rebukes the method to end slavery. Southern slavery was wrong PERIOD. However it ended it ended. Violence is never the best but I will take the violence of ending slavery than one more day of violence and torture not to talk of lack of self determination committed against the slaves. By the way, slaves in Paul's Bible days were actually servants (so like a maid) not the human atrocity called Southern slavery.
Hold on, the South did not declare war on the North, it was the other way around. What are you referring to?
@@bradenpowell3824 No. Four months before Fort Sumter the South was already taking the war in to their own hands such January 4, 1861 the governor ordered the state's militia seized a federal arsenal.
1. The Confederate States did not declare war on the United States. The United States invaded the Confederate States. After leaving the Union, the CS wanted to take back land in their states that they viewed as legally theirs. Lincoln refused to give up those forts as US property and withdraw US troops and that lead to the firing on Fort Sumter. The CSA did not initiate an offensive war against the US. Those States simply left the Union. That is very different from launching a war of aggression against the US trying to conquer the US.
2. The Atlantic slave trade has ended by early 19th century. Please note, Atlantic slave trade only comprised about 10% of all African slave trades. About 20% of the African slaves were sold to the Middle East to the Muslims. About 70% remained in Africa and the 10% were sold to Europeans and came to the Americas. And besides a few spots in the Americas, such as Haiti and Jamaica or few other islands, most of the slaves sold to America received a much better living and working condition than remaining in Africa or being sold to the Middle East. So the reality is that if Europeans did not buy these slaves, they would have remained slaves in Africa or sold to the Middle East and generally would suffer a worse fate than coming to the Americas.
3. Source of African slaves were through war between tribes, criminals, and those who offended their chieftains. Are they comparable to indentured servants of the West? Actually indentured servants suffered worse treatments than slaves in the colonies because slaves were expensive while indentured servants were cheaper to hire.
4. Did slaves do harder work than regular free man? Not by much. Before the 1860s, the net profit of slavery were about 12%, while investment in railroads gave a return of about 9%. What it means is that slave owners did not make enormous profit of the backs of slaves. They have to pay for their housing, food, clothing and other needs. So it means the slaves were not totally "ripped off" as we would have imagined it. The fruit of labor they lost is a little above the average profit about 10 to 11% during that era.
5. In the 1880s right after the War, the literacy rate among the black population in the US was about 20%, which is higher than Russia, China or many other countries at that time. Africa and India did not achieve 20% literacy rate until the 1950s. So not to justify slavery, but just to point out that the descendants of African slaves in the US, compared to their African relatives, enjoyed a much higher standards of living. And not just higher compare to the Africans, but higher than most of Eastern Europeans and most of Asians as well.
So yes, slavery is evil, but it is a blessing in disguise for most of the slaves and their freed descendants.
@@gsmiro Your statement is why people say white supremacy is still alive. If you are a Christian, you should never be trying to say the conditions of slavery is better here than other places. The south wanted to keep slaves and that is key and it is evil of them. Don't explain that it was a blessing in disguise (it could well be) but you don't make that point as a Christian in the face of addressing whether southern slavery was wrong. The right answer should be slavery was wrong period.
Was Dietrich Bonhoffer right or wrong to attempt Adolph Hitler's asassination?
Tough question
There's a problem with his Doug's statement too. The slavery in the NT that Paul was addressing was very likely not the slavery of the Antebellum period. Pastor Mike Winger has a whole video on this issue. I'd recommend everyone watch.
Exodus 21:16 "And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death."
John Brown understood the assignment.
Doug Wilson is erudite, smooth, and sounds noble, yet twisting the Bible to present American history as he sees it. Nothing wrong with thinking the best of America, just don’t twist scripture to do that.
Doug conveniently obfuscates many different types of servitude by using the overarching term “slavery”, when referencing the Bible. The question is whether Paul and others condoned “chattel slavery” as practiced in the South. Onesimus runs away from his “slave master” Philemon, to one of Philemon’s close friends, Paul. Can you show me one instance in the south where a slave escaped from his/her plantation and sought refuge with their master’s close friend? Do you see how different the Paul-Onesimus-Philemon dynamic was compared to the South? Do you think Onesimus was a chattel slave? If so, then who are the “kidnappers” Paul mentions (1 Timothy 1:10)? Also see Exodus 21:16. If Onesimus was a chattel slave rather than an indentured servant, do you think Paul would have sent him back to his master? Or, befriended Philemon, and allowed him to be a church member? Remember, this is the same Paul who disfellowshipped a believer for sexual sin (1 Corinthians 5). But, he’d be okay with a kidnapper, or one who bought a slave from a kidnapper, in church? Read the Book of Philemon slowly and carefully.
Slavery should have been abolished without armies? But it was okay, even godly, for the Founding Fathers to create armies and shed blood to fight against the “enslavement” of the crown?
It not that I disagree with everything Doug says, it’s just the half truths and double standards being peddled. Reminds me of the serpent in the garden.
Woe to you, hypocrites! American chattel slavery was not biblical, simply because black people of Sub-Saharan African descent descended from Cush (Ethiopia), not Canaan (Genesis 9-10; Joshua 9). The land of Canaan in West Asia (Palestine, Lebanon, parts of western Jordan, and parts of western Syria) is not the land of Cush (Sub-Saharan Africa). People who sow chattel slavery, etc, will also reap chattel slavery, etc. (Galatians 6:7; Proverbs 22:8)
I’m not sure I understand what he meant when he discussed the difference between a neo-confederate and a paleo-confederate honestly. I follow things like the Sons of Confederate Veterans and other pro-south organizations that people like the SPLC have described as neo-confederate (which is really just them trying to smear whichever organization it is which has a different view of history than they do). The people in those groups tend to say exactly what he says in this clip (states’ rights, federalism etc.) Maybe I just don’t know what a neo-confederate is?
Sorta disingenuous to compare current debt issues ppl face, to someone being captured or born into chattel slavery. Not the same thing. Doug is dead wrong on this issue. Being a so called “paleo-confederate” means you are fighting to slavery. Go back and read the declarations of secessions, slavery was the penultimate right those guys were fighting for.
And continuing, "....We maintain that racism is a sin against God, and
that it will be judged in the light of His holiness at the last day .
. . God hates it and He always will . . . This means that
regeneration, in the sense I am speaking of here, must include
rejection of every form of racial hatred, animosity or vainglory"
(Black & Tan, location 236ff)."
Sounds like Doug just admitted to saying 600,000 men died in the civil war over the issue of slavery haha
As soon as the question of slavery came up he takes this long-winded approach to answer. This guy gives such a load a bull about how slavery should have ended non-violently.
1) Are you forgetting that the slaved trade was ended so that slavery could slowly be phased out but the south had a different idea in mind.
2) Are they forgetting how the abolitionist argued for decades to end peacefully yet the south didn't do it that way?
3) Why is it that when it comes to slavery it should have been dealt with peacefully but it was the south who started the war. What about the American Revolution? Couldn't those things have been dealt with slavery?
4) Seems to me that when it comes to the freedom of white people, violence is the only answer. For everyone else they must do it peacefully.
The Confederates chose to break away, but this was after requesting to peacefully withdraw from the Union. Wilson argues that the Confederates had the right to leave the Union, and it was not right to violently keep them in the nation.
