Post by Dr. Jean Tant
Post by Frank Provasek Post by Brian Oakley Post by Frank Provasek Post by Brian Oakley
websites and you will find out.
Those websites bear false witness.
So its all just a pack of lies Frank?? Yeah, Christians are the MOST likely
people in the world to deliberately try to deceive people. Oh
Post by Frank Provasek
My comment was not about all Christians. It was about the websites
you quoted and the people behind them. They are far away from
mainstream Christianity. Rather than preach love, they preach hate.
They attempt to enforce the rules of their particular sect on all
Americans through the power of government. They and their like are
virtually all based in the
Post by Frank Provasek
where for the last 150 years they promoted slavery, separate schools
and even WATER FOUNTAINS for Blacks, public lynchings, opposed
women's rights, opposed interracial marriage, opposed alcohol,
Post by Frank Provasek
Jews, immigrants, integration, gay rights. They disagree with basic
Post by Frank Provasek
of the Constitution, such as freedom of speech, freedom to criticize
the government. They believe that Americans with different political
beliefs should be imprisoned or executed for treason. They are more
likely to believe in hexes, demons, superstition and phony faith
healings than sound science. They believe in the Ann Coulter policy
of foreign relations: "Kill their leaders and convert the people to
Christianity." They will
Post by Frank Provasek
for politicians who pander to their concerns about "God, guns, and
gays." And yes, they lie.
I pray you will be able to see how absolutely absurd your statement
is, and that you will see that it is completely unsubstanceiated. I
invite anyone that reads your rubbish to visit the websites I put up
here and make up their own minds.
Liberals, homosexuals, and unbelievers do their best to paint American
slavery in the antebellum South as a product of fundamental Christianity.
Having laid down this false foundation, they then use it to defend
homosexuality and other sinful movements against modern, Christian
fundamentalism. They "conveniently" leave out the following facts that were
documented in the first part of this article:
1. That the Baptists (and other fundamental Christians) were the leaders in
establishing RELIGIOUS liberty (1st Amendment) in this country.
Homosexuals, feminists and agnostics/atheists can thank the Baptists for
the freedom to publish their falsehoods and other opinions.
2. That the institution of slavery was largely overturned due to the
leadership and labor of Baptists in America.
3. That before the 1830's, Baptists in America (and most others sects) were
largely against American slavery and viewed it as immoral. Other so-called
"pro-slavery" Christians, before 1830, usually saw the specific system of
American slavery as only a "necessary evil" for the present time only.
4. That in the turbulent period between 1830 and 1870, popular Baptist
preachers and revivalists (Spurgeon, Finney, etc.) in American and England
denounced slavery and warned of Divine retribution.
5. That the LIBERAL denominations such as the Unitarians in the South were
6. That the Darwinian, scientific community philosophically justified
slavery by teaching that blacks were the last race up the evolution ladder
from the apes.
There is additional history that is likewise conveniently forgotten today
by many anti-fundamentalists. In these final parts, I will therefore
provide some further facts of history, and then deal with a common
misinterpretation of the Scriptures which prevailed in the South in the
decades directly preceding the Civil War. The desired end will be to show
that, although some Christians were certainly guilty of partiality and
faulty Bible interpretation, the attempt to paint American slavery as the
special sin of Christian fundamentalism is ludicrous and dishonest!
THE SOUTH AFTER 1830
From 1790 to 1860, the number of slaves increased from 700,000 to 4,000,000
(even with importation forbidden after 1808)! The stakes were higher, and
the South grew increasingly defensive after 1830. Before the 1830's, the
anti-slavery views of most Baptists (documented in the first part of the
article) was the general spirit of most political leaders who founded the
country. Alexander H. Stephens (Vice President of the Confederacy), in
"The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the
leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution,
were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of
nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically.
It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the GENERAL OPINION
of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of
Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea,
though not incorporated in the constitution, was THE PREVAILING IDEA at
that time...Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth
[that slavery of Negroes is natural, normal, and just] was NOT GENERALLY
admitted, even within their day. The errors of the PAST GENERATION still
clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who STILL
CLING to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate
fanatics....In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side,
complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is
upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I
cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of
THIS PRINCIPLE throughout the civilized and enlightened world....May we
not, therefore, look with confidence to the ultimate universal
acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests?..."(1)
After 1830, as some Christians began to leave the area over slavery, and
pro-slavery advocates strove to keep the balance of power in Congress, the
South became hardened and began to openly and aggressively defend the
enslavement of Africans on both "scientific" and/or "Biblical" grounds.
