Tawser I think raises an interesting point in
his comment on a previous thread that I would like to expand on a bit. Let us assume (for the sake of discussion) that human civilization as we tend to understand it, is about 6000 years old. In that period I know of no civilization or culture of any great size or significance that did not have in some form or other slavery or compulsory servitude. Indeed, it was not until the late 18th century that any sort of really organized opposition to slavery was formed. And it was not until the 19th century that in Western Civilization slavery become a seriously controversial institution, where by the close of the century public opinion had shifted overwhelmingly against it.
And finally it was not until the 20th century that slavery as we understand it, was more or less suppressed (at least legally) throughout most of the world. Some very notable countries did not abolish it until the 1960's and Mauritania did not do so (ineffectually) until 1981 and again in 2007. Yet the institution is alive and well there to this day and practiced more or less openly in a number of countries according to most human rights groups.
A point worth considering (as a student of history) is a warning I got as an undergraduate. Take great care before judging people of another era by our own standards. In most cases, especially if going back more than a century, it is all but impossible to truly grasp or understand what it was to live and breath in their time. Books and letters can not convey how it was to be raised with a particular worldview that we would find laughable or barbaric.
Any common peasant whom we might somehow transport from Medieval Europe into the 21st century, and convince him/her that our technology was not witchcraft would nonetheless be appalled at our civilization. Looking at our society he would almost certainly say that we had sold our souls to the devil and were damned. That we had regressed to a form of paganism that would shame the ancient Romans. And according to his worldview he would be right.
Those who argue that the Civil War was not about slavery are simply wrong. Such opinions fly in the face of a mountain of historical evidence left by those who organized and promoted the secessionist movement. Almost to the man they openly affirmed that they were acting in defense of their rights... specifically the right to property. One need only read the
Declaration on the Causes and Justifications of Secession drawn up by the South Carolina Convention to see this. Several of the other states drew up
similar documents. The speeches of southern statesmen similarly leave no doubt as to their motives. Read the
Cornerstone Address by Vice-President Alexander Stephens as but one example. Their writings bear further evidence.
The Confederate Constitution goes to great lengths to affirm a right to property in the form of human slaves and forbids any governmental act that might interfere with that right. Diaries are full of condemnations of the "abolitionist Republicans" and their interference in Southern property rights. Southerners accused the Republicans of attempting to incite “servile insurrection.” Jefferson Davis devoted the first part of his "
Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government" to a defense of African Slavery. I could go on at great length. But the bottom line is that to argue that slavery was not the root cause and issue of the war is patently indefensible from an historical perspective.
All of this being said, I am careful to differentiate my revulsion for slavery from a condemnation of those who practiced it. They were raised to believe, and not without some historical justification, that it was the normal order of things. The racist beliefs of the white Plantation Aristocracy were not especially unusual and were held in similar regard by most in the North. The idea of racial equality would have been seen as ludicrous if not actually insane at the time by almost everyone, including Abraham Lincoln. Those who orchestrated the revolt of 1861 were essentially conservatives resisting an attack on what they saw as the natural order of the world and also on their economic livelihood which was dependent on slave labor.
The question of how many Orthodox saints condemned slavery is an interesting one though not necessarily conclusive in any way. My guess is probably very few did so. As I noted above. The last one hundred and fifty years or so represent the first tick on the clock of human civilization in which there has been a massive shift of opinion against slavery. When one considers that in contrast to 6000 years or more of world history one is left with the inescapable conclusion that we are indeed radicals, revolutionaries and yes... liberals.
(
Comments: I note several comments by Owen the Ochlophobist in the previous thread. In order to preserve continuity in the discussion
please post your comments there.)