@@justanotherbaptistjew5659 But that's not what he brought up...most of the conversation was about slavery. The title of the video is about slavery!!!
Doug is saying that slavery is evil. No argument there. The key distinction is that Christians don’t fight wars over social evils. Should we fight a war over abortion? Christians pray for our enemies and seek to change hearts. Not to impose our will on others.
-also to note, many Protestant pastors such as John MacArthur are against the American revolution as well. Christians don’t fight wars, we submit and pray for our leaders.
@@mosesking2923 So in other words, it was the South who was at fault since they began the Civil War. They struck the first blow. The North for decades wanted to slowly and peacefully end slavery, the South didn't want that. Both sides were Christian but regardless they took up arms. Christians can claim being peaceful but history shows they do otherwise. They will find the verse that justifies violence.
@@thebottomline9250 if you’re saying that Christians are sinners who often fail to live up to the standards of the Bible....well duh. That’s what the Bible literally says.
No one in this discussion is advocating or defending "slavery" as forced subjection. The question here concerns the consequences of waging war in the context of American slavery. You're being asked to think carefully rather than proffer an emotional or fashionable response.
Lincoln was a tyrant and the Confederates were constitutionalist
@@siegfriedkircheis9484 That's hilarious.
What should it be called when you violate the constitution and redefine "treason" in any way that suits you?
Tyranny, and unconstitutional
www.lewrockwell.com/2020/06/thomas-dilorenzo/which-side-committed-treason-in-the-civil-war/
I've thought about using all the reason and patience possible, knowing the history of this nation you're saying that a fee white lives being killed off to stop the enslavement of blacks was a "little over the top"?.....please tell me that's not what you're saying because it took a war to stop the demons enslaving others, yall want a pity party for those ppl who died but I choose to focus on the actual victims of American colonization and enslavement.....this isn't your narrative
@@chaboi7 ‘The demons,’ eh? But back in Africa, those black people in Kanem-Bornu enslaving black people at the tine of the Civil War and for decades afterward were not? They are protected by their race from your notice altogether in the matter of slavery? Is racialized slavery worse than non-racialized slavery?
Wilson is saying here that the south should have been given time and negotiated with to peacefully work to abolish slavery. I am a white Mississippian and you can't get more Southern than that, but I also know history which Mr.Wilson does not. Lincoln made it clear that if it would save the union he would allow slavery, but if abolishing slavery would save the union he would end it. There could have been reparations to buy back the slaves from their slavers. The south had been given no ultimatum. There was friction but there was no threat of force from the north. It was southern wealthy landed slavers who controlled southern governments that succeeded. So if there was a sin in not working slavery out peacefully it be my ancestor's heads.
Amen, Max. And after the South's deserved defeat - horribly bitter retribution upon freed blacks including the 1st KKK terrorism program, then Jim Crow discrimination of every kind imaginable, the resurgence of the KKK in the 1920's-30's, continuing discrimination thru WW2 until the Civil Rights act of 1964. After the surrender of 1865 a growing cover up of the reality of Southern atrociousness that continues to this day in the suppression of teaching slavery's history by every school board of every Southern state. It hides the truth AND gives every loyal son of the Olde South "plausible deniability". Well before Dick Nixon ever thought of the concept. Good to be a leader in something' I guess. The South had every opportunity to appeal and negotiate a planned gradual phase out of slavery over 10, 20, 30, ...years, in an honorable fashion but failed to make any offer at all. They backed themselves into the corner they wanted to be in. Bad call. If the North had occupied the defeated South for 50+ years as the the 3 powers (England, America, France) did to Germany, maybe they would have truly repented.Right now, Germany who used slave labor in WW2 has average auto workers at Audi, BMW, Volkswagen, Mercedes being payed $65 per hour PLUS national healthcare. And they still compete handily worldwide with American automakers who make less than half that
with seniority and less than half of THAT half in "right to work" Southern states.
How can Germany pay more to their auto workers and still compete with us when we make about 1/4 of their pay? They gave up their elitist belief that the few should reap all the profits from the labor of the many AND wrote that into their new post war constitution. German workers have rights. American workers have almost none. That same, good old Southern economic program lives on in our RED states today.
Mark Brownfield Damn! I wish I had written that, an excellent comment!
I didn't say he advocated that, I'm pointing out his incongruent dissapproval of abolitionist violence and his complacency with the violence committed under sslavery.
Good arguments, but who started the war and fired the first shot? The blame doesn’t lie in the federal government.
Wilson is addressing the complexity of southern slavery and
upholding the idea that more than a war which resulted in the death of
hundreds of thousands of Americans, both black and white, the Gospel
of Christ is the answer to the problem of racism and bigotry. i will remind everyone of Wilson's true sentiment toward this
issue with a quote from his recent book Black and Tan, "All sin, if it
is indeed sin, is sin against God. It is God's character and law which
are offended by sin.
The only sin is White Supremacy...racism isn't this back and forth thing. It's white supremacist oppressing other groups by stripping them of rights and using violence against those who resist. You wouldn't say that the best way to stop bullying is to get both parties to have a truce, it would be to punish the bully. The one and only perpetrator.
@@thebottomline9250 Absolutely wrong.
@@WretchEph289 Show the history of black people stripping white people of rights. Why is it that when it comes to librty for white people you never hear "lets use non-violence"?
@@thebottomline9250 Read up on what's happened in South Africa in recent years. People are people. Racism isn't unique to any particular race or people group. Hate, including racism, has been with humanity since the Fall.
@@WretchEph289 According to the Christians who created racism, they said racism didn't "exist" in biblical times...but as far as South Africa, the people are obviously reacting to the deep history of colonization and apartheid. They want their land & freedom back from Europeans. Again, its not a back and forth thing. White people took what was not theirs and the people are taking it back.
Guy w glasses realizes he is sitting across from an embodiment of evil.
I heard he had become a racist a couple weeks ago......This video clears it up.
*shrugs*
Wish the audio was better, i have it all the way turned up and still can barely hear.
I'm pretty sure the violence under this type of slavery goes without saying...hence why this video isn't about that. Good grief.
Not peacefully eliminated in Haiti.
Not part of the west
The most important historical point to understand is that Abraham Lincoln did _not_ run for President in 1860 on a promise to forcefully abolish slavery. He only opposed expanding slavery to any further US state or territory. He believed that its "ultimate extinction" would be a good thing but did not have any policy to end it in the states where it existed. Nonetheless, as soon as he was elected the slave states rebelled and voted to leave the USA. This happened during the lame duck period before Lincoln was actually President.
The slave states in the South rebelled _before_ Lincoln had taken office, and despite him having no campaign promise to try and end slavery. So it was the Southern states' determination to keep and expand slavery that started the Civil War; Lincoln did not make abolition a war aim until the war had continued for 2 years.
Please read Lincolns Inaugural Address. He threatens the south, but not about slavery.
@@jasonharvey3747 in that speech, Lincoln says “you can have no war except you first be the aggressors.” The war began when Jeff Davis ordered the attack of Ft. Sumter.
So you have not looked at yet?