Yet, even in the period from 1830-1865, it is foolish or dishonest to place
the blame of slavery primarily on Baptists, or even fundamental Christians,
ROMAN CATHOLICS AND SLAVERY
Many people today delight in rashly linking slavery with Christian
fundamentalism. They usually brush aside (or bury) the fact that slavery
was passionately defended by Roman Catholics and Unitarians (the darlings
of most modern anti-fundamentalists). Roman Catholics such as Augustine
Verot (1804-1876), the bishop of Georgia and east Florida, defended slavery
on the basis that slaves were generally happier than people working in
factories. Therefore, he reasoned that they were justly compensated by
enslavement. He wrote that blacks were "sensual" and therefore fit for
slavery. The Jesuits in Maryland (1805-1838) were generally known for
treating slaves brutally. Patrick Smyth, a Roman Catholic clergyman,
"...these sooty rogues will not work, unless they be goaded and whipped,
and almost FLAYED ALIVE." (2)
Burke McCarty writes:
"In the 'Doctrine of the Jesuits' by Gury, translated into the French by
that brilliant educator and statesman, Paul Bert in 1879, we find the
position of the [Catholic] church and the Jesuits on black slavery quoted
as follows: 'Slavery does not constitute a crime before any law, divine or
human....When one thinks of the state of degradation in which the hordes of
Africa live, the SLAVE TRADE may be considered as a providential act..."(3)
Such Jesuitical thinking had become ingrained in much of Southern thought.
The Bible, on the contrary, teaches that Providence (i.e. God using, or
bringing good things out of, evil actions) does not excuse the sin (Genesis
50:20, Romans 3:8, Jeremiah 25:12).
In 1842, the "New York Freeman's Journal," a leading Catholic paper (the
official journal of the Bishop of New York), called ABOLITIONISTS a
"mischievous set of fanatics." Ten years later (1852), this journal would
reveal its true reasons for inflaming the controversy:
"No man has a right to choose his religion. Catholicism is the most
intolerant of creeds. It is intolerance itself. We might as rationally
maintain that two and two does not make four as the theory of Religious
Liberty. Its impiety is only equaled by its absurdity."
Some of the pro-Union Catholic leaders during the war were dismissed,
reprimanded, or investigated for their strange "foot-dragging" (e.g. Gen.
Rosecrans, and Gen. George G. Meade, for passivity during significant
battles, and Bishop Hughes for delayed action in putting down the New York
Catholic riots). But aside from any Jesuit conspiracies (of which there is
much evidence), history plainly reveals that Roman Catholicism was on the
slavery side of the debate. No Catholic leader in America advocated
abolition before the war! Abolitionists were usually very anti-Catholic,
and they often likened slave-masters to Catholic priests for refusing to
allow slaves to read or write. G. B. Cheever (1807-1890) linked pro-slavery
Christians with the Jesuits for the mutual habit of justifying sin. He was
commonly vilified in Catholic publications.
The controversial Dred Scott Supreme Court decision (1857) concluded that,
not only was Scott still a slave, but that even a free Negro could not be
considered a U.S. citizen. This pro-slavery decision was presented by Chief
Justice Roger B. Taney (1777-1864). Taney was a Maryland ROMAN CATHOLIC.
His pro-slavery decision was applauded by the Catholic press, and Catholics
were advised by their leaders to refrain from dissenting against the
"Supreme" Court. The Catholic "New York Freeman's Journal" went so far as
to accuse anti-slavery Protestants, such as G. B. Cheever, of TREASON for
daring to rebuke Taney's Supreme Court decision. Cheever upbraided many of
his fellow preachers and claimed that they were guilty of "mealy-
mouthedness" for refusing to rebuke national sins, and for blindly
interpreting the decisions of courts as if they were equal to inspired
Scripture (he cited Micah 6:16 and Hosea 5:11 to show that God hates such
passivity in His ministers). Abraham Lincoln soon hit the issue hard with
his famous speech against Taney's Dred Scott decision (June 26, 1857).
Lincoln (progressively inviting the enmity of Rome) showed that Negroes
originally had the right to vote in five of the thirteen states, and
therefore, "in proportion to their numbers, had the same part in making the
Constitution that the white people had."
