What Can the Church do to Promote Anti-racism in America?

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

They were seceding because of slavery.

 

I think that Jonathan Clark says it well:

Quote

 

It’s too easy to assign blame for the Civil War on the South and slavery — and intellectually lazy.

Like many other conflicts, the Civil War was decades in the making and the culmination of unresolved issues between the Northern and Southern states. And it finally came to a head during the 1860 presidential campaign and election.

To fully understand the Civil War, it’s vital to recognize that we are dealing with two separate issues: The cause for secession and the cause of the war.

Let’s begin with secession.

In 1860, nearly all federal tax revenue was generated by tariffs — there were no personal or corporate income taxes. And the Southern states were paying the majority (approximately eighty percent) of the tariffs with an impending new tariff that would nearly triple the rate of taxation.

Adding insult to injury, much of the tax revenues collected from imports in the South went to Northern industrial interests and had been for decades. The 1860 Republican platform promised more of the same, which was further eroding the trust of Southerners.

Remember that slave labor practices of the South contrasted greatly with the industries of the North. Without slave labor, most Southern plantations wouldn’t have survived; there simply weren’t enough workers. Slavery was inextricably linked to the South.

While the issue of slavery was, in fact, a primary concern for the South, the secessionist movement began decades before the Civil War.

In 1828, Congress passed a tariff of sixty-two percent which applied to nearly all imported goods. The purpose of the tariff was to protect Northern industries from low-priced imported goods. But it effectively increased the cost of goods for the South, which sans manufacturing capacity, relied heavily on imported goods.

At the same time, the tariff reduced the amount of British goods sold to the South, effectively making it more difficult for the British to pay for Southern cotton. It’s no wonder the South would refer to the Tariff of 1828 as the “Tariff of Abominations.”

The government of South Carolina declared the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable, creating a precarious situation between the state and the federal government. Of little surprise, President Andrew Jackson refused to accept South Carolina’s defiance. Without the Compromise Tariff of 1833, it’s likely that South Carolina would have moved to secede from the Union.

While the crisis was averted, tensions between the North and the South were just beginning to grow.

More tariffs in 1842 and 1857 along with the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision worked to further divide the country. In May of 1860, the House of Representatives passed the Morrill Tariff Bill, the twelfth of seventeen planks in the platform of the incoming Republican Party — and a priority for the soon-to-be-elected new president.

Charles ****ens, from his journal, All the Year Round, observed, “The last grievance of the South was the Morrill tariff, passed as an election bribe to the State of Pennsylvania, imposing, among other things, a duty of no less than fifty per cent on the importation of pig iron, in which that State is especially interested.” (1)

Soon after, America elected its first “sectionalist” president: Abraham Lincoln. And the rupture of the Union was finally at hand.

On December 20th, 1860, South Carolina voted unanimously to secede. Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, and Louisiana soon followed and before Lincoln’s inauguration, Texas and Georgia would be added to the list.

At the outset of the war, Lincoln called on volunteers from all states to “put down the rebellion.” Refusing to bear arms against their Southern brethren, Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas, and Tennessee seceded.

Of the eleven seceding states, only six cited slavery as the primary cause for leaving the Union. (2)

 

With a president elect who promised in his inaugural speech to uphold slavery, and promised to uphold the laws requiring escaped slaves to be returned to their owners, and a constitution which protected the institution of slavery, it was likely better for the southern states to remain in the union, if slavery alone was the issue for wanting to leave.

Quote

Context matters a lot here, I think. 

It definitely does, but I wasn't speaking out of context as I understand it fairly well (it was one of my focuses when I received my history degree a few years ago) In 1860 Lincoln stated while running for president "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”   In his inauguration speech in 1861 he promised the states that had already seceded that the "government would not assail you"  In his inauguration speech in 1862 he reiterated that southern states who returned to the union (or slaveholders, especially in border states, who remained loyal to it) would get to keep their slaves.  If it kept the union together, Lincoln had no problems with slavery.

But what Lincoln couldn't let go of was the tax revenue from the south.  Lincoln had been a vocal proponent of the right of states to secede (in theory at least) prior to his running (and winning) president.  In practice, what changed his mind was the revenue the Union would lose if they lost the southern states. 