Politics and political parties were highly regionalized at this time obviously. The Republicans' support was just about entirely in the North, in some Southern states Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot. His election made clear to anybody that the balance of political power between the North and South had ended in the North's favor, something the Southern states were concerned about since the founding of the Union. Either they could become subjects of the North, or they could try to leave and have control of their own politics.
@@Bane_questionmark if they were successful at leaving would they have been able control their own politics? I believe from how the south economy was built and it’s society was built. The answer is no. As to why? The confederacy only could muster just 17% of the entire United State’s manufacturing base prior to the war. Because of this it was reliant on imports and the exportation of cotton. And any disruption to it would have put it in a bad economic state and that would have happened as Britain and France were less reliant of Confederate cotton and moved to sourcing it from Egypt and India.
I'd challenge everyone here to read Lincoln himself, as well as Booker T Washington's "Up From Slavery".
@10:17....did he say that all the slaves in the new testament were white?.....someone please find me the verse and scripture where it says that Europeans were slaves in the middle east, thanks in advance
@@chaboi7 The passages he is talking about weren't addressed to people in the middle east; they are addressed to people in Turkey and Greece...
@@chaboi7 Turkish, Greeks are white
Quite well thought out actually. The end of slavery was obviously a good thing but the way it was done has cost us dearly even beyond the immediate loss of life.
It’s not. His characterization of abolitionist is ahistorical. Claiming American abolitionist wanted a war and bloodshed is a generalization that he provided no evidence to substantiate.
Please show me any historical documents from the pre-war period where abolitionist gathered and/or signed a document advocating to use bloodshed to end. John Brown by no means held ideas that were considered the norm.
US ethnic conflicts today are not rooted in how slavery ended. Our problems are rooted in the reasoning, customs, laws, language, and practices of discrimination against and exploitation of enslaved Africans and their descendants during and after slavery.
Simply ending legal slavery did not end the practices, customs, beliefs, Christian heresy, etc. The labor, legal, and economic practices post-slavery were as insidious as during slavery.
It’s is the protracted legal and economic disputes over discrimination that has the US in a quagmire. And we are not alone you can find similar issues in Europe and other parts of the Americas.
You would not think that if you were a slave at the time or descendant of one now, you would think it well worth it. If you think differently ask yourself this question, would you fight a war now to stop yourself and those you love becoming slaves under Islamic state or some evil empire, ??? Yes you would and you know it
@@adventureinallthings Very simplistic understanding of the war. You also fail to grasp the magnitude of what was lost.
@@mkshffr4936 actually iover the years I e devoured every book and documentary I can find in it, I'd say I'm fairly informed but honestly it is a simple thing in the end, yes there is a cost and a bill to be be paid but that is the price of standing up to evil. I notice you avoided my question. Would you fight a war to avoid you and those you love even falling under slavery of the Islamic state for even one day ? You would and you know it. There would have been no civil war in the USA if the southern states did not own slaves and one can dice and slice things anyway one likes but that is the truth. No slavery , no war. The south was well informed by its own and other abolisionists that slavery must end but chose to ignore the warning shot and left no option., Like abortion, it's wrong , one baby matters and one more day in slavery matters. I'm guessing Doug's following is white evangelical because I can't see his appeal to black people if they knew his views here. It now seems to seems to me a very limited offering of Christianity that will only speak to a certain segment of the population in one country, not the Christianity of everyone.
@@adventureinallthings The lack of slavery would not have solved the underlying issues of power and political ideology.
And no it is not my bent to sacrifice the good of my posterity for present goals even if those goals were good and Nobel.
I really have no idea whether I would have fallen for the war rhetoric or not had I been living at that time. I did during the Bush dynasty so it is entirely possible.
Absolute nonsense😂
Read James Henley Thornwell's thoughts on slavery. Or the conversations Broadus and Boyce had about it.
1. "Abolitionist" doesn't equal revolutionary looking for bloodshed
2. The South chose violence themselves rather than moving away from slavery voluntarily
3. Paul's approach in the New Testament is not as easily applied to chattel slavery. Kidnapping men for slavery was against Torah. That form of slavery would never have even started if following the Bible.
4. The gradualist approach is usually favored by those not living day to day under the horrors of southern slavery.
Don Wilson 👊🏿 you have done something to my people you must pay somehow I'm going to get even with you may the Lord hand you to me for the government is upon God shoulders the grace of Frederick Douglass will help me overcome you
Lets address the 3 major points here: bloodshed, the federal oppression of state power, & the economic affect tied to the abolishment of slavery.
Slavery would have ended peacefully in the U.S. but there were southern states/citizens who were willing to kill for slavery to continue. Thats ‘being honest with ourselves’.
There was only a federal decision regarding slavery because southern states refused to evolve past what most human beings at that time could see was a clear human rights atrocity . Remember, the federal agenda reflected many American states & by ur own admission, what was happening all over the world. Human beings, their thinking, was evolving to understand why slavery was a human rights issue, just blatantly wrong. U cant keep a human rights offense to b decided state by state, it’s impossible to do this.
If southern states were only concerned about the economic fall out while admitting the act of slavery was immoral, they could have advocated for federal subsidies to even the economic playing field between northern industrialized states & southern agricultural states. They did not. Instead they fought & killed fellow Americans with hopes to continue this immoral way of life.
I find these comments slightly worrying but perhaps i missed something, in my opinion I think that it possible to say slavery is bad and not biblical and end it there. Suggested better solutions are okay anything can be improved, but I would simply ask this would any one defending his point be happy to be forced in to slavery and wait peacefully as they are being raped and tortured? Finally I would like to add that biblical slavery is more akin to endured sevetude than chattel slavery. Perhaps I missed his point or read too much in to it but this worrying to me
You miss the point,
@@Markbeb3 it's very possible I miss the point, please explain if I have. But keep consider maybe you have missed my point
Doug is saying that slavery is evil. No argument there. The key distinction is that Christians don’t fight wars over social evils. Should we fight a war over abortion? Christians pray for our enemies and seek to change hearts. Not to impose our will on others. Peace to you.
Pastor Doug is just an honest-to-goodness football player, he tackles, he carries, he pushes through, he's brought down, he gets up...I love my brother Doug, I'm not a Presbyterian, but I pray for the continuance of the Lord's ministry through Pastor Doug and his community.
soli deo gloria, Ryan, and thanks.
New perspective on Paul heresy.
any way the civil war was great. 10/10. glory to john brown. i wish i was there to see him do it
He's right when he says the Confederates had a point about the Constitutional issues, and that the Constitution was fundamentally changed after the war. That's largely what complicated the social problem then and does so today. Therefore I think today we must use the Bible to resolve matters of both racial injustice and Constitutional damage.
Except u seem to avoid the fact that the federal agenda reflected many American states & by Wilson’s own admission what was happening peacefully all over the world. Once people’s thinking had evolved to see slavery as a human rights issue, it could not simply b ignored if a state preferred the practice. If each state had decided to end such practice, there would b no ‘state power verses federal power’ excuse used by apologists today. The bottom line is, these southern states were willing to kill fellow Americans to continue this blatantly immoral practice, putting profit over morality. If economic fall out was their only concern, these southern states could have advocated for a federal subsidy to even the economic playing field between industrialized northern states & agricultural southern states to phase out slavery, they did not. Instead, they attempted to leave our united republic. There is nothing moral about this demand to do so. The moral step would have been to put human beings above profit. The north certainly had a moral obligation to free those southern slaves even if it meant blood shed. Doug Wilson is attempting to claim that fighing over this was immoral & a decision made by northern states with the federal government, yet they were the group all in agreement to evolve their actions to match a moral mindset, that all men were created equal. There is no way to justify fighting against that when injecting morality into the conversation. As well, the Constitution is not a defense for those who were willing to continue a practice AFTER said practice has finally been exposed as being morally wrong.
what does he mean by still abiding by the principles of that fight?