The whole Southern cause was endorsed by Rome. Charles Chiniquy claimed
that Rome wanted the Civil War to DIVIDE America so religious liberty would
therefore be weakened. Along this line, Thomas M. Harris, Late Brigadier
General U.S.V, (1897) writes:
"In our dissensions over the questions of slavery, she [Rome] thought she
saw a chance to destroy our government; and taking the side of slavery,
used her whole influence, in the South, to stimulate and encourage
secession and rebellion, and in the North to discredit and weaken the cause
of the Union. It was G. T. Beauregard, a rabid ROMAN CATHOLIC, who first
fired on the flag of our country at Fort Sumter; and let loose the dogs of
war. It was the Pope of Rome, and he alone, of all the European potentates,
that gave his RECOGNITION and his blessing to the Confederate
government....[The] letter of the Pope to Jefferson Davis, couched in such
courteous and loving terms, and showing so clearly that his sympathy was
with the Southern cause, was well understood by his loyal and faithful
subjects all over the North. Catholic officers began to resign and the rank
and file began to desert, from the time of the publication of that letter
in 1863 to the close of the war....of the 144,000 Irishmen that enlisted,
(Thomas M. Harris, "Rome's Responsibility for the Assassination of Abraham
Jefferson Davis, more than once, addressed the Pope as, "Your Holiness." He
was educated in ROMAN CATHOLIC schools, like many other, pro-slavery,
Southern leaders. Alexander H. Stephens (the Vice-President of the
Confederacy), was educated at Locust Grove Academy, which was the first
chartered Catholic school in Georgia. And the commander of the Confederate
military division of the West was the militant Roman Catholic, General
Pierre G. T. Beauregard, who had begun the Civil War by attacking Fort
Sumter. This Roman Catholic general is known for producing the Battle Flag
of the Confederacy.(4) The Confederate spy, Rose O'Neal Greenhow (who aided
the Confederate victory at Bull Run) was a Roman Catholic. Robert Ould, who
was the head of the Confederate Secret Service, was a Roman Catholic.(5)
Although confusion reigned, and there were good men on both sides, Roman
Catholic influence was certainly on the pro-slavery side.
In past discussions with priests, etc., I have showed historical sources
which document that millions of Christians have been murdered by Catholics
throughout history. Unable to accuse Baptists of similar persecutions (even
on the smallest scale), some Catholics accuse Baptists of being RESPONSIBLE
for American slavery. They fail to mention the facts presented in this
SLAVERY: THE CORNERSTONE OF THE "NEW JERUSALEM"?
Israel was given special permission and authority to fulfill prophecy
(Genesis 9:25) by exterminating the Canaanites and placing them under
tribute (Exodus 23:24, Deuteronomy 20:17, 1 Kings 9:21). Catholic Popes,
for centuries, applied these Old Testament commands directly to themselves
to justify their Crusades, murders, etc. To justify adopting such
specialized commands, it was necessary for Rome to define herself as the
"New Israel" in a manner which allowed her the right to take up the literal
sword of the state (or at least to control it). Protestant denominations
that did not entirely break free from Rome's church-state system
(especially those also influenced by postmillenialism), simply applied
Rome's age-old techniques for their own service. This was seen in many
Puritans of the "new world," who saw themselves as the "New Israel"
possessing God-given authority to conquer the "Canaanites" (i.e. American
Indians). This manner of interpreting Scripture (mainly Genesis 9:25) was
one of the primary grounds for enslaving Negroes in the South, especially
after 1830. Many Southerners, primarily from the Presbyterian,
Episcopalian, etc. denominations, easily adopted Rome's "conquer the
Canannite" theology, and applied it to AMERICAN SLAVES. These denominations
were not wholly free from the "state church" concept. Thus, their
ecclesiastical and eschatological views made it very easy to view the "new
South" as God's "Theocratic Kingdom," and its governors as "Moses" or
"Joshua." Enslaving Negroes was thus seen as the RIGHT of Japheth. The
South would INSURE that Genesis 9:25 was fulfilled, conveniently forgetting
that God often PUNISHES the rebellious, sinful instruments He uses to
fulfill His curses and prophecies upon others (Jeremiah 25:9,12; 2 Samuel
12:10-11, 16:22, Matthew 26:24)!