Slavery was inconsequential to him (in terms of the Union), until the slaves themselves pushed his hand.  From the beginning of the war the slaves knew this was their chance to escape and no matter how hard Lincoln and the Union army tried to keep them on plantations (and they tried) in the seceded states, it was a losing battle they finally gave up in 1863, when embracing emancipation served Lincoln's goal of keeping the union intact more than embracing slavery did.  His promises to keep slavery were not swaying the slave holders, but his promises to abolish it brought added power from abolitionists in the North, and Europe, which he desperately needed.

Lincoln, like most in his time, believed blacks to be inferior to whites and was happy enough with the status quo.

“I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.” 

“I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation. I have no right to say all the members of the Republican party are in favor of this, nor to say that as a party they are in favor of it. There is nothing in their platform directly on the subject. But I can say a very large proportion of its members are for it, and that the chief plank in their platform-opposition to the spread of slavery-is most favorable to that separation. Such separation, if ever effected at all, must be effected by colonization.” 

Quote

They didn't?  So the Constitution was never amended to outlaw slavery?  Slavery still exists in the South?  I think not.

The south didn't need to hold onto slavery to win that war.  They just needed to keep black people in subjugation, which is exactly what happened due to the way the North handled reconstruction and what they allowed the south to get a way with under the guise of putting the union back together again.  Blacks remained slaves in many southern communities in all but name for decades after the war, almost a century in fact in some places.

My statement is not at all controversial from a historical perspective.  You can read more about it here.  This is one of the reasons that racism has a such a deep hold in our country.

Quote

 

I'm not sure our European friends have a pristine track record of respecting human rights.  And it's not like they've never had civil ward, revolutions, etc.

Also, what are your thoughts about the Haitian Revolution? 

 

They don't, they just figured it out way before we did, which is the embarrassing part.  

[Rain]

38 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Jumping in, probably irrelevantly at this point, but all of the credible government communications that I have seen that call for systemic change first call for people to stay positive, authentic and kind; learning from and connect with each other; seek to build inclusivity and equity into all that we do; seek help from helpline, professional, family, friends, trusted colleagues, and spiritual leaders as appropriate. Even non-Church organizations recognize that the beginning of systemic change begins with personal and internal change, which I think is a key Gospel principle.

I agree with this however we have to be aware of something.  When you don't feel safe, when you have rarely or never felt safe it will be extremely difficult to stay "positive".

In order for this to work we need to really listen to the cries of those who have been hurt all of their lives.  We need to be ok with the idea that they will express anger and frustration.  We need to be able to try to put ourselves in their places and not assume we have actually been able to do that because all of our past and all of their past colors how we will see the experiences they have.

We need to be ok with not arguing against them, not excusing ourselves. Not interjecting "not every __________".

Just listen empathically. 

I say "just" with a grain of salt because it has become so clear to me that like Steven Covey says, few people do it.  

Then after we make it safe by empathically listening then it can be our turn.  And then we can start to be more "positive".

 

Edited June 2, 2020 by Rain

[Rain]

I really wish we could easily sort out all the people/groups and deal with the problems one by one.  

Edited June 2, 2020 by Rain

[Islander]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Wrong. The original Confederacy leaders were very clear on why they seceded. Oh, and that is not a “well documented fact” or a “fact”.

Sorry, my friend, but you are somewhat misinformed on the issue.

In 1828, Congress passed a tariff of sixty-two percent which applied to nearly all imported goods. The purpose of the tariff was to protect Northern industries from low-priced imported goods. But it effectively increased the cost of goods for the South, which sans manufacturing capacity, relied heavily on imported goods. At the same time, the tariff reduced the amount of British goods sold to the South, effectively making it more difficult for the British to pay for Southern cotton. It’s no wonder the South would refer to the Tariff of 1828 as the “Tariff of Abominations.”

By 1860, nearly all federal tax revenue was generated by tariffs (there were no personal or corporate income taxes). Southern states were paying the majority (approximately eighty percent) of the tariffs with an impending new tariff that would nearly triple the rate of taxation. That was the prelude to the Civil War. Trying to link the war, exclusively, to slavery is a modern revisionist bend on the historical facts. 

See here for a quick update:

https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=004/llsl004.db&recNum=317

 

[Ahab]

20 minutes ago, Rain said:

I really wish we could easily sort out all the people/groups easily and deal with the problems one by one.  

We can when we can see what people are doing.

But if you're talking about judging what kind of person someone is when they are just standing there, doing nothing other than looking at you, as if they didn't do anything wrong, yeah, that can be kind of tricky.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, Islander said:

Sorry, my friend, but you are somewhat misinformed on the issue.