You already know what he means, unless a real man speaks you're going to be confused to the point the coward is making....this guy is speaking with a forked tongue.
@@chaboi7
What did you hear during this interview that wasn’t clear?
So Doug. What is your view of Southern Slavery? You went off on a Tangent and didn't answer the Question. Blah Blah Blah
I don't hate Doug Wilson. I just cannot abide his version of Fire and Brimstone view of Theology. As far as being very accomplished one by comparison would say that Donald Trump was very accomplished. Do you see the problem here? Popularity or wealth does not Guarantee virtue. I haven't had a go at Doug for years. What i said i still stand by Micah.
He addressed it around the 8:45 mark quite clearly. It was never a good thing but the way it ended created incredible issues the country is still dealing with today.
Lol getting a mortgage or getting into debt is just a voluntary choice. Literal slavery wasn't a voluntary choice.
Is it? The left will tell you that getting a mortgage to fulfill a requirement for shelter is a “right.” Therefore, lenders MUST loan to people of certain ethnic backgrounds regardless of creditworthiness. Why must it not be a voluntary decision for the lender, who risks ruin in a forced transaction?
@@keithwilson6060 Usury (which extends to mortgages) is a sin and is a system based on debt enslavement.
Likening American slavery and indentured servitude is an issue here. Not that same institution.
Thankyou !!! I believe Mr Wilson is munch smarter than this. Chattel Based slavery and indentured servitude that most people would do during biblical times to relieve debt or access opportunity for economic gain from poor situation. America’s chattel based slavery should’ve been eradicated much faster and all slaves in the New Testament weren’t just white
@@jmcleanable
Leviticus 25:
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.”
Doug said NOTHING WRONG here.
Sure about that?
I've been watching quite a lot of dougs videos recently having just discovered him but I have to say this was frankly a 'bananas' answer and VERY off the mark , Christian or otherwise. I'm very disappointed in it and have to say it's a reminder none of us are perfect and this is a case of finding out somebody you admired has feet of clay. It's surprising how blinkered even bright people can be when they are culturally close to an issue, I'm not in the habit of getting into writing essays on RUclips comments but I could counter every point he made here but I'll just counter two of them for the sake of standing over what I've written.. Firstly the enslavement of Africans was not stopped non violently around other parts of the world, the world power at the time the British empire used its navy to blast the slave ships off the high seas and they gunned down plenty of slavers such as the Madhi and his army in Sudan and elsewhere. The slaves of Hatia rose up against their slave owning French masters and government History is full of bloody slave rebellions , sone successful some not. They often rose up themselves and many had help. Second point , perhaps the enslavement of so many black people in the USA has left the bad legacy or race relations rather than the war fought to end it as Doug rather insanely posits .. DO YOU THINK DOUG !!! VERY DISAPPOINTED . It's a shameful view to hold as a Christian 😖
It’s shameful to say that a social evil should be destroyed by the transformative power of the gospel rather than bloodshed?
@@justanotherbaptistjew5659 obviously not but that is a straw man argument here. You didn't address either point I made above that makes nonsense if the points made by Doug. 1 ) slavery was not ended peacefully elsewhere 2) it was the 2 centuries of slavery in the USA that laid the groundwork for bad race relations not the war that ended it. Doug was using point points to undermine the justification for the war and both points are not true ? Thus is important is this argument because if it was slavery itself that is the prime mover reason for bad race relations and not the war that ended it and if slavery was not ended peacefully elsewhere then what is Doug left with.? It's ok to say you are against all war ( I'm not a pacifist myself ) but I doubt Doug was saying that. I think he is against this particular war which is a very different thing. I'd say Doug would be fine in justifying the allied bloodshed in WW2 without having to drop the gospels but for some reason he can't do the same with the civil war. I admire Doug and listen to many of his brilliant talks but as I said none of us are perfect and in this he shows his flawed humanity. He is a man of his place and time ( of his world ) yes (The world ) and his prejudice shows here . No black preacher that wasn't some kind of black Amish would say the same about the civil war. Doug has got this deep within his Baptist background with his mother's milk and just can't see it.
@@justanotherbaptistjew5659 How do you know it wasn't the transformative power of the gospel calling for the bloodshed?
Thank God your comment is here!
@@FirstThird Thanks, I put it up some time ago, I still watch Doug and like his stuff but I still think he is way off with this and I'd love to hear him answer me on it some day, his position on this is frankly below a man like him. It's a blind spot for him, we all have them 🤔
2:35 is the most important result of that war.
balanced and thoughtful. thank you
Good word. The racial element that is different between Greek/Roman slavery and Southern slavery is essential. The justice difference between Israelite slavery and Southern slavery is also essential.
The Israelite slaves were made so judicially to pay off debts. Justice for those to whom money was owed. And a limited period of slavery.
Southern slaves were stolen from their homes and treated unjustly for their whole lives. Those who stole them and those who owned them should have been stoned.
To be a confederate of any type -- neo or paleo -- is to be an advocate of slavery as the Confederacy was built on the cornerstone of slavery. Alexander Stephens (the Vice President of the CSA) and several secession statements by Southern states, said so explicitly.
"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it." - Guess who.
@@josephtkach6044 :
The question is what the South was fighting for. They were fighting for slavery.
Lincoln said that. Saving the union was more important than banning slavery. They must have been afraid that the addition of other free states would have tipped the balance toward the abolition of slavery. The irony is, their sedition legitimately caused them to be put under martial law because they committed treason and this laid the groundwork for the 13th and 14th amendments
Doug Wilson! "Slave" in the Bible is not the same as slavery in America! "Slave" an English word but the biblical word is more closer to indentured sereventhood!
That’s wild you never read of Jacob being sold into slavery, against his will. Or was that indentured servitude?
@@thedon98677 The "slavery" that was acceptable was indentured servitude. When " slave" was spoke of in Bible rather indifferently and morally neutral it wasn't chattel slavery but indentured servitude and under the law of Moses had regulations. Obviously the pagan people's had no regulations or limits on their depravity and the Hebrews weren't entirely safe from their influence. In our translations of the biblical text the word " slave" is used for all and it's up to us to understand the context and customs of the people groups mentioned. There are many fine books that accompany the Bible that explain the customs and traditions of each people group and their history as detailed both from the biblical text and from antiquity. One should not read the biblical text casually and lazily.
@@thedon98677 Do you mean Joseph?
@@YTTraveler777 you keep saying that like there was only those forms of slavery that existed back then and it’s false
You are trying to pin him on all that is mentioned in The Bible. He obviously means in Israel, which was indentured servitude.