Although Baptists were more numerous after 1830, the Presbyterians and
Episcopalians in the South had more influence over the PRO-SLAVERY,
political leaders. It is a fact that many of these popular, political
leaders had graduated from Presbyterian academies (John C. Calhoun, etc.).
Pro-slavery Presbyterian writers, such as Dabney, were the most
influential. These Presbyterians had become so intoxicated by
postmillennialism that they viewed America (particularly the South) as
practically incapable of error, since it was a dream, "inspired by the
spirit of the Prince of Peace." American slavery could not be wrong since
it was "American." America was the "New Jerusalem." The pro-slavery
government could not err, since it was inspired by God. Along this line,
Samuel Davies Baldwin, a Methodist minister in Tennessee, wrote in defense
of American slavery:
"Our country is true and faithful. It has never enacted a single law
unauthorized by the Divine constitution; nor have the decisions of our
supreme judiciary ever been counter to the revealed legislation of heaven."
("Dominion; or, the Unity and Trinity of the Human Race," 1858)
It is no wonder that the Catholics eyed such patriotic idolatry in the
South as useful to their cause. Such postmillennial delusions have often
blinded its preachers to reality and sin. Slavery was soon viewed as the
very foundation of the republic! In 1835, Gov. McDuffie (S.C.), reflecting
the hardening of the South, dared to call slavery, "the CORNERSTONE of our
republican edifice." The idea only became more ingrained in politics. By
1861, Alexander H. Stephens (Vice President of the Confederacy) also openly
declared that slavery was the FOUNDATION of the Confederacy:
"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea [than that of
the founding fathers]; its foundations are laid, its CORNER-STONE rests
upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that
slavery - subordination to the superior race - is his natural and normal
condition [Applause]. This, our new government, is THE FIRST, in the
history of the world, BASED upon THIS great physical, philosophical, and
moral truth....This stone which was rejected by the first builders 'is
become the chief of the corner' - the real 'CORNER-STONE' - in our new
THE INFIDEL SCIENTISTS AND PHILOSOPHERS
We have already examined the evolutionists who arose in the late 1850's.
The Darwinians declared Negroes the last on the human, evolutionary chain.
But what did many scientists in America think of blacks (and thus, slavery)
BEFORE Darwin? Before the 1830's, the common view was that all races
originated from Adam and Eve. However, before long, new ethnologists
(Josiah Nott, George Gliddon, etc.) began to see blacks as a "separate
species," independently created. Nott and Gliddon authored, "Types of
Mankind or Ethnological Research" (1854). Influenced by the German
criticism of the Bible, these ethnologists (polygenists) presumptuously
stated that the Bible was in error when it taught that all men came from
Adam and Eve. They believed that Genesis was full of contradictions, and
that it was blind to the present findings of "science." They wanted to cut
the natural history of mankind loose from the Bible. This new, infidel
science was embraced by many as a means to counter the anti-slavery
movement. Before Darwin's infidelity of a different color, the South was
already eating up the "new science" lectures of Nott and Gliddon. The
influential Southern magazine, "De Bow's Review," wrote in 1850:
"If on the contrary, this assumption [that all men came from Adam and Eve]
be false and groundless, these mad dreamers [abolitionists] will at once be
Josiah Nott (1804-1873) was pleased with the success of his ideas. He wrote
"Morton is coming out dead against Moses and the prophets [i.e.
monogenesis], and I think we have the game started now and will give them
'_____' before we stop."
After saturating the pro-slavery South with such ideas (i.e. that blacks
were not human beings!), these infidels helped set the stage for Darwin,
and helped the South justify slavery. Concerning Darwin's "progression
theory," Nott (advocating the plurality theory) wrote in 1860:
"The man [Darwin] is clearly crazy, but it is a capital dig into the
Thus, although he did not agree with Darwin, he was pleased that the Bible
was being reproached!
This "new science" was necessary to the South. If the African could be
converted to Christianity and reformed, then what right did Christians have
to force them into slavery? This argument is what caused Alexander H.
Stephens, in his 1861 speech, to proclaim that FORCED ENSLAVEMENT was a
necessary precursor to any spiritual reformation. The new infidels (for
those hardened enough against the Scriptures to embrace them), provided the
necessary "science" to argue against the "Great Commission quoting"
abolitionists. Since the Africans were a separate species, they were
"incapable of improvement"; their so-called "condition" was "permanent."
