Curious treatment of former slaves by a church in GA

[UgaTom]

From a county history:

...the church was divided into two sections, one for white members and one for the negro slaves who were members. The front pews, which were reserved for white people, were separated from the black pews by a solid wall built waist high. The original records of the church, which were copied in part, then destroyed, state that, "colored members were received into the church during the years of slavery, but were dismissed by letter immediately after the close of the Confederate War, which terminated in 1865."

 

[dieharddawg62]

It's embarrassing, but I had nothing to do with it. What's your point?

 

[FeralDawg]

That is wierd. What's your take on it? Radical Reconstruction sour grapes?
There's a pre-war church here in Tallahassee that still has the marks on the floors and back pew where
the chains of slaves were hooked during the services.
I guess the front row was the place to be in that age where entertainment was scarce.
I always preferred the back as a youngster. I prefer outside the church as an adult though.

 

[Fivehade]

Churches have people in them..... That's how it goes

 

[UgaTom]

It's embarrassing, but I had nothing to do with it. What's your point?

I don't really have a point; I just found it curious.

 

[UgaTom]

That is wierd. What's your take on it? Radical Reconstruction sour grapes?
There's a pre-war church here in Tallahassee that still has the marks on the floors and back pew where
the chains of slaves were hooked during the services.
I guess the front row was the place to be in that age where entertainment was scarce.
I always preferred the back as a youngster. I prefer outside the church as an adult though.

I don't know what to make of it. I was surprised when I learned that slaves were allowed in the same church as whites back then. I guess whites felt they had a duty to give blacks religion even though they were property and decided they could get it on their own after they were free. Maybe it was sour grapes.

 

[FeralDawg]

I could have been told wrong but the upper story was also the place that slaves sat for church.
Same as a movie theater in the 1940's in the whole USA. My dad called it the peanut gallery
but I'm not sure what that meant either.

 

[PotimusWillie]

From a county history:

...the church was divided into two sections, one for white members and one for the negro slaves who were members. The front pews, which were reserved for white people, were separated from the black pews by a solid wall built waist high. The original records of the church, which were copied in part, then destroyed, state that, "colored members were received into the church during the years of slavery, but were dismissed by letter immediately after the close of the Confederate War, which terminated in 1865."

Some black kids raped and tortured a young white couple then dismembered their bodies. Never really made the news. I guess that all black people are perverted animals based on your logic.

Of course they are not and the era in which this church existed is different than how we think now.
The Church could have very well been in the north or south. The racial bigotry north and south was vicious. But that was then and this is now. We all have an equal opportunity as written in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

It is what we do with that freedom that creates today's bigotry.

 

[UgaTom]

Some black kids raped and tortured a young white couple then dismembered their bodies. Never really made the news. I guess that all black people are perverted animals based on your logic.

Of course they are not and the era in which this church existed is different than how we think now.
The Church could have very well been in the north or south. The racial bigotry north and south was vicious. But that was then and this is now. We all have an equal opportunity as written in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Not that that has anything to do with what I posted. It seems you couldn't come up with any links quoting Southern politicians saying that slavery was going to be phased out - can you come up with a link for that?

 

[HeulenHund2]

Not that that has anything to do with what I posted. It seems you couldn't come up with any links quoting Southern politicians saying that slavery was going to be phased out - can you come up with a link for that?

I believe he was referring to a case in Knoxville from 10 or so years back.
For a case that didn't get publicity some people sure do bring it up a lot.

 

[UgaTom]

I believe he was referring to a case in Knoxville from 10 or so years back.
For a case that didn't get publicity some people sure do bring it up a lot.

That's what I assumed, but the victims in that case weren't dismembered, so I couldn't be sure. In all fairness, some early reports did erroneously mention dismemberment, but it's not hard to find the correct details of the case.

 

[PotimusWillie]

That's what I assumed, but the victims in that case weren't dismembered, so I couldn't be sure. In all fairness, some early reports did erroneously mention dismemberment, but it's not hard to find the correct details of the case.

Yeah, all those details. Here is the recap of the murders. Of course, it wasn't important.