Somehow, Wilson seems to be dodging the point as to the correctness of southern slavery. Was it a deep evil or a Scriptural entity that should be allowed? The fact that ALL slavery in the south was kidnap slavery (in the OT punishable by death) might say something about slavery being wrong. We won't mention that the laws of slavery in the OT were broken in all aspects by American slavery, but to hoots with Theonomy if it happens to affect us personally. The majority of the argument was simply that the North went about it all wrong. Except that the North didn't start the conflict; wasn't Fort Sumpter the confederates firing upon the union vessels, or did I mistake that as revisionist history. The US was the ONLY country that violently freed the slaves? Really!!!! Wasn't the slave rebellion in Haiti a little bloody? Didn't the North attempt for 70 years to give a graceful solution to slavery, even offering to pay the south for the slaves? Or, was that revisionist history? Wilson argues to the similarity with the abortion issue, and defends "state rights". If so, why isn't he content to allow states to decide on the issue? Perhaps, but then abortion really is something that affects the very meaning of personhood, i.e., the meaning of our constitution. The logical result of slavery on personhood (and the constitution) is no different for a black person vs an unborn baby. This is why the founding fathers were very uncomfortable with the slavery issue, but sadly made the union of the states of greater importance than that of freedom of all individuals. They know it was wrong, but incorporated the permission for slavery into the constitution regardless of that. Would slavery have ended within a few years? Any astute reader of history would see that the ability to own slaves exceeded any economic factors. So, no, it's not a fanciful world that would have gone the way we wished, just because we wished it. So far, Wilson's arguments fail in every regard. I'm sure he wants to make a good point but totally fails here.
Good write up, here. I honestly see no reason why he is/was so hung up on an issue that he or anyone else has no power to change. You can't change historical events and you will not change the masses based on a principled argument. No one gives a shit. We're Americans, just give us results.
America fought a war to free slaves on behest of the government; that's different than a slave rebellion. The United States and England were the first countries to end slavery on their own, without outside force. A rebellion isn't a government ending slavery, but a government being overthrown.
Regardless, the type of slavery being practiced in the United States was always condemned by the Bible, and is probably why the Civil War was so bloody. I consider it God's judgement on the South for simultaneously preaching His Word and so deeply defiling it.
You don’t know what your talking about. You need to listen and not go with your emotions thinking. You should try to read the south was right we’re it dealt about the slavery problems and how many southern state we’re putting in it effect a way to end slavery before the war started. Do you know the North we’re the one who brought in slavery and Abe did not free any Northern slaves at all. He could done same thing northern state about slavery but he didn’t. The war of states was all about taxes the south and bring in big bank to put you debt.
@@Markbeb3 Torture me, bubba. Emotions? Seriously!!!!
that is a false narrative, pushed by "Roots" which the author herself said was a Myth she wanted to create for her people to believe in, the American's didn't kidnap anyone, because white men could not (and would not) go into Africa because they were terrified of malaria and they would die, it was the African's who kidnapped other African tribes (listen to Thomas Sowell's discussion on that) who were weaker and more vulnerable to attack and enslavement. so it is true that they were kidnapped, but not by American's specifically.
What does Doug Wilson think about the Amish, is their view of the bible good, bad, in between, and what does he think of their lifestyle?
I love around the Amish, I don't see them preaching the gospel to anyone and I don't see anything but white ppl amongst them... they don't seem to care at all
They are hard working people. And, they separationists. They are not about changing society, but themselves.
I'm not Doug, but: I admire the Amish greatly. While I think they aren't entirely consistent in their positions--they've decided that they want no part of modernity, but they have decided to set in stone the modernity of their ancestors--at least it is more coherent than what most other modern Christian societies hold. On the other hand, I do not wish for every society to be like the Amish, as the Amish can only exist among a greater Christendom that protects them by being more willing to engage in the world than the Amish are.
Of course I did, but I simply that I don't accept your premises: There is no point in talking about moral consequences that arise from your particular God believe if you cannot show any evidence for the theory. I could claim that the world was created by a pink invisible dragon that likes when his creation speaks prayer A on sunny days but prayer B on rainy days. We can happily talk what happens if I wrongly use prayer B on a sunny day but it doesn't add to the validity of the pink dragon story.
Great video, super helpful. Thanks!
So, IF he does exist, which Spalmer718 simply asserts and he is the creator of all things, which Spalmy asserts as well, then he overrides my moral judgement - maybe. Although maybe I should believe my Muslim neighbor or the Hindu take away guy, they assert different stories. However, the thinking person that I am and you could be doesn't just make shit up and doesn't jump from "if he does" to "he does", because there is null evidence for that God creature you just assert into existence.
With one thing I agree: Only the fool says there is no God. That's why I don't say that as an atheist, I don't claim that your God does not exists but I simply reject the claim that there is a God until there is sufficient evidence for it.
Christoph Meier Fulfilled Bible prophecy would be that evidence for it.
Three points here: #1 There is nothing in the US Constitution that allows any state to withdraw from the newly formed nation. Period! Once in, never out of the new nation. #2 This man distorts Paul's references to slavery as God's "answer to the "slavery problem". Baloney! Legalistic hair splitting of a hair so thin it doesn't deserve to be split. Paul's reference was his letter to believers whom he had promised that Jesus soon appearance was near. Obviously he (Paul) was very wrong about that. His admonition was not "God's Answer" to the "slavery problem", it was an expedient, loving answer to what in Paul's mind was an ugly, but short termed problem that would soon be resolved when Jesus returned soon in Glory and made all things New. Need I repeat - Jesus hasn't made it back yet. #3 American slavery was not so much about race as it was plain old GREED ! All slavery is at its root GREED. All through the Old Testament, God's prophets RAILED against the Kingdom of Israel AND the Priesthood (their church) when they ignored the poor, the widows, orphans, and had UNJUST scales, and failed to establish FAIR and IMPARTIAL JUSTICE. God abhors EVERY kind of injustice. Jesus plainly taught that the Love of money was the root of ALL Evil. Slavery was/is simply the incredible, prideful greed of those arrogant souls who believe that by force or trickery they deserve to reap the benefits of almost zero cost labor. How the great revivals across the South in the 1840's thru the 1850's produced such a bountiful bunch of lackluster of converts, {between 1/2 to 3/4 MILLION!}, who after conversion, still chose to kill or be killed rather than repent of the purely greedy evil of slavery is a mystery to me, a former RACIST who used to listen to sinfully evasive crap like this. I really want to know how "genuinely saved" souls chose to split their churches, split their families, choose to kill other believers and even to die themselves for the right to own another human being FOR PROFIT! HOW! Something must have been very lacking in their revivals and bible classes and their own sincerity. How many Southern souls died thinking God was on their side only to find the torments of Hell awaiting them? Too harsh you say? The Fiercest of all the "Fire and Brimstone Preachers" of that day were the Southern ones. The shame that should've given pause for sincere repentance is still being obscured, hidden,and resisted to this day. Doug's brilliance at wrongly dividing the word of truth is remarkable. Stunning. Terrible. Unworhty of his "devotion" to truth. Wake up - Repent. Please.