Along this line, in 1865, with his trademark, reproachful language, Nott
"God Almighty made the ' _____' , and no '______' Yankee on top of the
earth can bleach him."(6)
Polygenesis did not originate with the new ethnologists. Infidel
philosophers such as Voltaire (1694-1778) and David Hume (1711-1776) had
earlier theorized that Negroes were a separate species. It was BIBLE
CHRISTIANITY that restrained these views in the 18th century! How foolish
it is, therefore, to link fundamental Christianity as the cause for
American slavery! It is true that SOME true Christians justified slavery on
the basis that they deemed blacks to be inferior HUMAN BEINGS. This is a
far cry, however, from the philosophical and scientific view that blacks
were NOT HUMAN AT ALL, but rather similar to orangutans! Therefore, much of
the infidel, deist, liberal, anti-Christian science and philosophy, which
we are constantly told was so "progressive" and "enlightening," must be
BURIED in order to paint Christian fundamentalism as the "cause" of
CHRISTIANS AND THE SO-CALLED BIBLE ARGUMENT
Genesis 9:25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he
be unto his brethren.
After reviewing some of the true history concerning slavery, and showing
how the early philosophical forefathers and forerunners of the modern anti-
fundamentalists were much more guilty than the forefathers of fundamental
Christians, we can begin to examine the errors of some Christians, which we
do not deny or attempt to conceal.
In the turbulent period from 1830-1860, many Christians who remained in the
South and supported slavery could not bring themselves to embrace the new,
infidel science. Many Southerners (to the delight of Catholics) had placed
the Founding Fathers in the same camp as the infidel philosophers of the
French Revolution for their views on "equality." Therefore, due to true
Biblical convictions, and/or to avoid the appearance of hypocrisy, it was
important for them to repel any association with the "new ethnology."
Instead, they labored to find a BIBLICAL basis for enslaving Negroes. It
was not uncommon in earlier centuries for some Protestant commentators to
EXPLAIN the enslavement of Negroes on the basis of the curse in Genesis
9:25. The new South, as we have noted, took this one step further, and
began to JUSTIFY those who enslaved the Negroes.
In the third part of this study, we will examine whether or not there is a
Biblical basis to view the curse in Genesis 9 as falling upon ALL of Ham's
sons. We will discuss Ham's sin, and explore the history of interpretation
concerning it. We will show how so-called "corrections" (i.e. changes) in
the King James Bible, the moral and intellectual state of most of the
American Negroes (only a few generations removed from the uncivilized
jungles - Romans 1), economic pressures, and some statements from earlier
commentators, were all used in the post-1830's South to replace MISSIONARY
evangelism (Matthew 28:19), with ENSLAVEMENT "EVANGELISM" (see the similar
history of Augustine's interpretation of the word "compel" in Luke 14:23)!
The post-1830's South did not use Ham to EXPLAIN African slavery, it used
Ham to EXCUSE and PROMOTE it. For example, in 1843, Josiah Priest (1788-
1851), whose writings became very popular in the South (after a detailed
exposition of Ham's curse), wrote:
"Let him, therefore, who may enslave any of the Negro race do it with
CONCLUSION OF PART TWO
Let all who attempt to equate modern Christian fundamentalism with American
slavery simply take a few moments to reflect upon the fact that the TRUE
parallel is seen in comparing anti-slavery-Christian writers in the 19th
century with modern Christian fundamentalists who wish to LIBERATE babies
about to be murdered in the womb, LIBERATE children about to be adopted by
Sodomite parents, and LIBERATE children abandoned to day-care "prisons"
(and often doped up on the latest psyche drug) by mothers "exercising their
liberty to discard their children and pursue a career"! And the 19th
century, PRO-SLAVERY advocates (who were often Catholic-educated, affluent,
liberal, progressive, cultured, and "enlightened") had much more in common
with the MODERN LIBERALS who endlessly proclaim:
-"But homosexual adoption is now LEGAL, so it can't be wrong!" (i.e.