In 1828, Congress passed a tariff of sixty-two percent which applied to nearly all imported goods. The purpose of the tariff was to protect Northern industries from low-priced imported goods. But it effectively increased the cost of goods for the South, which sans manufacturing capacity, relied heavily on imported goods. At the same time, the tariff reduced the amount of British goods sold to the South, effectively making it more difficult for the British to pay for Southern cotton. It’s no wonder the South would refer to the Tariff of 1828 as the “Tariff of Abominations.”

By 1860, nearly all federal tax revenue was generated by tariffs (there were no personal or corporate income taxes). Southern states were paying the majority (approximately eighty percent) of the tariffs with an impending new tariff that would nearly triple the rate of taxation. That was the prelude to the Civil War. Trying to link the war, exclusively, to slavery is a modern revisionist bend on the historical facts. 

See here for a quick update:

https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=004/llsl004.db&recNum=317

 

I have heard that argument. I am unconvinced.

[The Nehor]

Oh, and for those who say MLK protests were different and much cleaner we should take a look at how they were characterized back then:

 

 

Tale as old as time.

[Islander]

14 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Please supply references on taxation being the friction between North and South.

I replied to Nehor on the same issue but here is a copy/paste

"In 1828, Congress passed a tariff of sixty-two percent which applied to nearly all imported goods. The purpose of the tariff was to protect Northern industries from low-priced imported goods. But it effectively increased the cost of goods for the South, which sans manufacturing capacity, relied heavily on imported goods.

At the same time, the tariff reduced the amount of British goods sold to the South, effectively making it more difficult for the British to pay for Southern cotton. It’s no wonder the South would refer to the Tariff of 1828 as the “Tariff of Abominations.”

In 1860, nearly all federal tax revenue was generated by tariffs (there were no personal or corporate income taxes). Southern states were paying the majority (approximately eighty percent) of the tariffs with an impending new tariff that would nearly triple the rate of taxation."

https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=004/llsl004.db&recNum=317

Even wikipedia (not the most trustworthy place for accurate info) has a decent summary on the subject (Tariff of Abomination).

See also McDonald, Forrest, States' Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio 1776–1876 (2000) 

 

[alter idem]

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

Last night I received a text from my employer, which warned all employees to stay home due to violence in Salt Lake City near our office.

I just received another text just now, saying that tomorrow our office may be open, but there are continuing rumors of more "protests" (read: mob violence, targeting of law enforcement, looting, destruction of government and personal property, etc.) tonight.

Again, I ask those of you who are condoning/excusing/rationalizing mob violence to reconsider your position.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thank you for your thoughts on this. Riots and Mob rule is anarchy and injustice, the Saints were on the receiving end of this kind of wickedness; they suffered terribly and we of all people should never condone it.  I don't know how it can be justified.  Non violent protest is the only type of protest a moral people should support or be involved in. If it turns violent,  we ought to condemn it and never offer justification for evil actions.

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, alter idem said:

Thank you for your thoughts on this. Riots and Mob rule is anarchy and injustice, the Saints were on the receiving end of this kind of wickedness; they suffered terribly and we of all people should never condone it.  I don't know how it can be justified.  Non violent protest is the only type of protest a moral people should support or be involved in. If it turns violent,  we ought to condemn it and never offer justification for evil actions.

Be careful about absolutes.

Quote

 

Captain Moroni threatens treason and insurrection against the legitimate government:

And I will come unto you, and if there be any among you that has a desire for freedom, yea, if there be even a spark of freedom remaining, behold I will stir up insurrections among you, even until those who have desires to usurp power and authority shall become extinct. Yea, behold I do not fear your power nor your authority, but it is my God whom I fear; and it is according to his commandments that I do take my sword to defend the cause of my country, and it is because of your iniquity that we have suffered so much loss.

 

Wow, that certainly sounds like a violent protest against government action with a dash of treason for seasoning.

[The Nehor]

I prefer a more situational approach with things having their seasons:

Quote

 

 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;

A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;

A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;

A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;

A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

 

I am not preaching situational morality where our principles shift with the times but instead eternal principles whose applications vary to circumstance.

[alter idem]

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

I had a post written but it got deleted and I don't have the time (or desire) to write it again.  I can suggest studying chattel slavery, which was unique to the New World, and also suggest this link for a very (very) simple summary.