Generally all life on this planet feel pain and lost.Slavery in America was a crime against humanity,an atrocity.You don't curse, rape, hang, beat, shackle,your employees,do you?! Slavery in America was a sick,sick time in America's history. This country gave the psychopaths the go ahead to destroy a people.They were treated worse than animals,they were frail, sacred human beings,snatched,dragged,kidnapped,no negotiations in fair trade,just utter brutality,Texas chain saw massacre style.
Don't know where you learned about the nature of Southern slavery, but you are an ignoramus. The vast majority of ex-slaves interviewed in the 1930's testified that they were well treated and/or expressed fondness for their former masters.
Imagine if he said I am not a Neo Nazi but a Paleo Nazi. Would there be a real difference?
Slavery ended in Europe because it was no longer economic. The abolitionists gave it its final push over the edge. In the Southern states it was the basis of their whole economy and supported their whole social structure and would not end without coersion.
This 'pastor' seems to think that slavery could have ended peacefully, maybe he is right. It may have ended by about 2005.
Yes, there is a real difference in confederates and Nazis. I can expound on that thought if you'd like.
As far as slavery ending in 2005, I don't think that's a realistic thought. The South's economy was export based. Political pressure for compensated emancipation (as practiced in Europe) likely would have made continuing slavery too costly.
Slavery slowly died in the largest slave holding nation, Brazil, by the end of the 19th century with much of a fight. Thus invalidating your claim.
He just compared financial debt to American slavery. Who is this guy? Slaves in the Bible were not the same thing. Ignorance.
Without violence (i.e the Civil War), slavery would not have ended in America. Wilson's failure to understand that shows he knows little about American history, slavery or Southern culture and apparently totally lacks empathy for his African-American brothers and sisters.
Interesting concept. It ended in every other developed nation without war.
False, read Brazilian history. You simply are very historically and biblically naive, which explains why you are so angry and unstable
All of the slaves in the NT were white? Where is he getting that info from?
Tyler January most likely true...especially considering about 1/3 of the Roman Empire consisted of slaves...the word Slave itself comes from the word “Slav”
But those slaves were servants not the kind of slaves that America had.
Imho this guys trying to say that Hebrews had Hebrew slaves...my only problem with that is I've got to ask myself when hrebrews became Europeans?
I rejoice to hear believers talking about things that matter. 2 things I'd just like to add or suggest to an excellent response. You really should start by addressing the start, man stealing. No way around it, Bible speaks clear. People respect when you say it clear right up front. Last, I believe it's the Ecclesia's(Church) job to communicate truth. 80% of america was in church on Sundays. The church should have been United, and Loudly communicating. One Bible, One Issue, One Spirit, One explanation. It was tough and complicated, I'm very gratefuI I didn't live in those times.
The Bible speaks clear? So all that passionate abolitionist-antiabolitionist debate for decades was what, because people were dimwits? The Devil darkened their intellects? Quite sure of yourself.
@@ZephaniahL uhhhhh, yaaaa, do you need the scripture(s) that strictly and clearly define and forbid "man-stealing"......? There was plenty there to knit pick.........but believe it or not, the fact that some politicians debated about it for a season is unimportant to my point. Like I said, yes, it was a tough complicated issue in that day. But that's because the SIN was tolerated and encouraged for a long long time. It takes tough conversations and plans to untie that knot
@@alberthayes1695 So that's the way the development of theology over time works, does it? People go for centuries without seeing the obvious truths about where sin lies that Albert Hayes discerned, then they have "tough conversations," and come to realize what is now beyond dispute? This is not a good way to teach upcoming generations the history of ideas.
@@ZephaniahL ah, I see, we are speaking about 2 different matters now. I do see you point, I do. But my original point was, the conversation hes trying to have should Start with Gods truth in His Word which forbids man stealing. Then work out how complicated it got from there. AMD it did, I dont ignorantly condemn any and all slave owners, But ya gotta start at the Bible, not something a man said. You do think Theology is simply an attempt to get as close to Gods Word as possible right? 'Be ye Holy as I am Holy'. I want that man to be heard, but I'm just a simple carpenter with a simple suggestion. Start at the Author of Faith's direction.
But yes, iron sharpens iron, but Gods Word ain't changing, no matter how much one tries to 'develop' a theology by talking to a lot of people. John 1:1 fellow
The kidnapping/capturing aspect was actually performed by Africans (they were mostly captives of war or criminals), who then sold these captured people to slave traders, in the Atlantic mostly Spaniards, Portuguese, and Jews, who then brought them to the Americas, a minority of which came to the United States. I'm not defending any of this, I'm just unclear if the violation of the OT slavery laws would fall on the original capturers in Africa, the traders, the buyers in the New World, or all of them.
And of course many of the slaves Paul was preaching to may have been enslaved this way (or their family was enslaved this way in the past). The Romans enslaved from conquered peoples, and captured slaves were shipped in from abroad and sold in Roman markets. Many slaves were also like what in a more modern context are called indentured servants (and this is the only lawful way an Israelite could own another Israelite), but many were not.
What is your view of getting a better microphone?
"...thinking person that I am..."
Hardly.
That was deflection and obfuscation and you did nothing to address what I said. I asserted nothing (and made no "jumps") of what I believe regarding God's actually existence, only the consequences of such a theoretical existence and its bearing on your philosophically bankrupt understanding of morality. I think you just like to hear yourself talk and don't much care what you have to say. I'll join you in the latter. Carry on with your dance.
We are all slaves now. What goes around, comes around perhaps? Have a nice day.
Robert W. Fogel, who won his Nobel Prize for his work on the economics of slavery, understood that even in the best of cases, slavery was inherently evil as it deprived people of freedom. Had not the Civil War broken out when it did, the South would have continued to grow at twice the rate of the North; southerners would have developed the industrialization of slavery they were already starting, and would likely have won a later Civil War and would have protected and spread slavery.
Well, we all know who owned the ships, auctioning houses, the institutions of slavery, and 80% of southern slaves.
@10:17....did he say that all the slaves in the new testament were white?.....someone please find me the verse and scripture where it says that Europeans were slaves in the middle east, thanks in advance
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome#Demography
though it might be a misstep to say "all", certainly a meaningful portion would have been from britannia, if not other places with a white populace.
@@RAZRC0 nope
@@chaboi7 amazingly intellectual and thoughtful reply. I'm impressed.
@@RAZRC0 nopity nope nope nope
I love that there are beer/ale bottles behind Doug's chair. :-)
Why would you love that?
@John Cameron
Why would you to contend that the bottles are all of nonalcoholic brands? They appear to be beer or Ale bottles. At least that’s the impression the uninitiated would draw from it. What’s Doug’s purpose in displaying these in a prominent place?
“Abstain from all appearance of evil.”
1 Thessalonians 5:22 KJV
Whether you consider all casual alcoholic consumption to be sinful or not, it’s very common for beer drinking to eventuate in drunkenness, which is evil. Those who teach abstinence as a Christian mandate, “weak” if you will, may be lead into sin by the open promotion of drinking by a leading Christian. Scripture is clear about this display.
@John Cameron
Alright, then. Give me the correct context.
@John Cameron
You say nothing. Therefore I’m free to deduce my own context from 1 Thessalonians 5:22.
What would have happened if the Confederacy had won? Would the South had imposed some “reconstruction” on the Union? Would they have even remained in the union, now that their problem had found a resolution? Would that reconstruction have imposed slavery nationwide?