On 6 January 2007, Knoxville, Tennessee, residents Christopher Newsom, Jr., 23, and Channon Christian, 21, went out for a dinner date at a local restaurant, then headed to a friend's house to watch a movie. They never came back.

When the couple had failed to return by the following morning, their parents notified police. Christopher Newsom's body was found near some railroad tracks in East Knoxville that afternoon, but Channon Christian remained missing. A trace run on Christian's cell phone helped authorities locate her abandoned vehicle the next day, and fingerprints raised from an envelope inside the automobile led police to the residence of 25-year-old Lemaricus Devall "Slim" Davidson, where they discovered Christian's body stashed inside a trash disposal bin and covered with sheets.

The details of the crime as later revealed by court testimony were horrific: Christopher Newsom was repeatedly sodomized with a foreign object; he was bound, gagged and blindfolded; he was dragged outside and shot in the back of his head, neck and back; and his body was set on fire. Channon Christian was tortured for several hours, beaten about the head, and raped; afterwards, bleach was poured over her body and down her throat, then she was covered with several plastic garbage bags, dumped in a disposal bin, and left to suffocate.
.

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/newsom.asp#fzCwhLASuqFu28v6.99

 

[LumpLump]

From a county history:

...the church was divided into two sections, one for white members and one for the negro slaves who were members. The front pews, which were reserved for white people, were separated from the black pews by a solid wall built waist high. The original records of the church, which were copied in part, then destroyed, state that, "colored members were received into the church during the years of slavery, but were dismissed by letter immediately after the close of the Confederate War, which terminated in 1865."

It's hard to say but if I guessed, I'd think they were setting them free to form their own church. And probably allowed them in the 1st place, to ease their own conscience.

I will never understand how a human being thought it was a good idea to own another human being and yes, we had some slave owners on my father's side, so yes, it's part of our heritage. Just don't get it. But times were different back then.

Old enough to remember separate water fountains in stores, even at a doctor's office, etc. except they were marked "coloreds".

 

[UgaTom]

Yeah, all those details. Here is the recap of the murders. Of course, it wasn't important.

On 6 January 2007, Knoxville, Tennessee, residents Christopher Newsom, Jr., 23, and Channon Christian, 21, went out for a dinner date at a local restaurant, then headed to a friend's house to watch a movie. They never came back.

When the couple had failed to return by the following morning, their parents notified police. Christopher Newsom's body was found near some railroad tracks in East Knoxville that afternoon, but Channon Christian remained missing. A trace run on Christian's cell phone helped authorities locate her abandoned vehicle the next day, and fingerprints raised from an envelope inside the automobile led police to the residence of 25-year-old Lemaricus Devall "Slim" Davidson, where they discovered Christian's body stashed inside a trash disposal bin and covered with sheets.

The details of the crime as later revealed by court testimony were horrific: Christopher Newsom was repeatedly sodomized with a foreign object; he was bound, gagged and blindfolded; he was dragged outside and shot in the back of his head, neck and back; and his body was set on fire. Channon Christian was tortured for several hours, beaten about the head, and raped; afterwards, bleach was poured over her body and down her throat, then she was covered with several plastic garbage bags, dumped in a disposal bin, and left to suffocate.
.

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/newsom.asp#fzCwhLASuqFu28v6.99

IIRC, you brought that up in a thread when the black church shooting was the subject. I don't know why unless you somehow think it is supposed to make the shooting less seem a less heinous act. If you've read past the grisly details of the couple's murder, you've no doubt seen that the white police chief, Sterling Owen IV, said that there was no indication the crimes were racially motivated and that the murders and assault "appears to have been a random violent act." That's quite different from the church shooting.

Regardless, I have no idea why you brought that up and then said, "I guess that all black people are perverted animals based on your logic." Since I've never made a blanket statement about white people based on a crime committed, I don't know what the "logic" is that you think you are talking about.

 

[PotimusWillie]

Not that that has anything to do with what I posted. It seems you couldn't come up with any links quoting Southern politicians saying that slavery was going to be phased out - can you come up with a link for that?