Slavery is legal so it can't be wrong);
-"Abortion is LEGAL, so it can't be wrong!" (i.e. Slavery is legal so it
can't be wrong);
-"You should not reprove the government!";
-"You should keep religion out of politics!";
-"You are a bunch of unlearned fanatics!";
-"Babies in the womb are not even real human beings"! (i.e. Blacks are not
real human beings, or they are created to be enslaved if we so choose);
-"The murdered babies will be happier if they do not get the chance to be
born into poverty!" (i.e. Blacks will be happier if they are enslaved and
rescued from the jungles);
-"Children don't even feel the effects of divorce, and they don't need both
a father and a mother; and they do fine without mother all day!" (i.e.
Negroes, even though they cry, do not really care about being sold away and
separated from their spouses or children);
-"But what about the rights of the mother?" (i.e. But what about the rights
of property owners [slave masters])?" etc.
Thus, "equal rights" were not for Negroes in the Old South, just as modern
liberals and anti-fundamentalists tell us that they are not for babies in
the womb, etc. "Rights" are always for the OPPRESSORS, unless the salt and
light of Christianity does its work in a nation, by bold preachers
proclaiming the regenerating Gospel of redemption and exposing sin.
Whatever HOLY liberties are in the world today (spiritual and physical) are
due to Christianity (especially fundamental Christianity). As fundamental
Christianity is cast aside, oppression (of all sorts) increases. The
predicted, final state of the antichristian world will endorse SLAVERY
(Revelation 18:13). Let all, therefore, take heed and consider their ways!
We cannot make the whole world Christian. We cannot bring in the Lord's
Kingdom without the Second Coming of the King. But we can do what we can to
spread the light of Gospel truth and rebuke sin while we are "occupying."
God forbid that we bury our talents in the earth! Let us rebuke the modern
oppressors (e.g. abortionists, homosexual predators, etc.) in the same
manner as CHRISTIANS rebuked oppressors in early generations (e.g. State-
church political leaders, slave-masters, etc.):
Jeremiah 22:3 Thus saith the LORD; Execute ye judgment and righteousness,
and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor: and do no wrong,
do no violence to the stranger, the fatherless, nor the widow, neither shed
innocent blood in this place.
13 Woe unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his
chambers by wrong; that useth his neighbour's service without wages, and
giveth him not for his work;
Finally, let many modern Negroes consider, as they turn a deaf ear to the
screams of aborted children, etc., and VOTE for pro-abortion candidates
(simply to ENSLAVE themselves to more welfare on "government homesteads") -
let them consider that GOD is not deaf! As in the parable of Matthew 18, He
will SURELY hear from Heaven, and will judge such wicked sins:
Matthew 18:25 But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to
be SOLD, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be
32 Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou
wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:
33 Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy FELLOWSERVANT, even
as I had pity on thee?
Did not God in His Providence and mercy hear the cries of the American
Negro and use the principles of Christianity to free him from oppression?
And shall you now use your influence to vote in abortionists (and such
like) who KILL infants in the womb? Leave these depraved wretches who seek
to USE YOU to enslave our country (you included) to tyranny! (Read what
Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, and supporter of
Hitler, thought about YOU! Read about her "Negro Project.") Return quickly
to the God of the Holy Bible who blessed you. Flee the wicked hands that
seek to destroy the FAMILY and enslave children to their depraved lusts and
indoctrinations. And if they tell you that "Christian fundamentalism" once
enslaved you on the basis of the "curse of Ham," just remind them that even
the pro-slavery Christians (with some errors we do not excuse)
nevertheless, defended you as HUMAN BEINGS made in the image of God! Then
remind them that the LIBERAL, progressive, enlightened, scientific
community in that day, believed that you were sub-human, and brute like the
TO BE CONTINUED
1. Speech at the Athenaeum, Savannah; Georgia, March 21, 1861.
2. "The Hoya" (Feb. 2, 1999), "Georgetown's Untold Story."
3. McCarty, Burke, "The Suppressed Truth about the Assassination of Abraham
Lincoln," (Larry Harrison: St. John, Indiana, 1999)
4. Grady, William P., "What Hath God Wrought," 1996, p. 296.
5. Daniel, Lizzy Cary, "Confederate Scrapbook," 1893, p. 127.
6. Nott's letter to Squire, December 5, 1865; quoted by William Sumner
Jenkins, "Pro-Slavery Thought in the Old South," 1960.
7. Priest, Josiah, "Slavery as it Relates to the Negro, or African
Race...," (Albany: 1843).
ORDER THE ROD: WILL GOD SPARE IT?
Pastor Joey Faust