No. The South would have simply departed as they originally wanted. And slavery would have sooner than later come to an end.
Your fucking deluded, they were willingly to wage war to uphold slavery, you treasonous conservatives always pretend the reason why the civil war happened was about state rights or some other nonsense, it was about slavery ,and I can assure had they won, slavery would’ve increased ten fold.
@@am7016 is it treason for a State to no longer want to be a part of the USA, for any reason?
@@nicholasjoost5111 no it’s not but don’t conveniently change the facts, they wanted to leave in order to maintain the institution of slavery, and in order to accomplish that goal they had to declare war on the USA which is the definition of treason and you conservatives honour these people and their flag.
@@am7016
My point went right over your “woke,” empty head. I won’t waste my time to bother informing such a moron.
@@keithwilson6060 we are union comprised of various states, I understood the point you were making, if people in a particular state decided to leave the USA, but I was correcting your hypothetical scenario with the actual context of the confederacy.
The South was not going to end slavery anytime soon. This is why they broke away from the Union. They fired the first shots at Ft. Sumpt. And it was on. As Abraham Lincoln stated, for every drop shed with the lash God extracted two with the sword. The Civil War was God's judgment upon the USA for the south practicing it, and the north being willing to live with it. Then again, God delivered Israel from Egyptian bondage/slavery with much blood shed.
+LLoyd David It depends what type of slavery one is referring to. If it is forced slavery, as the slavery that the blacks superimposed on their own blacks, then sold to the Arabs, then sold to the New England ships, then yes. If it is contractual slavery, in which one uses his own volition to turn himself into slavery due to certain conditions, then it is ok. Contractual slavery is the slavery accepted in Bible.
+turi73 There was not contractural form of slavery in the ante-bellum south. The Civil War was not fought over the right for person to voluntarily contract themselves as a slave for seven years as we read in the Old Testament text. The "peculiar institution in the southern United States was slavery forced upon people from the ivory coast aka west Africa.
+turi73 You are correct that there were African tribes who sold other Africans into slavery. These Africans who practiced this were just as evil as the Arabs, Jews, and the Europeans who contributed to the atrocity perpetuated in the pre 1865 United States. But, it must be clearly stated that it was the Caucasians of the New World who were thirsty for slave labor to run the tobacco, cotton, and rice plantations in the Southern States of America. "For every drop of blood drawn with the lash God extracted two with the sword,"and the two equaled to approximately 600,000 dead soldiers from the Union and the Confederacy.
Don't forget that the North (and all Europe since the 1600's) were heavily engaged in the slave trade.
In 1772, the Virginia House of Burgesses petitioned King George to stop the slave trade, and in 1778 the Virginia legislature stopped the importation of slaves. They did not free the slaves already there, but they recognized that slavery was a danger. Many Virginia slave owners by mid-century began to free their slaves in their wills, if not before.
Slavery is not the fault of the South - it is something which tars ALL of American history. It is one of the greatest sins that Christians have been blind to. Abortion is it modern equivalent.
It is true that slavery was not the fault of the South alone, but it is also true that the South was the primary reason it continued well into the 19th century.
Hmmmmmmmm.....as a black Christian not gonna lie....his response style makes me feel I can't really call him my brother .....?!??? When Egypt enslaved the Hebrews they cried out to God for the harshness of oppression, God heard their cry and delivered them and not so gently from Pharoah and egypt.....likewise the southern black slaves were oppressed harshly and murdered and tortured.......soooooooo not blind to the facts, but feels odd how he chose to respond...but respect his honesty;)so calm urself u nationalist reading this:)
Yup! John brown and nat turner are the closest thing to a hero that America had ever seen, all the others America idolizes are usually ppl who killed innocent ppl and raped men, women and children
I'm surprised you ever thought that you could. He certainly doesn't.
I'm so happy he mentioned debt slavery. That's the form of slavery found in the majority of history and in the Bible especially.
I wish though he would mention the real reason for the violence that was the Civil War which was tariffs. The North was ripping off the South with very high tariffs and hiding behind the shield of anti-slavery identity politics. Slavery clearly had to go, but if the North hadn't backed the South into a corner (some of the main actors being SJWs like Thaddeus Thomas) they could've easily ended slavery without a bloody conflict.
PURE BABBLE TALK
I don't see how "hypocrite" applies, as he at least had the courage to say (and write) what he thought of the subject, as wrong (and stupid) as it is.
The Bible is God's holy, inspired and perfect Word. You have no grounds to call it "immoral" other than your self-made (and likely self-serving) opinions.
Wilson's view of Southern slavery is naive and, at the very least, insensitive. He actually held up the old-south as a harmonious society. For that he should repent.
Not well thought out at all. He equates NT slavery (which was not based on kid-napping and race and was not perpetual) with Southern slavery which was all those things. He's ignorant of slavery, history, and Southern culture.
Doug, slavery in Biblical times was different from American slavery. The advise to "work harder" for a Christian master doesn't work when you consider that slaves in Biblical times were either war captives or volunteered for temporary slavery to pay their debt. It also doesn't make sense considering that slaves were to be forgiven their debt in OT law after 7 years. Frederick Douglass wrote that his masters who were professed believers were the cruelest masters. Would u say he shouldnt have run?
Actually this statement is only partially true as slavery in "Biblical times" was incredibly diverse since your are talking about a period that spans from the late bronze age till the Roman Principate. Everything from race based slavery to indentured servitude existed across the Ancient Near East. Furthermore the Bible in both the New and Old Testament asume that slavery is normal economic and social practice. However the Bible does give clearly state that slaves are human beings and brothers in Christ. Which is an important difference.
@@j.p.4910 No. it doesn’t. The LITERAL word for slavery in scripture literally means bond servant. You’re reaching. Not the same, no matter how much you cut it.
According to his way of thinking, escaped slaves were also condemned as sinners
for running away.
@Rodrick Evans I dont believe the bible.
Doug Wilson has always been a fool as far as I am concerned; but to argue that slavery is justifiable on the basis of a few biblical verses. Wilson says as much in his book. But the bible, when read correctly, is the anti-slavery text par excellence! The whole narrative sweep is about God leading his people from the slavery of death and sin to life and resurrection. If that narrative is not more generally applied to socio-political realities then we have lost our way.
I don't know how Wilson is so popular, he lost all credibility when he wrote this garbage.
bayreuth79 Doesn't seem like he's saying that here, at least. I haven't read the book, so if you could link me to a passage where he says as much, I'd appreciate it. As I understand what he's saying here, though, he's simply making the point that slavery as an institution existed in the early church of Greco-Roman times, and that Paul's teaching was meant to subvert and transform the institution, never to condone its manifest ethical evil. If Wilson, in his book, somehow sees Paul's teachings as justifying slavery, then he was clearly missing the point 16 years ago.
"And nothing is clearer - the New Testament opposes anything like the abolitionism of our country prior to the War Between the States. The New Testament contains many instructions for Christian slave owners, and requires a respectful submissive demeanor for Christian slaves." (Doug Wilson, Southern Slavery as it was). At the very least Wilson is saying that slaves should be submissive to their owners and that this is ordained by holy-writ. Well, I'm sorry, but I think that is absurd. The oppressed have a right to resist their oppression. If there had not been a civil war, if there had not been an antagonistic civil rights movement, black people in the US would still be held in chains (so to speak). Doug Wilson is a bloody fool.