Tom, quoting Tom Watson on the race issue. "You are made to hate each other," he said, addressing both races, "because upon that hatred is rested the keystone of the arch of financial despotism which enslaves you both. You are deceived and blinded that you may not see how this race antagonism perpetuates a monetary system which beggars you both."

That is happening now is such a big way. We raise our citizens up to believe they are owed something by our government.

To Quote Andrew Johnson, "Our government sprang from and was made for the people -- not the people for the government. To them it owes an allegiance from them it must derive its courage, strength, and wisdom"

To move on to your question.

Henry Clay… on Abolition

“I would refer you to a speech which I addressed to the Colonization Society of K[entucky] in Dec. 1929, published in many of the prints, for my general views of the institution of slavery, and the remedy for the evils incident to it. And to the part I acted on the Missouri question for my opinion of the powers of the genl. government in regard to it…. Slavery is undoubtedly a manifest violation of the rights of man. It can only be justified in America, if at all, by necessity. That it entails innumerable mischiefs upon our Country I think is quite clear. It may become dangerous in particular parts of the Union. But the slaves can never, I think, acquire permanent ascendancy in any part.
Congress has no power, as I think, to establish any system of emancipation, gradual or immediate, in behalf of the present or any future generation. The several states alone, according to our existing institutions, are competent to make provision on that subject, as already intimated.”

~ Henry Clay letter to John Switzer, May, 1831

Tom,

I think we all need to explore the concept of “cause and effect” as it relates to the abolition of slavery in the United States in the 1800s as a whole. Examine the causes and effects of events in the Antebellum period of American history that contributed to the end of slavery. Also apply cause-and-effect-based thinking to current events. When looking at cause and effect, it reinforces two
important tenets of historical study:

1) Cause and effect analysis of major and minor events is a crucial component in the study of history

2) Understanding the multiple factors that lead to, and arise from, events increase our comprehension of history as a whole.

A couple of posters here see the slavery issue as a cut and dry, black and white issue of racial dominance. That is incorrect.

Political power and the submission of the southern economy were of first and foremost importance to the northern political machine.

The issue of states rights drove the country to war. Slavery was the fuel.

Some more quotes:

Thomas Jefferson stated:

"Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever. Commerce between master and slave is despotism. Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate that these people are to be free."

Here is a great read on my point about cause and effect.


In the 1820s and '30s, using money from the export trade and tariffs, Eastern states aggressively built railroads, canals and conventional roads -- extensively aided by the national government in the form of land grants and stock subscriptions -- to capture the Midwestern trade away from New Orleans (and each other).

And as her share of the national bargain, the South got what? She got John Brown. Murderous psychopaths armed and outfitted by the industrialists of the North, sent South to incite race war. Abolitionists gloating about the likelihood of how many white families would be wiped out in a slave rebellion.

The people of the South were aware that, at the time of the Revolution, the upper South and Virginia especially was the wealthiest region of North America. And long before the Civil War, this region had sadly declined. The Virginia state convention of 1829 estimated the state's lands were worth only half what they had been in 1817. The landed gentry economy that produced Washington, Jefferson, and Madison was all but extinct. The North saw this decline, too, and piously blamed it on the baleful influences of slavery. Yet these had been slaveholding regions long before the decline, and in fact slavery was, in part, what built up that early prosperity.

The South looked at that decline and saw it in large part as a product of a defect in the American union, which distributed political power too much on the basis of population. (When I call this a "defect," I'm trying to elucidate the thinking of many Southerners in 1860, not the thinking of me today.) The Southerner looked at the decline of Southern prosperity and the rapid rise of fortunes among what had been in 1787 shabby communities of fish oil merchants in New England. And he looked at the fact that, in the first House of Representatives, Virginia had 10 members and New York six. And that, after the census of 1860, the proportion would be Virginia 11, New York 30.

And he thought about all the tariff bills his state had been asked to support, to protect the infant woolen mills of Connecticut, the rum distilleries of Massachusetts, the iron and paper mills of Pennsylvania. He thought how in some cases the Southern representatives had objected to these tariffs, which forced them to pay more for certain goods, but in many other cases his representatives had voted for the good of the whole country.