And I'll quickly point out that no one ignores the fact that Africans aided Europeans and Americans in the slave trade, it's just that it's irrelevant to any discussion on racism, slavery, and the United States.  Africa (like every other continent and region in the world) had a long history of slavery before whites showed up, but as has already been said, it was a different type of slavery.  Unlike in America, it was not at all based on race or the perceived inferiority of the individual.  Slaves in African societies had rights, they could marry, their children were not slaves, and often they were eventually able to become regular members of their societies.  

You asked why African Americans can't just let it go, why they still struggle so much compared to other races that also deal with racism.  America's history of slavery is why.  

I also felt your statement was not accurate.  To make the statement that blacks are the only people ever enslaved for their race, sounds off. Slavery has been widespread throughout the world,  and often one tribe or island, would enslave people not of their tribe or their people. Today we see some Muslims enslaving women and children who are Christian and not even of their nation. I think that is a form of racism as well. Enslaving women and children of different races in the sex trade is a problem throughout history and even today. I'm pretty sure these slaves have no rights at all.

[Islander]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I have heard that argument. I am unconvinced.

Is not an argument. This is history. . Lincoln just didn't wake up one morning and said "...that's it, slavery is history and we are going to war to abolish it.". It was a long process and a very long history of North vs. South over taxation, tariffs and the intent of both to "protect their industries and revenue sources. 

In the March 3rd, 1837 session of the Illinois General Assembly, Lincoln made the following statement:

“We believe that the Congress of the United States has no power, under the constitution, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the different States. The Congress of the United States has the power, under the constitution, to abolish slavery only in the District of Columbia; but that that power ought not to be exercised unless at the request of the people of said District.”

As the antagonism grew over the above issues, Lincoln "evolved" his ideology to the point where his belief over a just war was justified and legal authority to stand on it also formed by the 1860's. There is a fair treatment of the issues here: http://www.asjournal.org/53-2009/abraham-lincolns-attitudes-on-slavery-and-race/

[bsjkki]

31 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I prefer a more situational approach with things having their seasons:

I am not preaching situational morality where our principles shift with the times but instead eternal principles whose applications vary to circumstance.

So, one question. Do you believe the violence, looting and assaults are justified at this time?

...I forgot murders

Edited June 2, 2020 by bsjkki

[alter idem]

11 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Does that mean you are excusing state-sanctioned murder "until" looting and rioting end? Even the Commander-in-chief used violence against peaceful protestors in the last 24 hours. You have an opportunity to organise to create a more righteous government that holds law enforcement accountable.

 

I don't think that's what he's saying at all. Rioting and looting don't help end police brutality.  It just hurts a bunch of innocents who did nothing wrong, their lives threatened and businesses, neighborhoods destroyed.  It causes more suffering and hurts the protestors' cause.

There can be no real purposeful change when groups use fear and tyranny to try to make their case. That's why Martin Luther King always encouraged only nonviolence to change hearts and minds.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

The bold part was a quote from your earlier comment except for the why at the end of the first sentence. It seemed like you were saying that American slavery was completely unique in world history and that is why it remains a focus.

Your second paragraph makes no sense. You are stating the war was to keep the south from seceding the Union. The problem is that South was seceding because the North was determined to end slavery. The South's entire economy was built on slavery and its end was seen as an end of their entire way of life. The rest is propaganda and has nothing to do with this being the only country that was so determined to end slavery they wee willing to sacrifice 700,000 lives. No other nation has ever done that. Now, you may say Americans of the time were stupid they could not just accept freedom for all; I choose to think that America was going through some horrible growing pains and addressing the errors of their forefathers. 

The Europeans were second class slavers. The real slave trade was the Arab slave trade and it has never stopped. Slavery remains acceptable within Islam and continues to be practiced in various forms. 

I think if you read my post to Smac that might clear some things up for you.   

[Scott Lloyd]

21 hours ago, SteveO said:

My brother is a cop in Milwaukee.  He said last night was the first time in his career he was afraid.  Groups of 500-600 people are now going into private residential neighborhoods and looting them.  And there’s no one stopping them.

I don’t see how terrorizing the general population, and making them to feel helpless is going to help anyone’s cause here.  

There’s an image I saw on the news a couple of days ago that sticks in my mind. It shows people standing outside their businesses with assault rifles and other firearms ready to fend off the looters, arsonists and vandals. 
 