+bayreuth79 I'm not sure what you're saying re southern slavery and the Bible. Are you advocating for a violent uprising?I ask because there arent any biblical examples of that. You cant actually argue for the opposite.
The Exodus narrative of the OT is the anti-slavery text par excellence. That was an uprising against the dominion of the Egyptian Pharaoh. It ended in the violent deaths of the Egyptian warriors. The OT prophets are frequently to be found condemning injustice in quite violent terms. People like yourself seem to think that we are obliged to submit to the status quo; and I say that is absurd.
He advocates slavery nowhere. Quite to the contrary actually, "...Slavery ended, and good riddance, in the Western World..." Or did you just conveniently forget that part of his answer?
So you still need to tell me how you get from the "ought" to the "is". Moreover you have to tell me why I need to throw morality overboard if your God doesn't exist, because you haven't shown that morality is something that can only be given to me by a God creature. I would even question that the God as he is portrayed in the Bible is a moral being and if you want to adopt your God's moral standards then you need to be ready to defend them: slavery, genocide and all the others. Are you?
I have no words. This is the Gospel Coalition? What the hell ever.
I really don't know what atheist you're trying to convince with your Bible. Your book is not worth more than Harry Potter in my eyes, no matter how much you like it to be true.
On what grounds do you decide that it is moral besides your own judgement?
LEGENDARRRRRYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The problem of racial animosity wasn't because of how slavery ended. It's because it existed in the first place.
Where in the New Testament is animosity justified for a slave?
Where is it justified for a slave owner?
Wilson's equating of so-called "debt slavery" to actual slavery (i.e. the owning of one human being by another as property) is nothing more than a pathetic apologetic ploy.
Shame on you, Dougie Boy.
You can't hide from what you wrote back when no one was looking. Your little pamphlet extolled the virtures of the Old South social order.
The stupid (and bigoted), it hurts...
Horrible.
The way to solve abortion is not from the bottom up (abortion doctor assassinations) but from the top down (Boogaloo).
What does this mean?
@@landanstones1722 The Boogaloo is slang for another American Revolution. Not to do away with the government, but to put government back into its proper, constitutional order. As Jefferson said, the tree of liberty must be watered occasionally by the blood of patriots and tyrants. The difference between those of us in the Boogaloo movement and the more traditional, mainstream militias is that we are 0 compromise, we don't care, in general, about political party, we come from a wide and diverse range of backgrounds, we are generally on the (very broad) Libertarian spectrum, and the one thing that completely unites us is our shared dedication to the 2A.
@@caedmonnoeske3931
Why would Libertarians care for the dedication to a political document?
@@levibaer18 I'm not exactly sure what you mean.
@@caedmonnoeske3931
I’ve gathered over the years through experience that Libertarianism tends to slope towards anarchy, not recognizing the importance of government. Lacking the appreciation of a proper government affording the protection of law and common defense of each sovereign state, my Libertarian friends disregard the notion of states rights in favor of central government when it benefits individual freedom. That catch 22 that does so much more harm to individual freedom in the long run, which is to take a dump on states rights in favor of the centralization of powers begs the question, “why care about the 2nd Amendment of a document when anarchy is the ultimate goal?”
Calvinist theology actually backs up that kind of social structure...so, so sad.
Guilherme Adriano How so?
Calvinism is a philosophical approach to ontological theology. It has nothing to do with politics. Stfu
Yankees were and are hypocrites. Period!!!!
I would agree with this video. However, my follow up would be, how would you justify the American Revolution?
I’m Obviously not Doug Wilson, but I think the answer to that lies in that the American ‘Revolution’ was not a revolution in the sense of the French Revolution. It was more of a reformation in which the English American colonists were fighting for the rule of law to be upheld. They fought because their leaders were not following the law. Hence they fought against an external Tyranny so they could maintain the system of government established in the colonies, not overthrow it.
The American Revolution was a defensive war. Not an overthrow of a government or an invasion.
Slavery isn’t inherently wrong
Go away troll
@@BroJ3221 slavery isnt inherently wrong. There is nothing immoral in me deciding to sell myself to another person if I so wanted to. What is wrong is slavetrading and not treating your slave as you would treat yourself
@@apracity7672 so you’re saying owning slaves was not wrong if you treated them well, it was the fact that there was slave trade?
@@BroJ3221 what I'm saying is that if someone wants to sell themselves into slavery for whatever reason and another person accepts, that's not an immoral action. What is wrong is kidnapping African people and bringing them to the US to sell them into slavery against their will. What is also wrong is preventing the slaves from running away from abusive slaveowners. What is also wrong is treating them poorly and beating them for no good reason
@@apracity7672 Ok, I agree with all the points you made. So what was your purpose for your original comment? Just stating that technically by definition it’s not morally wrong or were you trying to make another point?
I think the biggest problem is that Doug Wilson makes an argument from looking at indentured slaves and being slaves to Banks and things of that sort. Also I believe that may be Doug has fought racism which is just my opinion and maybe in Christ he has won that battle but some of the habits of the flesh say things sometimes that defend what should not be defended. It was not one person seeking vengeance but it was a war. Not sure if it was done wrong or right but I agree that some things we're good about the Confederate stance. But the Jews in Auschwitz we're fed and closed and Planned Parenthood gives examinations that are good but they have something in common with Southern slavery. They were not considered people and when you're not considered people then what argument do you have but to fight for Your Life. It was already a war because he spoke of 600,000 killed. How many were murdered before that that were black and not considered people? Some thrown off of the boat chained together to make the boat lighter even on the way to America and hung at will for trying to escape. The Bible said that if a slave runs away to not return him. That was a different kind of slave Doug was speaking of and as I said he equivocates often in this video but I love him dearly and hope he rethink some of what he says. This will not stop me from hearing his views on the gospel and being on one Accord with God's word but I probably shouldn't have listened to him speak about this LOL. And by the way I don't believe a big part of the war had to do with slavery. God bless
He said clearly "good riddance" to slavery. What do you think he's defending?
Do you know how many blacks died in the war and as a result of sickness and starvation afterward? The war didn't save black lives, it was a catastrophe. Slavery would've ended anyway, as it did elsewhere.
@@briancooper2833 Still two completely different things in function and culturally from antebellum south. “Man stealing” is EXPLICITLY spoken against in scripture.
@@briancooper2833 Agreed.
Happened to rewatch this to check for additional comments and Doug's comments about "Wage Slavery" caught my ire. Doesn't he see that the modern day wage slavery he's talking about has its deepest existence in the South? What a coincidence that the area of our country that was so addicted to low(no) wage slave labor that they rebelled from the Union for it, are the primary "Right to Work" non-union states. God forbid an average worker in the south should have a union card and take home a living wage with decent benefits. It might upset the "Fine" folks who deserve to have more than the lowborns. Low wage, low tax, low education, a few very wealthy living off the low people. Still the same damnable Southern sin justifying mindset.
Lets look at why the southern baptist convention CALLS THEMSELVES THAT