And he thought how the Northern powers, whenever possible (as it seemed to him, and as he was told by his newspapers and his political leaders), had used their hegemony in Washington to not only line their own pockets, but to weaken and undermine the South's economy, including the slavery that was intimately woven into it.

And he saw the speeches and pamphlets of the Republicans printed in his newspapers. And he heard the certain claims of what their election would mean, in accellerating what had already been happening.

And he decided he had had enough.

You don't have to agree with it, but you have to try to see it.

1. Ronald G. Walters, American Reformers 1815-1860 (revised ed.), Hill & Wang Pub., 1997.

Tom, it is a common assertion nowadays that the Confederacy had no purpose or justification but perpetuating racist slavery.

That argument can be made intelligently, and has been made, but the lazy debater wants to treat it as a settled proposition above discussion. Any objection to it, or any suggestion of Southern legitimacy, is automatically dismissable because it amounts to a defense of the Confederacy, and even if someone who is not an outright racist or slavery-apologist would defend the Confederacy, the debater on the other side has the option to not be bothered with that distinction. Far easier to dismiss the opposition as crypto-racist.

It's the old fallacy of arguing in a circle. Yet people choose this tactic, perhaps in part because they find it frustratingly difficult to pin down American history or any part of it to such a simplistic idea as "it was all about slavery."

Naturally, some people do want to regard all this as settled before they plow into their opponents. The easy expedient is to go in search of one zinger of a quote that will seem to prove the case. In Internet debates, those willing to be convinced will look no further, and those who disagree will be required to build up the cathedral of context, a tedious process. By the time they finish, the audience will have wandered off with the zinger lodged in their heads.

So they pick through the sources. Any quote will do, by anyone remotely prominent in the Confederacy, saying, more or less, "it was all about slavery." Jeff Davis's speech? No, it makes nary a mention of slaves or slavery. Robert Toombs report to the Georgia legislature in 1860? No, that outlines how anti-slavery agitation in the North was exploited by political powers there to disguise economic motives.

Quote from Robert E. Lee:

So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that Slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interest of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this that I would have cheerfully lost all that I have lost by the war, and have suffered all that I have suffered to have this object attained.

 

[UgaTom]

What are those quotes supposed to prove? They don't do anything to answer my question asking for proof that slavery was going to be phased out in the South. In fact, Henry Clay's words, "slaves can never, I think, acquire permanent ascendancy in any part," is almost a justification for continued slavery.

Here is a piece from an article by Richard Striner, professor of history at Washington College:

From the Founding Fathers onward, the eminently moderate and arguably sensible idea of phasing out slavery by compensating the slave-owners—the method that the British used successfully during the 1830s to banish slavery from the West Indies—was opposed with fanatical intensity by many, if not most, American slave-owners. Let the economic determinists take note of this case study: Slavery was not fundamentally, or at least not exclusively or principally, a matter of money and wealth. The most virulent defenders of slavery could not be bought off by anyone: They could not even be paid to do the right thing.


There were other forces, beyond economics, at work: Slavery provided a ready outlet for power-lust, domination, and, of course, the near-universal lunacy (prevalent in both North and South) of race ideology, built upon the notion that the outward physical features of our fellow human beings are indicators of inward character traits, either good or bad. But it was the Civil War itself—a war caused by the slavery dispute, as the proclamations of secession by South Carolina, Mississippi, and other slave states make clear—that provided the horrific, but nonetheless priceless, leverage that was needed to rid the United States of slavery.

First, he points out that slave states were not interested in compensated emancipation, so there's no reason to think that those states were interested in phasing out the institution as you claim. Second, he echoes the assertion that the slavery dispute was the central cause of secession. At no time have I ever said that slavery was the one and only cause of the war. Essentially, every other cause grew out of it. Nor have I picked sources that were remotely prominent in the Confederacy. The very reasons for secession laid out by seceding states were by and large about the issue of slavery.

There's no reason to minimize the role slavery played in the states' decisions to secede. It was the focus of debate for years - long before tariffs and the supposed desire of the North to dominate the economy of the South. Once those issues came into play, they did not supplant slavery as the main reason for wanted to secede, but were added along side it.