If these mobs are going to bring their violence into the suburbs, and  government/law enforcement are unable/unwilling to stop them, I won’t stand by and watch them threaten or harm my family or destroy what I’ve labored a lifetime to build. 

Edited June 2, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Islander]

19 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Be careful about absolutes.

Wow, that certainly sounds like a violent protest against government action with a dash of treason for seasoning.

I had to laugh...It is a good one, though.

 

The broader context  in the passage is, however, that Moroni is executing a legitimate war against the enemies of the state and the people. And he wonders if Pahoran is being derelict and thus treasonous against the cause of the people, by neglecting to support the war efforts. In Alma 60:5-9 he makes a pretty passionate pitch and argument for his thoughts and feelings about the government of the land during the war. It is rather a forceful exhortaation to Pahoran to do his duty.

I think it is a totally different issue.

[alter idem]

26 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Be careful about absolutes.

Wow, that certainly sounds like a violent protest against government action with a dash of treason for seasoning.

They were fighting a civil war and this had nothing to do with rioting. Are we engaged in civil war? So far, no.

How do you think Joseph Smith Jr  would have reacted to this present day example of mob rule and rioting? The tyranny and fear that mob actions took against the Saints were very effective. They burned homes, tarred and feathered,  looted the church members' homes and businesses. Mob violence was used several times against them. They were effective in only causing injustice, suffering, brutality and resentment and ended with the deaths of innocents. Violence is not the answer to stopping violence. It's counter effective. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

omeone last night was working on a composite video of the address and the protest and trying to sync up the two videos in time

The BBC showed it side by side, don't know if synced up.

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, alter idem said:

Violence is not the answer to stopping violence. It's counter effective. 

Generally, I agree, but again, be careful about making absolute statements. 

God sometimes does violent things and he has commanded others to do violent things on some occasions. We should all try to be nice but sometimes we need to go to war.  I don't think we should enjoy it though.

[bsjkki]

26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There’s an image I saw on the news a couple of days ago that sticks in my mind. It shows people standing outside their businesses with assault rifles and other firearms ready to fend off the looters, arsonists and vandals. 
 

If these mobs are going to bring their violence into the suburbs, and  government/law enforcement are unable/unwilling to stop them, I won’t stand by and watch them threaten or harm my family or destroy what I’ve labored a lifetime to build. 

This has killed 2A arguments. The lines at gun stores are long today. The social contract broke and people do not believe the police will be there to protect them. Gun sales also sky rocketed in March. People buy guns when they are scared. It's human psychology/cause/effect. I was shocked when I searched 'gun store lines' on twitter.

[Storm Rider]

36 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think if you read my post to Smac that might clear some things up for you.   

Thank  you, I did read it. I thought the guy used circular reasoning and was snarky - you are lazy if you don't agree with me and my reasoning. Historians come in all flavors; I just disagree with his for being more agenda driven than actually striving to be realistic. 

[stemelbow]

45 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There’s an image I saw on the news a couple of days ago that sticks in my mind. It shows people standing outside their businesses with assault rifles and other firearms ready to fend off the looters, arsonists and vandals. 
 

If these mobs are going to bring their violence into the suburbs, and  government/law enforcement are unable/unwilling to stop them, I won’t stand by and watch them threaten or harm my family or destroy what I’ve labored a lifetime to build. 

uh.  I"m concerned how far afield from reality your imagination is taking this.  If you're in the SLC area, by the time anyone made it out to the suburbs there'd likely be two or three and they'd likely only really be wanting a drink of water or a ride home.  Nobody's out to get you.  They've marched around SLC a bit.  A handful of them threw over a car on Saturday and caused other damages.  They were mostly young white dudes who wanted to wreak havoc for the sake or wreaking it.  my family and I went Saturday.  It was a peaceful affair.  We left before the mayhem which was really tame compared to other places.  I don't think there's anything to fear.  

[alter idem]

16 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Generally, I agree, but again, be careful about making absolute statements. 

God sometimes does violent things and he has commanded others to do violent things on some occasions. We should all try to be nice but sometimes we need to go to war.  I don't think we should enjoy it though.

This is not war, we are not fighting a civil war, yet. And what God does is not justification. The Lord said 'Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord, I will repay". God has that right, which he rarely extends to us, and in this situation, I'm certain he would not justify the use of violence to loot, terrorize and destroy as a protest against another's brutality. 

Have we forgotten the tragedy of mob violence and lawlessness when it was used to terrorize our people? I can't see how this behavior can be justified considering our own church history.